Remember the Electric Light Orchestra? I couldn’t resist. But I really want to say something about an e”¦evil woman. Actually, not really. I just wanted an excuse to say e..evil woman. Okay, I’ve said it, again. Now I’ve got it out of my system. I’ll stop with that.
But I do want to talk about evil. Evil’s such a dicey word. Evil? What is evil? What really makes someone evil? Do evil people exist?
That is, can someone even be evil: Are people evil, or just their behaviors?
I remember a friend of mine, a close friend, years ago, once called me an “evil m*therf*cker,” and I laughed. Did I laugh because I’m evil, thereby validating his accusation? Or did I laugh because I was secure enough to know I’m not?
By the way, what prompted his accusation was a really cruel, funny practical joke I played on him. I’m afraid he found it much more cruel than funny, whereas I found it much funnier than cruel. (Maybe some other time I’ll describe the joke?)
Speaking of cruel, is there a relationship between evil and cruelty? Are they the same thing? When you’re being cruel, or committing a cruel act, are you being evil? Is the cruelty itself evil?
If you don’t have a headache by now, I do. But that’s okay”¦I’ll even make it worse by posing some more light questions, like: Are exploiters, by definition, evil? Is exploitation always evil? Or, must acts of exploitation reach a certain threshhold of heinousness to constitute evil?
And what about our favorite friends, the sociopaths? Are sociopaths, by definition, evil? Sometimes? Always?
And then, of course, the really ultimate question: Do you really think I’m going to answer these questions?
Do you really think I’m crazy, and grandiose, enough, to tackle these questions?
Maybe I am”¦but I can assure you, not adequately. Still, I will “man up” and offer some “takes” on these heady matters, if for no other purpose than to drum-up some good discussion!
I fully expect, incidentally, your feedback to change my mind on, and views of, these questions many times, exposing (you can be sure) the fickleness of my positions.
But, for the moment, here are my short answers:
I believe people can be evil, not just do evil; in other words, I believe some people are evil.
I believe that evil is always cruel, but that cruelty is not always evil.
I believe that evil is always exploitative, but that exploitation is not always evil.
I believe that evil is always destructive, but that destructiveness is not always evil.
Consistent with these views, I believe that some exploiters and, more specifically, some sociopaths—but not all—are evil.
Now, for my personal working definition of evil, in all its glaring limitations: Evil, as I see it, is the lust to express cruelty towards, and/or destructiveness of, others.
There it is. Note the boldfaced “lust to express;” I regard the “lust” as a central element of evil.
Let me dive right into an elaboration of some of my positions.
Evil is always cruel, but cruelty is not always evil. My view here is that evil, fortunately, is less commonplace than cruelty. Cruelty, however, is tragically commonplace.
Most of us are capable of cruelty, but most of us are not evil. This isn’t to diminish the impact of cruelty. In fact, because cruelty is so commonplace and destructive, it is arguably the worst part of human nature.
But not all cruelty is lust-driven. When cruelty is lust-driven, it is evil. When not, it is something less than evil—although I stress that even this debatable point doesn’t lessen cruelty’s impact one iota.
I think the same applies to “exploitation—”that is, exploitation is cruel, always, but not always evil. Valid or not, this assertion isn’t meant to minimize the potentially traumatic impact of exploitation.
Let me give a relatively benign example: A slick colleague convinces you to lend him $150 cash, promising to pay you back in a couple days. The next day, he’s gone. Has left the job. Quit. Never gave notice. The boss is bewildered, and you are too. You never hear from him again. You knew him well enough (so you thought) to lend him the money, but not, as it turns out, as well as you thought. The money probably bought his Amtrak ticket to Seattle.
You were fleeced. He knew he’d be gone, and he had no intention of honoring his debt. To him, you weren’t so much a nice guy whose generosity he appreciated, as much as, ultimately, a sucker. You were taken. He’s a sociopath.
