Evil

[Brenda86]

I'm reading this book right now called Evil: Inside Human Violence and Cruelty by Roy Baumeister, PhD. I just want to discuss some of what the author says.

Here is discussing what he calls The Myth of Pure Evil:

First, evil involves the intentional infliction of harm on people. I began this book by noting that evil is in the eye of the beholder; now we can add that these beholders are generally people who suffer harm. They see the agent of evil as someone who harmed them. Moreover, the harm is intentional. Evil seeks to do harm and does it deliberately. At least, that is how people think of it.

Second, and of crucial importance, evil is driven primarily by the wish to inflict harm merely for the pleasure of doing so. By and large, evil is not understood as something that reluctantly uses violence as a means to an end. Rather, the harm inflicted by evil forces is gratuitous. Evil is sadistic: Evil people enjoy the suffering they cause, and they inflict harm to get this enjoyment...

Third, the victim is innocent and good. The forces of evil mat occasionally turn on one another, but for the most part they try to attack good people. Victims are usually good people who are going about their business decently and appropriately. They are set upon out of the blue and for no reason by evildoers. Such victims deserve the utmost sympathy and support from all decent people, because what happened to them could happen to anyone. The evil one bears all the blame - in sharp contrast to the patterns of mutual, shared responsibility that are often behind actual violent events.

Fourth, evil is the other, the enemy, the outsider, the out-group. Evil does not exist by itself but only in relation to the good. And what usually happens is that the conflict of good versus evil is often superimposed on the conflict of is against them

He makes a few other points about the "Myth of Pure Evil" that people carry with them. He is basically saying that most acts of violence are actually a result of reciprocal causality. Two people in a bar begin innocently enough making jokes, one person goes too far, the jokes turn into direct insults, and a fight breaks out. One man ends up dead. Who was at fault? Who was evil?

Specifically, he says later:

In general, then, the myth of pure evil conceals the reciprocal causality of violence. By doing so, it probably increases the violence. The myth of pure evil depicts the innocent victims fighting against gratuitously wicked, sadistic enemies. The myth encourages people to believe that they are good and will remain good no matter what, even if they perpetrate severe harm on their opponents. Thus, the myth of pure evil confers a kind of moral immunity to those who believe in it. As we will soon see, belief in the myth is itself one recipe for evil, because it allows people to justify violent and oppressive actions. It allows evil to masquerade as good.

Throughout most of the book so far, he seems to be saying pure evil does not truly exist. That most people do not set out to do harm to others and do not enjoy harming others. However, to me it seems that maybe it just takes a different form than we have been taught to expect. Since most of us believe we cannot be doing evil if we don't intend to do evil, we save our egos and are able to consistently see ourselves as good, well-meaning people.

He points out at one point the many rationalizations that perpetrators of evil are able to come up with to save their image of themselves as basically good people.

The problem I am having with the book so far, is that he ignores the fact that some people really do seemingly fit the myth of pure evil. Serial killers who show no remorse for what they have done. People who literally have no conscience - psychopaths. He seems to be ignoring the fact that many people who commit wrongs are able to come up with the justifications that they know people need to hear in order to keep people duped as to their true nature.

But I do feel that many, many people continue to do "bad" things because they are able to somehow construe themselves as a victim and thus justify their own actions. So I feel he is on to something, just not the full picture of evil.

Reading this also led to me to some other thoughts, though, because what he describes is clearly an example of wishful thinking. That we can be good people and do bad things. Rather than try to do better, we just rationalize our bad actions. This is obviously an STS mode of thinking. It also got me thinking about the trap that purely dualistic thought can get us into. We are either "good" or "evil". People do not like to allow for gray areas, when they clearly exist. By not recognizing that both possibilities exist inside themselves, many people continue to do "bad" things, rationalize them, and tell themselves they are "good" people.

This train of thought reminded me of something I read in another book recently called Spectrum of Consciousness by Ken Wilber. It really stuck with me when he said:

One of the principal reasons that the dualistic or "divide-and-conquer" approach has been so pernicious is that the error of dualism forms the root of intellection and is therefore impossible to uproot by intellection (Catch-22: If I have a fly in my eye, how can I see that I have a fly in my eye?). To detect this demands a rigorous, consistent, and persistent methodology capable of pursuing dualism to its limits, there to discover the contradiction. Imagine, for instance, that you are firmly convinced that the earth is flat, and no matter how much intellectual evidence to the contrary that you might hear, you obstinately retain your belief. The only way your error will become obvious to you is if you start traveling consistently and persistently in one direction. When you don't fall off the edge, your error will become apparent, and you will more than likely alter your opinion. Because you persistently carried your false belief to its ultimate conclusion, you were able to discern the mistake.

I just thought this tied in because it seems most people are unable to discern the flaws in their own thinking. This may be one of the main reasons that the Work cannot be done alone (?). I always think this is the path that ultimately causes people to follow the STS path to its completion - carrying that false belief to its ultimate conclusion. It, by definition, cannot lead to immediate reunion with the One or All, because it does not acknowledge that everything is One. And because of wishful thinking, that they are on the right path, the path to ultimate being, they continue to follow the path to its ultimate conclusion - return to primordial matter (or non-being, in a sense). And thus, maybe the mistake will be discerned.

