Evil: Inside Human Cruelty and Violence by Roy F. Baumeister
If you’re looking for a treatise on a variety of evils--greed and self-satisfied ignorance among many--look elsewhere. Roy F. Baumeister too narrowly defines evil as unwarranted
violence. Baumeister includes the gory specifics.
Baumeister explores the mental states common among those committing horrible acts. Some individuals focus only on concrete, technical details while blocking moral considerations from their minds. Some figure "Just do it. Why ask why?" Others lack inner restraint, often because they live in cultures that teach the hydraulic theory--the idea that humans cannot or should not control themselves because "pressure" builds up inside them and exploding is the way to release the pressure. The hydraulic theory is nonsense. Calming oneself down, distracting oneself, and numerous other methods dissipate pressures. One can even live with anger and not resort to evils. Many angry individuals never resort to unjustified violence. They direct their anger toward better pursuits.
The "only following orders" excuse, he writes, is common throughout
history. Many individuals feel guilt and distress at committing their first
evil but become desensitized the more they commit them. Alcohol lowers distress and inhibitions. Hate and resentment are
sometimes found. The failure to weigh long-term moral claims is extremely
Baumeister argues that individuals engaged in evils rarely think of reasons to control themselves.
Better individuals sometimes think evil thoughts but they offer themselves counterarguments and move on.
He offers a great explanation
of high and stable self-esteem versus high and unstable self-esteem. Individuals with high, unstable, threatened
self-esteem are extremely dangerous. Honor is often big with them.
Small insults or perceived insults set them off. Individuals with criminal habits often see themselves
as superstars, no matter how little they have accomplished.
They believe the world owes them, even though they do little to deserve
much. They see others as suckers who exist merely to serve their own
Individuals committing evils believe:
The victims deserved it.
No other alternatives existed.
They are the real victims.
Not much harm was done.
Self-control was impossible.
Control of the consequences was impossible.
The results were harmful, but something else was at
Other causes deserve most or all of the blame.
The innocuous actions of others were really attacks.
Random revenge or arbitrary group revenge are proper
avenues of action.
Recent wrongs should be considered ancient history.
The evil was a rare mistake, not part of a pattern.
Psychological or medical problems deserve all the
Bad things accidentally happened along the way while
pragmatic and technical matters were addressed.
Any self-justification is a good justification.
Individuals with low self-esteem and high, stable self-esteem are less
dangerous. They care little whether someone insults them or blame themselves
for the insult. They do not respond to ego threats with murder.
Sadism, Baumeister alleges, is rare and acquired gradually. Smiling perpetrators
may smile out of nervousness, embarrassment or to break the tension. The
sadistic laugh popular in entertainment is uncommon in real life.
For many, inhibitions against killing are strong even when the killing is justified.
Baumeister argues that the completely innocent victim and random, senseless
violence are often myths. Perps have targets and reasons why they choose those targets. One important point he makes: Individuals pursuing evils see silence by outsiders as implied consent.
They are surprised by how easily they get away with violence. The evils of acquiescence do not get much space in this work though.
When groups are involved, the diffusion of responsibility excuse ensues.
Individuals excuse themselves because they believe everyone else does it.
There is also a division of labor excuse. Evil consequences do not appear so
bad in the minds of many if you are only a tiny or distant part of
Other common causes of violent evils include:
Keeping those affected clueless.
Misinterpreting ambiguous words or actions or both.
Giving deliberately ambiguous instructions to maintain
innocence while an employee does the evil.
Failing to object in strong moral language, which gives
the impression that vile actions are acceptable
Making only practical objections. Purely practical
objections imply moral acceptability.
Weaknesses of this book include poor and confusing use of moral
terms such as evil, virtue, and character. The author is better at exploring the motives
of violence than explaining other causes. The discussion of means and ends is a
mess. Genetic and other non-situational factors do not get much attention in this
Baumeister does not offer much of an evil prevention plan. The admiration that
many have for evildoers, and the resulting consequences of that admiration, gets little attention, specifically those who see evil as primarily a
form of vicarious amusement. Many claims are mistaken: "Guilt is better for the
community and worse for the individual, and so they [Americans] detest
guilt." But guilt is better for the innocent and the larger number of
individuals. A culture that disparages guilt is a great threat to ethical individuals. And so is a culture that emphasizes misplaced guilt.
Much of this is important, albeit not surprising:
Individuals engaged in evils think they are doing good or that they are
Almost no one sees herself as evil.
Individuals form groups and create group conflicts even
for trivial reasons and even when doing so is mutually destructive.
Evil rarely shows up with bared teeth and a growl.
Humans are very flexible and often arbitrary in targeting
empathy, sympathy, compassion, and indignation.
Complete and only fault and complete and only innocence
are attractive but often faulty labels.
Having only one reason is not enough to act or not act.
People often look for one flaw in an argument, then try
to use that as an excuse to ignore or discredit the whole thing. (Many, for example,
claim that television addiction is spurious therefore arguments against
television can be ignored.)
Some individuals you think are motivated by conscious venom
may be acting out of unthinking reflex.
The author's judgments of good and bad are based too much on psychology.
Many motives such as hate and compassion motivate both moral and immoral acts. These
motives are sometimes relevant to judging the goodness or badness of acts. But
this work overemphasizes the weight that should be assigned to motives and under-emphasizes the weight that should be given to consequences.
One atrocious part of the book: Baumeister uses the wrong phrase--evil is in the "eye
of the beholder"--in trying to explain the idea that evildoers think they have
not done much harm while victims suffer enormous harm. Evildoers think: Big deal you lost a
ring or a tooth. Victims think: I lost privacy, security, respect, family
heirlooms, and so on. But evil is not in the eye of the beholder. It exists independent of beholders.
One common pattern in evil is misguided
idealism. Idealists become misguided when they:
Use an evil means to justify the end.
Use an evil end to justify the means.
Believe evil actions are good actions.
Believe their allegedly good motives absolve everything else.
Baumeister sometimes takes the position that as long as motives are not hate filled
or not directly harmful, the person should not be judged evil. But actions can be
judged evil whether the motives are kindly, sadistic, ambivalent,
indifferent or whatever. All it takes is bad, careless moral reasoning about
principles and consequences combined with the wrong actions. Deontological and
consequential considerations are barely covered in Evil, nor does the author delve into
the spread of evil ideologies and the role of ideology in evil.
In general, Baumeister argues for the importance of guilt and use of reasons in
controlling unjustified violence. Recommended. Book review by
J.T. Fournier, last updated July 26, 2009.
431p (H) 1997