But he needed the money, and put it to practical use. The problem is, he stole it from you. But he needed the money, and money is money, however he can get his hands on it. Not all sociopaths think like this, but some do.
This sociopath was thinking somewhat pragmatically; he needed the money and schemed to get it. But here’s the point: He didn’t lust for your suffering as much as he lusted for your money. Basically, he was greedy and sociopathically conniving, and so he took what he wanted, not per se to inflict pain or harm on you, but because he wanted it.
In this instance, he is exploitative, in my view, but not evil.
Is he cruel? Not in this example. I define cruel as having an intention to inflict harm or pain on someone. This could be mental, or physical pain. It is arguably cruel, for instance, to dismiss someone contemptuously, and yet it is not necessarily cruel, but is definitely exploitative, to con someone out of $150.
A former client of mine, around 1994, shot-up a bunch of kids at a swimming pool with a semi-automatic weapon. (For my own pathetic ego, I was grateful he waited until about two years after I last saw him.) He’d been dually diagnosed as a psychopath and paranoid schizophrenic. Was he evil? I don’t think so, although I appreciate that those kids, and their families, might have thought so.
In any case, I think he was more paranoid than evil, although he was certainly cruel. I also think that he believed that those kids were evil.
So, in this case, which is not hypothetical, I’d suggest that my ex-client was cruel, but not necessarily evil, or for that matter, even exploitative.
How about a Bernie Madoff? Is Bernie Madoff evil? I don’t think so. Yet he may very well be a sociopath and most certainly was heinously exploitative. Was he cruel? I don’t think so, again. I don’t think it was Madoff’s intention to inflict suffering on anyone. That wasn’t his primary motive to do what he did, despite the devastating impact of his greed and deception.
Regarding cruelty: for me, to be cruel implies, and requires, an intention to cruelty; it is a separate issue whether the consequences of your actions are experienced as cruel. I suspect that Madoff’s victims will describe him as cruel, if only for his indifference. However, I don’t see, from the little that is known about this case, that “cruelty” drove Madoff’s exploitation.
Now let’s tackle some big fish: How about Saddam Hussein and Adolph Hitler?
Hussein, in my view, was both cruel and exploitative, but I’m not sure I’d call him evil. Hussein’s lust was principally for power, less principally (one might argue) evil-driven. His cruelty was more a means to an end—the “end” being the consolidation and preservation of his power, by whatever ruthless means necessary. Was he a sociopath? Very possibly.
Hitler, I think, was cruel, exploitative, and evil. Hitler’s lust transcended his obsession with power; his was a lust to exterminate the Jews and other “non-desirables.” In other words, apart from his pathological lust for power, he also had a lust for cruelty and destruction. The latter meets the criteria of evil.
What do you think? Whatever it is, I’m betting it’ll change my mind?
(This article is copyrighted (c) 2009 by Steve Becker, LCSW.)
Dear Learned,
Good points, all!
When “Eve” in the garden ate of the “tree of the knowledge of good and evil” she became fully “human” with choices. If we did NOT have a “knowledge of good and evil” (and therefore were unable to know the differences in our “good” behavior vs our “bad/evil” behavior) then we would not (in this country by LAW be held accountable for our acts, no matter how horrible they were.
The psychopaths are held accountable for their acts because they DO know the differences between “right” and “wrong” (i.e. good and evil) and CAN make the choice to NOT engage in evil behavior.
A two-year-old child might kill a one month old infant, but the child has NO concept that what s/he is doing is “wrong” and therefore is not a murderer. There is great debate in our system of “justice” today about AT WHAT AGE should a “child” be held accountable and “tried as an adult” or when should they be treated as a “child” who might not have a fully developed sense of “right and wrong” etc.
I know plenty of 14 year olds that I would “hold accountable” for a murder. I also know some 12 year olds that I would hold accountable. so, what if the kid is 11? or 10? etc. where do you draw the line on “age” ALONE. I am aware of lots of 10 year olds that are “very mature” and lots of 15 year olds that aren’t—should AGE ALONE be used to decide in court if a child is “accountable” (actually has the “knowledge of good and evil?”
