本當代學界應用康德的根本惡概念來說明大規模的人權侵害，並有逐步擴大到嚴重的自然災害之趨勢。康德為甚麼「發明」根本惡？為甚麼會用來說明大規模的人權侵害？康德當時無法像我們今天一樣，有後見之明的優勢（有時我們寧願沒有這樣的優勢），見證人類的浩劫，並且可以反思具體發生的事件之細節。但這種後見之明對我們而言其實是更為沈重的負擔，面對一種無法理解的集體殘暴屠殺，我們的理智不可能保持沈默，更不可能不去提問和解惑。不過對康德來說，核心的部分不在於給這個現象一個合理化的解釋或命名，而在理解不可理解的過程本身，如何透過責任的釐清，獲得改變、轉化、乃至於防範的勇氣和策略。換句話說，以根本惡來命名，出於教育的實踐功能更勝於理性解釋的意義。若教育一眛限制受教者之自由來「監管」受教者，那麼不但無法培育人之自主與承擔責任，反而容易淪為一種訓化，讓人習慣於聽命行事而成為根本惡之幫兇。

This paper investigates Kant’s concept of radical evil and its modern use for a massive human rights violation. Why Kant “invented” this concept? Why can it be applied to explain human rights violation? Although Kant had no chance to witness the holocaust at World War II and of the massacres of our age, the term he proofs to be practical. It not only expresses our feelings of perplexity and helplessness when facing evil, but also stresses the responsibility to prevent it. For Kant, the concept is not to explain or define evil, but trying to overcome evil through critical understanding of personal responsibility. In other words, the primary meaning of the concept “radical evil” is used to indicate our responsibility as human being, rather than to provide a rational interpretation of evil. After all, Kant’s focus is not theory and knowledge of evil, but rather its practical implication for education. Formal and informal education should include critical understanding of radical evil and of personal responsibility, through which massive human rights violation can be prevented. If education always limits students’ freedom to choose and demand students to do what their guardians want them to do, students would become thoughtless, obedient and likely accomplice of evil.