We have all heard a lot about evil since Sept. 11, 2001. From "the evil one" to the "Axis of Evil" to the "fall of an evil regime in Iraq," George W. Bush seems to have somewhat of a preoccupation with the word. It might appear to be mere harmless rhetoric at first glance, but this language is actually quite problematic. In the hours and days immediately following the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11 - when New York City and Washington were still ablaze and the shock had yet to lift from the public's eyes - the use of the word "evil" was understandable. The inability to express something fully (in this case the cause of the horrors of the day), makes it necessary to reduce it to the simplest possible terms.

But at the present time - when cooler heads are able to prevail - the term is troublesome because it offers an easy escape route from a deeper understanding of the complexities of conflict, war and hatred.

To say something is evil is to unconditionally imply that there is a corresponding good. Immediately the age-old "good versus evil" conflict is set up, and there is no longer any need for reason or critical thinking. And no one puts options forth beyond simply destroying the evil.

So when Bush calls Al Qaeda, Osama, Saddam or North Korea evil, he is forcing us down to the simplest level possible. This binary distillation of all human action and emotion into two overriding categories may be pleasing to the masses, but it ignores a myriad of geopolitical and socioeconomic factors that lead to actions we see as "evil."

This simplification is unacceptable because it will never lead to an end of conflict - which is what everybody's goal should be. If we skewer Osama bin Laden on a patriot missile on Monday, he will be replaced by a successor by the end of the week. We can do all the killing we want, but until we strive to understand what leads to such hatred in the world, all we are doing is getting ourselves involved in a sick, ultra-violent game of international Whack-A-Mole.

I am not proposing a radical relativism in which there is no such thing as a good or bad action. I try my best, however, to draw the line at dubbing things "evil" because to do so is to reduce modern life to a video game or action movie. Osama bin Laden - through his insanely misguided and possibly psychotic worldview - thinks he is doing what is best for the world. Calling him evil and leaving it at that does a disservice to everyone who truly desires a lasting peace.

None of this means we should be any less vigilant in defending ourselves from those who wish to harm us. And this does not mean we should stop trying to capture Osama bin Laden.

What it does mean, however, is that we should retreat from the naivet of thinking that anything could ever possibly be as simple as "good versus evil." If we define evil as "a force that defies all that is right and just"- and this seems like a definition most would accept as is or with some small modification - then evil quite simply does not exist in the real world.

Where is this force? It is a fairy tale, best used to unite and rile the public or to remove ourselves from the responsibility of tracing the roots of conflict. Once you call someone evil, you immediately divest yourself from any obligation to understand what led to his or her current disposition. Why bother when he or she is simply evil?

It is a fine line to walk in arguing against using the term to describe those who would seem to have most earned it. It is important to realize that this is more than semantics, however, because until the day comes when we realize our enemies are more than simply "evil," their numbers will not decrease no matter how many cruise missiles we toss their way.