We know the prefrontal cortex doesn’t fully develop until in the 20s, so I would infer from that that a 20 year old is more mature as far as his brain is concerned than a 12 year old would be, and so on. But there has to be a “cut off”point at some point, and who knows where it is “for sure?”
The Law of our land makes exceptions for “man killing” (any form of killing another human) from “self defense” to “capitol murder”—the guide used to be if it was “premeditated” but now it has been changed in some states, as well as the usual punishment for “first degree” (premeditated murder) is no longer usually “hanging.”
Even the question of “what are preferable experiences?” There are people on this earth (many of them) who firmly believe that if you do not ascribe and practice their version of “religion” that you should DIE. How many people have been burned at the stake for being “heretics” in the name of “doing the will of God?” Were those people who lit the pyres “evil” or were they acting in the “greater good” by weeding out these “evil” thinking people?
Slavery was the law of the land in many lands, for eons. Was slavery “Evil?” By our definition today it was/is but by the culture of the time it just “was” and was not considered evil.
The white people came to this continent and exterminated the native peoples and took their lands. Were those illustrious ancestors of ours evil? We honor them for being “pioneers” and discoverers. How about the men who deliberately gave small pox infected blankets to the natives?
The book “1491” which is an excellent historical look at the Americas before Columbus came detailed a quite nice look at the results of the contact by the whites and the natives. Between 1491 and 1591, about 90% of the native peoples had died out from diseases brought from Europe, the estimates range from 80 to 200 MILLION people died of European diseases, even people who had never seen a white man died of the diseases which were spreading like wildfire among people without resistence to these plagues.
Yet we celebrate Columbus for “discovering” America, when his voyage caused the single biggest loss of human life on the planet before or since. Is he evil, or a hero? And as someone pointed out earlier (CRS) the “winners” write the history books, so he is honored by our history books.
Many people like Columbus whose deeds result in great evil consequences, did not intentionally cause evil. Their motives may have been for the “greater good,” as in executing heretics. So I think the concept of “good” and “evil” is constantly changing, evolving, and even within one person in different stages of life.
“
learnthelesson. When two psychopaths find each other it is like two demons who find each other . They both know that the other is a demon . For the most part they will avoid each other , as they would rather find themselves a human victim . I have seen my X meet another psychopath . It was the weirdest thing I have ever seen . It was like a couple of narly tom cats circling each other wondering who was going to strike first . It was as if they had some kind of telepathic understanding , almost a universal consciousness of some kind . They seemed to agree to keep their distance from each other in a weird polite kind of way . Apparently it has happened that two psychopaths will get together and together you have a double problem . Whats missing from one will be in the other . Together they become a more powerfull one but are quite capable of stabing each other in the back if there be a need for it . Two psychopaths together is a dangerous combo
BloggerT-
The Church has the point covered…evil by not doing anything?
It’s called a sin of omission.
Hi Quest, very interesting takes. Very interesting. I told you I expected my views on these questions to flip back and forth based on your, and others’, feedback. That flipping has been happening….
You, and others, are making me think. and rethink, my views…and incidentally, that’s a funny joke you interspersed in the middle of that post.
Regarding schizophrenia and psychopathy, as illogical as it seems, such dual diagnoses (and other seemingly oddly matched dual diagnoses) legitimately exist (in my view).
An unmedicated schizophrenic is, of course, at high risk to struggle with his/her reality testing….but if you can imagine, say, a medicated schizophrenic who is not actively psychotic–nothing necessarily precludes that individual from viewing, and relating to, others, psychopathically.
In my ex-client’s case, as I look back, I have no doubts he was genuinely paranoid…but he concurrently and fundamentally had a rather cold-blooded, and somewhat predatory, orientation toward others that was separate from his “mental illness.”
