A Synopsis of Teachings by Serge Kahili King
In these talks, Serge Kahili King presents a view of good and evil that differs substantially from the idea that they are opposing forces, substances, or permanent qualities within human beings.
From this Huna perspective, evil is not a thing that exists independently, nor is it the essential nature of a person or spirit. It is a way of behaving.
King relates this to the Hawaiian word ʻino, which he describes as meaning to wilfully do harm to another. A human being, spirit, or other entity may therefore act in an evil way, but nothing is regarded as inherently or permanently evil. There may be mischievous people or spirits, and they may sometimes behave harmfully, but there is no need to imagine a separate class of essentially evil beings.
This distinction is important because behaviour can change.
When evil is treated as an unchangeable essence, the person who behaves harmfully may be regarded as irredeemable. When it is understood as behaviour, attention can instead be directed toward what produced the behaviour, how its harmful effects can be stopped, and what might help a different response develop.
Good and Evil Are Not Things Inside Us
King also questions the idea that people carry separate forces of good and evil within themselves.
What people carry are capacities, expectations, memories, learned patterns and possible responses. Depending on circumstances, a person may respond through fear, fight or flight. At other times, the same person may respond through peace, cooperation, creativity or play.
These are not separate beings or substances fighting for control within us. They are different ways of responding to experience.
Which response becomes active may depend on what a person has learned, what they expect to happen, how they interpret the situation and whether they feel safe or threatened. Harmful behaviour is therefore not proof of an evil essence. It is a response arising from a particular combination of fear, belief, memory, expectation and choice.
This does not excuse deliberate harm. It places the harm in a form that can be understood, opposed and, where possible, changed.
The World Is Inherently Good
King describes the world as inherently good, but he does not mean that everything happening in the world is pleasant, just or beneficial.
He presents inherent goodness as an observable tendency within life.
When living systems are given the opportunity, they tend to heal, reconnect, organise and continue. The human body is continually attempting to repair itself. People naturally seek relationship and connection. Communities form, cooperation develops and life repeatedly moves toward renewal after disruption.
If the world were inherently destructive, King argues, it would have destroyed itself long ago. If human beings naturally moved toward violence whenever external controls were removed, then relaxation and freedom would lead people to attack one another. Instead, in conditions of safety, people usually move toward communication, relationship, creativity and shared activity.
The existence of violence does not disprove this underlying tendency. It shows that natural impulses can become distorted.
Fear, Separation and Distorted Connection
One of the central ideas in these teachings is that harmful behaviour frequently develops through fear and a sense of separation.
Human beings naturally want connection, recognition, belonging and love. When people feel secure, these needs can be pursued through cooperation, friendship, affection and mutual support. When people are deeply afraid or separated from others, they may try to achieve connection through control.
A dictator who demands public displays of loyalty may still be seeking recognition and love, but is attempting to obtain them by force. The underlying desire for connection has become distorted by fear, insecurity and separation.
The result may be domination, coercion and deliberate harm. The original impulse does not make the behaviour good. It helps explain how something natural can be pursued through destructive means.
Reducing fear therefore has consequences beyond making someone feel calmer. As fear diminishes, the sense of separation can also diminish. With less need to defend, dominate or force, people become more able to connect naturally.
Harm Does Not Define the Whole
King uses the analogy of an injury to the body.
If a person has a cut or bruise on one arm, the entire body is not condemned as bad. Attention is directed toward treating the injured area. Healing is possible partly because the rest of the body continues to function and can support the healing process.
In the same way, the existence of violence, oppression and misery does not mean the whole world is evil. These conditions identify places where healing and change are needed.
Likewise, a person who acts harmfully should not be confused with the harmful behaviour itself. The behaviour may need to be stopped firmly. Other people may need protection, restitution or justice. Yet the person is still more than the behaviour and may retain the capacity to learn and change.
This approach avoids two extremes. It does not deny or minimise harm, but neither does it turn harmful behaviour into an eternal identity.