 

[thevenusian]

If you are interested in this topic, I just can't recommend enough reading The Mask of Sanity by Hervey Cleckley and The Sociopath Next Door by Martha Stout if you haven't already. These recommended forum readings make a pretty strong demonstration that 'evil' exists in humans as a complete and total lack of conscience, and that human beings exist among us who fit this criteria. The Mask of Sanity can be had for free as a PDF download at the following link under 'Downloads and Library'
http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/site_map_qfg.htm

 

[Brenda86]

If you are interested in this topic, I just can't recommend enough reading The Mask of Sanity by Hervey Cleckley and The Sociopath Next Door by Martha Stout if you haven't already. These recommended forum readings make a pretty strong demonstration that 'evil' exists in humans as a complete and total lack of conscience, and that human beings exist among us who fit this criteria. The Mask of Sanity can be had for free as a PDF download at the following link under 'Downloads and Library'
http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/site_map_qfg.htm

I will definitely read these. Probably the Mask of Sanity first, since I can access that one online. But this echoes my feeling on it. The author I was discussing seems to have a working theory for how he "wants" it to be, that all "evil" comes from normal people in rare circumstances and that true "evil", people with no conscience, do not exist - at least not in high enough quantity to be part of his book. I found it really hard to swallow.

 

[Laura]

First, evil involves the intentional infliction of harm on people. I began this book by noting that evil is in the eye of the beholder; now we can add that these beholders are generally people who suffer harm. They see the agent of evil as someone who harmed them. Moreover, the harm is intentional. Evil seeks to do harm and does it deliberately. At least, that is how people think of it.

You don't have to just "think of it that way", that's exactly what psychopaths do. They do intentional harm (as well as incidental harm). What's more, it is instrumental: to get them what they want/need, even including simple enjoyment of the suffering of others.

Second, and of crucial importance, evil is driven primarily by the wish to inflict harm merely for the pleasure of doing so. By and large, evil is not understood as something that reluctantly uses violence as a means to an end. Rather, the harm inflicted by evil forces is gratuitous. Evil is sadistic: Evil people enjoy the suffering they cause, and they inflict harm to get this enjoyment...

That also describes the psychopath.

Third, the victim is innocent and good. The forces of evil mat occasionally turn on one another, but for the most part they try to attack good people. Victims are usually good people who are going about their business decently and appropriately. They are set upon out of the blue and for no reason by evildoers. Such victims deserve the utmost sympathy and support from all decent people, because what happened to them could happen to anyone. The evil one bears all the blame - in sharp contrast to the patterns of mutual, shared responsibility that are often behind actual violent events.

Here he has begun to confuse the issue. The victim may be innocent of doing anything to invite or provoke the harm, but one must not go black and white here and assume that the victim - by virtue of being a victim - is necessarily "innocent and good".

This guy seems to be having trouble thinking his way through this problem.

Fourth, evil is the other, the enemy, the outsider, the out-group. Evil does not exist by itself but only in relation to the good. And what usually happens is that the conflict of good versus evil is often superimposed on the conflict of is against them

Again, muddying the water. In a sense, yes, evil is the "other" but only in a relative sense. And yes, evil only exists relative to "good" but those are useless terms. Better use the terms creative vs entropic. Or STO vs STS. There IS good and evil, but there is also the specific context that determines which is which.

He makes a few other points about the "Myth of Pure Evil" that people carry with them. He is basically saying that most acts of violence are actually a result of reciprocal causality. Two people in a bar begin innocently enough making jokes, one person goes too far, the jokes turn into direct insults, and a fight breaks out. One man ends up dead. Who was at fault? Who was evil?

That's actually a stupid example to use in talking about evil unless you are just using it as a starting point that will lead you to where the evil is: the society that fails to raise these individuals up so that such an event would never happen. And such a society exists because the norms and standards and ideologies are set by those at the top: psychopaths. So, if you follow the trail of energy, like you would "follow the money," that's where you end up - at least in this reality.

In general, then, the myth of pure evil conceals the reciprocal causality of violence.

Oh, horse hockey! Reading stuff like that makes me tired!

Yeah, on the surface, there is "reciprocal causality," but he seems to think that the symptoms are the root of the disease.

By doing so, it probably increases the violence.

Sure it does, because there are people like Baumeister shining the spotlight on symptoms while the germs are eating away at the body. It's like trying to cure an infection by giving a pain reliever and no antibiotic!

The myth of pure evil depicts the innocent victims fighting against gratuitously wicked, sadistic enemies. The myth encourages people to believe that they are good and will remain good no matter what, even if they perpetrate severe harm on their opponents. Thus, the myth of pure evil confers a kind of moral immunity to those who believe in it. As we will soon see, belief in the myth is itself one recipe for evil, because it allows people to justify violent and oppressive actions. It allows evil to masquerade as good.