But you make many great, stimulating points….thanks.
Steve
Quest,
Sandra Brown’s article the other day called “Gasoline and Fire” about relationships –I started to say “love” relationships but that sure wouldn’t do it, LOL—where TWO personality disordered individuals get together in this relationship, and they are like gasoline and fire. Great Analogy. I know one going on right now, a Borderline PD woman is hooked up with a male PPD. IT IS “gasoline and fire” with them taking turns abusing and being the victim, and it is pretty hard core with her being beaten with beer bottles til the blood runs, then him being sent to jail, then her tying him up while he is passed out from drugs and beating the crap out of him…..and so it goes. Of course there are small children watching all this “drama.”
Quest-
IMO schizophrenics are an equal danger to both themselves and others…and at times depending on the situations…moreso to others. If medicated, can alleviate psychotic state — but there can be any number of personality disorders on still on board and “active”
My curiosity with two Ps in a relationship – is its one that clearly is different for them than being in a relationship w/an empathetic person – in the sense that they dont get the same kind or reactions, responses from their partner…but what they get is satisfaction one upping eachother – or stuck in the circle of chaos – and always wanting to “win”
Oxy – I read and reread your thought provoking post last night. I wrote my responses to you, such a Columbus simply steered his ship, he didnt create the disease which caused their deaths – So Id say he was a hero with evil luck 🙂 for discovering America … and has the myth about the blankets ever been proven? And I had varying thoughts on the greater good outweighing the intentional evil concocting individuals.. and everything I wrote – I could basically find reason to debate or argue to differ with my own answers — really an evil article Steve… but for the better good of all to stop and give pause to so much…so I deleted my response to you because perhaps even the best of best conclusions still leave room for debate and altering changes and circumstances century after century…perhaps Evil is something that is implied as well as perceived both by individual choice.
also evil results from a choice of free will – maybe an abuse of free will…
Again, I ended up debating myself…and thats a red flag for me!!! So, Ive concluded Evil clearly is not my thing 🙂 or a good topic for me 🙂
Have a good day all!
Dear Learned,
I was simply trying to provoke more THOUGHT on the subject, and to illustrate that what is “good or evil” is to some extent SUBJECTIVE depending on culture, time, place, and also the individual’s perspective.
The blanket thing has been proven up to and as late as the Revolutionary war when the British did this to American prisoners confined in the harbor in Charleston on the prison hulks. (I did a research paper on this for a history book and in both primary and secondary sources)
A “conscience” must be “trained” into a child. No one is born with it fully developed. WHAT is trained into the child that is “bad” for them to do depends on culture etc. The Ps may have had their “training” but they don’t ACCEPT that training internally. Other children do.
The men who bombed on 9/11 WERE doing what their consciences said was GOOD, but WE perceived it as EVIL or bad. Our country generally has a DIFFERENT value system than they were raised with. (or at least we tell ourselves our country does, that our people do) There was a time when I thought wars were fought for “mom, apple pie, and truth” but now I see that none of those things are what prompts war, or what keeps it going.
I also realize that sometimes wars are “necessary” but I also know that most wars are not necessary, and they are NEVER GOOD. They cause untold suffering to untold millions (billions?) of people all in the name of “something noble.” Men on both sides do horrible things all in the name of a “good cause” but the results are always “evil.” BUT–since evil is relative, subjective, to “whose ox is gored” the winner writes the history books and paints wars as “helping free the world.”
I wish I could have a definition of “evil” and what “evil” is that was NOT subjective, not skewed from MY OWN point of view.
