In another scenario, little a commits robbery to survive and to feed little b, c and d. Little a's actions can be considered evil or non-evil depending on how you view the scenario from different angles. Some might go so far as to argue that Little a is not evil because Little a robs as a way to benefit others and not for his own enjoyment. Others might argue that Little's stealing is bad because stealing is morally wrong. Reasoning through morality, the question that arises is what it means to be morally wrong or right. While the answer is whether Little a is evil or not, the answer is not to define morality but to understand what is evil. To clarify how evil is defined, evil is when a person's decision resulting from their action harms someone in the present or future. In this case both of these arguments are invalid because the robbed person is not harmed directly but indirectly due to the individual's loss in the amount of money the person had in the beginning. Therefore, Little a is undoubtedly classified as evil not because of morality but because his actions are evil. While many will find the conclusion disturbing, how the example is viewed is vital to identifying it as evil or non-evil. From our point of view, the information at our feet is Little