Of course! And that's because psychopaths create this myth as Baumeister has described it - AND propagated it thereby - to conceal their pathological presence in the body of humanity.

Throughout most of the book so far, he seems to be saying pure evil does not truly exist.

That's what he's saying and he's full of horse hockey.

That most people do not set out to do harm to others and do not enjoy harming others.

That's true. Most people don't. But psychopaths do, and they also have manipulated the whole planet for the past 7 K years or so to set things up so that normal humans - who would not otherwise do those things - will destroy one another in the name of some cockamamie ideology that just covers the power hunger of the psychopath and his/her kind.

This guy is, apparently, so abysmally ignorant of even the most basic facts about humanity, the mind, history, sociology, etc, that I wonder how he manages to dress himself in the morning.

The problem I am having with the book so far, is that he ignores the fact that some people really do seemingly fit the myth of pure evil. Serial killers who show no remorse for what they have done. People who literally have no conscience - psychopaths. He seems to be ignoring the fact that many people who commit wrongs are able to come up with the justifications that they know people need to hear in order to keep people duped as to their true nature.

Well, if you know that much, you are already smarter than Baumeister.

But I do feel that many, many people continue to do "bad" things because they are able to somehow construe themselves as a victim and thus justify their own actions. So I feel he is on to something, just not the full picture of evil.

Read Political Ponerology. And no, Baumeister is not onto anything: he's muddying the waters.

I was going to comment on the rest, but it seems so pointless when there is a reading list provided in the forum here that would prepare you to read stuff like Baumeister more critically. I have a lot of other work to do.

 

[Cyre2067]

Just reading his 'myths' sent the hairs on the back of my neck standing on end. He's completely ignorant of the reality of psychopaths, how they manipulate, infect, and control large groups of people using an ideology as a mind-control weapon. Definitely read Political Ponerology, as it demonstrates, with historical examples how this has occurred (and thus how it occurs today).

I find Myth of Sanity a much better self-analysis book, useful for understanding some of Gurdjieff's ideas in a psychological context, or at least how our different 'Is' operate independently without our awareness. She gives extreme examples of individuals with varying conditions, but it can be applied to your own life even if you don't have quite as severe issues as her patients did.

For a complete picture of psychopathy definitely read Without Conscience & Snakes in Suits. They have some great anecdotes, clear examples of how psychopaths function. For a more complete picture also read Anna Salter's Predators: Pedophiles, Rapists, And Other Sex Offenders, which can be disturbing, but useful, especially for parents. And as has been mentioned, Political Ponerology for a conceptual framework of what happens on the macro-scale in religious or political bodies.

 

[Brenda86]

That's what was irking me so bad reading this book... I couldn't understand how he could really think that the "myth of evil" as he calls it, does not exist. He tries to make it seem as if all atrocities are performed by people who were "well-meaning" or at least "practical". What gets me about his "practicality" explanation is how he cannot see it as evil and without conscience to be ok with committing evil acts a simple matter of "practicality". I wanted to vomit.

I brought it up because I think many people with good intentions do do bad things thinking they are doing good, but I was irked that he ignores the truly evil people. I don't think I did a very good job of explaining what I meant. But I almost think he is trying to comfort himself with his ideas. Because if true evil doesn't exist, then we can help or "fix" these people before they do bad things or before they do MORE bad things.

I just felt he was being pretty naive.

 

[Al Today]

... we can help or "fix" these people ...

No, Nope, No Ma'am, ain't gonna happen... They are what they are, ain't gonna change, and they see "normies" as weak and ignorant. Just a tad above stoopid 2D critters... They see compassion and empathy as a weakness... I am doing battle with one as we "speak", my sister. Yeah, I know... How can I tell? After a lifetime of observation... At least this is an excellent exercise for my wife because she used to think there just cannot really be people like that. At least she now, my wife "sees" one in full throttle action...

 

[thevenusian]

I find Myth of Sanity a much better self-analysis book, useful for understanding some of Gurdjieff's ideas in a psychological context, or at least how our different 'Is' operate independently without our awareness. She gives extreme examples of individuals with varying conditions, but it can be applied to your own life even if you don't have quite as severe issues as her patients did.

With all due respect, I think this may be a misunderstanding, as I cannot find a reference to Stout's 'Myth of Sanity' in this thread, and suspect it may be a comment on my earlier post in which I mentioned Cleckley's work on psychopaths Mask of Sanity. I completely agree with all of Puck's recommendations and wholeheartedly endorse them. It was my impression from reading some of Brenda86's other posts that she may be on a limited budget for buying books right now, which is why I thought the free download might be a good choice. Many of the other books may also be available through the local library.

 

[Windmill knight]

But I almost think he is trying to comfort himself with his ideas. Because if true evil doesn't exist, then we can help or "fix" these people before they do bad things or before they do MORE bad things.

In other words, he is telling himself a lie. That's a problem for him. But now he has made it a problem for others by spreading his lie through a book! A situation that no doubt makes psychopaths smile and lick their lips.

All I can add is that people who don't believe that evil exists simply need to read some history and psychology.