I believe that my P-son is EVIL, I believe my P-sperm donor was EVIL, because they enjoyed hurting others in their quest for control, for power, for greed, for glee and just for the hell of it. That’s as close as I can come to a “definition” of “evil” and like I said, it is like “pornography, you can’t define it, but you can know it when you see it.” (I think one of the supreme court justices said that line but cant remember who. CRS)
Hey Oxy, I knew you were just trying to provoke more “THOUGHT” on the subject – and shamwow!! can you successfully do that! I just ended up countering every thought or view I had when I delved further into my ideas comments I was typing late last night. It was kind of funny seeing myself well after midnight typing and deleting, typing and searching — I just finally said to myself – Im being evil/ torturing myself and laughed so!!!
Really were a lot of profound responses with this article -I value the insights here at LF — and I actually had fun with this article too.. it was good to find myself laughing at myself! Thanks guys
Learned said:
“It doesnt matter the motive behind CHOOSING TO BE EVIL – OR what drove the choice” if it exploits someone in anyway – being evil is a choice – whether or not it knowingly or unknowingly causes harm to others through gain/pain/mental illness. Whether or not the person making the choice to be Evil”took the time to take note of the consequence – beyond the choice – is not relevent to me. Evil comes to be through the choice – choice to be cruel, destructive, exploitative, corrupt ,neglectful etc. ”
IMHO….. Evil is not intentional malice and has nothing to do with laws or legalities. What is intentional? If someone commits some act that violates another person, for the purpose of benefitting themself in some way, regardless of the consequences to themselves or others…..THAT is evil. They may not INTEND to hurt someone. Maybe their only intention is to benefit themself……. (they can’t intentionally hurt and violate if they don’t care what you feel and can’t see past their own greed and lust for power, attention, sex, influence, intimidation….it doesn’t matter) Their intention is about THEM.
Sociopaths, Narcissists, Psychopaths, whatever we call them……don’t care about consequences to others. They are selfish human beings who sometimes get caught doing things that are called illegal, just because they know no boundaries and simply “lust” for something for themselves. They disguise themselves as something else in order to get what they want. Deceit is evil. Who cares what they intended? Their belief systems are messed up. Some pedofiles believe their love for children drive them to molestation, and that makes it OK in their mind…..they don’t think they have bad intentions. The XS disguised everythin ghe did and said as “good intentions”. My grandmother used to say “the road to hell is paved with good intentions”. Actions and consequences speak louder.
Evil is when someone DOESN’T consider the consequences of their actions and they hurt others, physically, emotionally, psychologically, spiritually. When someone is in pain, due to the behavior of another it is EVIL.
Evil is what the victim experiences, because of the actions, beliefs and behaviors of another. It has nothing to do with what the perpetrator intended.
What was satan’s intention in the garden? I think his intention was to get someone to do something they were not supposed to do.
Take it further…..his intention was to get pleasure from watching someone do something they were not supposed to do.
Was his intention to see Eve and Adam suffer? did he care? What if Eve was killed? whould that have made his intention any more serious? it would have ade the consequences more serious.
Was his intention was to piss off God? I don’t think so.
I think he wanted to exert control/power to “appear” in a position of power and authority and he used a particular situation/person without regard.
Does satan even know what his intention was? Or does he lust for something in a way that makes him not even care why? Like an addict.
In order to understand or have intention should there not be an expected result?
All of the people Steve mentions above, were decitful and lusted for some kind of power/authority. They pused their lust to the point of doing things that are considered illegal, but they are all sociopaths and are all evil in my mind. Bernie Madoff didn’t kill people but that doesn’t make his intentions a whole lot different.
This goes back to Liane’s article about tall and short. ALl sociopaths are sociopaths. Sometimes we want to “judge” their crimes simply by how disgusted we are by them…..obviously murder, theft, arson, pysical violence and things covered under “the law” being more serious.
Anyone who can pathalogiacally lie and decive people (short sociopaths) in a way that benefits themselves can also have the potential to kill or steal (taller sociopaths).
Whether they DID something illegal or never got caught….. they are STILL evil if they hurt others.
Bernie Madoff’s entire family is benefitting from his deceit and the fortunes of others. He knew what he was doing. He didn’t care about the consequences. He too is evil.