Goodness as a Healing Response
Within this framework, goodness is not merely moral approval or passive niceness. It is expressed through healing action.
Recognising that something is wrong is only the beginning. The next question is:
What can be done about it?
If suffering, injustice or deprivation is disturbing, the Huna response described by King is to develop the skills, resources or opportunities needed to help change the situation. Awareness without action may identify a problem, but healing requires movement toward a more beneficial condition.
A healer is someone who changes things for the better.
This healing response can take many forms. It may involve physical treatment, education, practical assistance, emotional support, political change, protection from violence or the creation of new opportunities. The form depends on what is actually needed rather than on a fixed moral formula.
The emphasis is on effectiveness: does the response increase freedom, capacity, connection and well-being?
Resources, Power and the Ability to Help
King also challenges the idea that goodness requires a person to give up all power, comfort or material resources.
Making oneself powerless does not automatically improve the condition of anyone else. A person needs some form of capacity in order to help. That capacity may be mental, emotional, physical, social, practical or material.
Living simply is not the same as deliberately depriving oneself of every useful resource. Resources become beneficial when they are directed toward healing, assistance and increased well-being.
From this viewpoint, power is not inherently bad. Its quality depends on how it is used.
Power used to dominate, restrict or wilfully harm becomes destructive. Power used to protect, teach, heal, provide opportunities or help people develop their own abilities becomes constructive.
The relevant question is not simply who has power, but what effect the use of that power has.
The Danger of Imposing Good
King also warns that people can cause harm while believing they are doing good.
An outsider may look at another culture, family or way of life and decide that the people involved are oppressed, deprived or in need of correction. Yet that judgment may be based on the outsider’s values rather than on the lived experience of the people concerned.
Before deciding that another person’s life must be changed, it is necessary to understand how that person experiences the situation. Are they being prevented by force or threat from improving their well-being? Do they want change? Are they free to choose? What forms of assistance would they regard as useful?
This does not mean that coercion or suffering should be ignored merely because it occurs within a different culture. It means that beneficial change cannot be defined responsibly without attention to the people directly affected.
Many harmful acts have been committed by those who assumed they already knew what was best for everyone else.
Emotionally loaded labels can also interfere with clear perception. Terms such as evil, slavery, oppression or victim may sometimes describe a situation accurately, but they can also force complex circumstances into a predetermined interpretation. When that happens, the label may reduce the ability to understand the situation and respond effectively.
Choice, Responsibility and Change
A recurring theme in these talks is responsibility.
People may be influenced by history, fear, social conditions, political systems and limited opportunities. They may lack the knowledge or skills needed to change their circumstances. In some cases, they may be actively prevented from doing so by force or threat.
Recognising these influences does not require treating people as permanently powerless.
Responsibility begins with recognising whatever capacity for choice and action is actually available. A person can take responsibility for improving their own position, and may also choose to take responsibility for helping improve the conditions of others.
This responsibility is not the same as blame. Blame looks backward in order to condemn. Responsibility looks at the present and asks what can be done now.
The purpose is not to deny the reality of harmful conditions. It is to find a point from which constructive change becomes possible.
A Practical Understanding of Good and Evil
Taken together, these teachings present good and evil as descriptions of behaviour, relationship and effect.
Evil is the wilful harming of another. It appears through behaviour that increases fear, separation, coercion, injury and restriction.
Good is expressed through behaviour that supports healing, connection, freedom, cooperation, growth and well-being.
Neither good nor evil needs to be understood as a substance residing within people. Human beings have many possible responses. Fear and separation can distort natural needs into destructive behaviour, while security, awareness and skill can support healing responses.
The world’s inherent goodness does not mean that suffering is unreal or that every event is beneficial. It means that life has an underlying capacity and inclination to heal, reconnect and grow.
The practical task is therefore not to condemn the whole world because harm exists within it. It is to identify the harmful behaviour, protect those affected, change what can be changed and strengthen the conditions in which healing becomes possible.
From this perspective, the most useful response to evil is not fascination with evil itself. It is the development and application of greater skill in healing.