ABSTRACT
Not all perpetrators of evil are the same. Some are banal perpetrators who are motivated by everyday concerns, whereas others are moved by non-banal motives, such as hatred, even though they are not evil persons. Some are evil persons who are disposed to inflict evil on others even in autonomy-promoting situations, while still others are genuine psychopaths. By categorizing the different types of perpetrators of evil in this way, we can move beyond common claims that all perpetrators of evil are evil persons and that responsibility is all or nothing. Instead, by focusing on the different types of perpetrators of evil, we can see that moral responsibility (in both the attribution and accountability senses) comes in degrees. To think about moral responsibility in this way, we need to look beyond exempting and excusing conditions to also consider mitigating (such as acting in a situation that strongly encouraged evildoing) and aggravating (such as having malicious motivations) factors. These factors can also help to explain how perpetrators came to be the sort of persons they are and to be in the sorts of situations they find themselves in, which is important for understanding mass atrocities.
