Human evil: The myth of pure evil and the true causes of violence.

Abstract

Why is there evil? This question has captured the interest of scholars of diverse specialties and backgrounds for centuries. The methods of answering it and the answers themselves have similarly reflected this diversity. My approach is that of a social scientist. The methods and research findings of social scientists can be brought to bear on what for others has been a legal, practical, theological, philosophical, or other kind of problem.One obstacle for the social scientist is the conflict between the inherent immorality of the topic and the professional scientist's goal of unbiased neutrality. Social scientists are not supposed to let their values cloud their judgment, because doing so can impede the impartial search for truth. But can we view the crimes of Hitler and his minions with the same dispassionate and nonjudgmental attitude with which we observe the bar pressing of rats in a Skinner box?When doing research for my book on evil (Baumeister, 1997), I was struck by how routinely other social scientists rushed to assert that this was not really a problem. To understand is not to forgive, they insisted. Yet I was not so sure. Indeed, my own work pointed toward different conclusions. In particular, as we understand the perpetrators' inner processes and attitudes, we come to see their crimes as considerably less heinous than how others judge them. Most people

Hierarchical Integration of Agency and Communion: A Study of Influential Moral Figures

“…Our core claim is that benevolent, influential people (or moral exemplars) have achieved a motivational state that is qualitatively different from that of other kinds of influential figures. More specifically, we claim that ordinary self‐interest motivates most influential people; this self‐interest manifests as a thirst for power and greatness (Baumeister, ), which is psychologically demarcated from, and potentially conflicts with, the interests of others. Moral exemplars, too, are self‐interested, but in a different sense.…”

The Construction of the Discourse of Violence in Liberation War Films: The Case of Catch a Fire (2006)

“…According to Baumeister (1997), violence is regarded as a means of gratification of immediate needs but with little concern to the long term utility of such a method of achieving one's desires. There is little concern over the long term effects of the violence option that both the ANC and the apartheid system employ.…”

Thy Brother’s Keeper?: The Relationship between Social Distance and Intensity of Dehumanization during Genocide

“…Dislike can also be a function of small social distance; as Roy Baumeister has so aptly put it, "most people reserve their greatest animosities for people they know well." 29 Nevertheless, it goes without saying that smaller social distances often engender liking, which can be borne from similarity, sexual attraction, or relationships of dependence; 30 all of these categories presuppose social proximity. Assuming that human bonds need more dehumanization to break when social nearness is characterized by fondness, a more precise phrasing of our hypothesis would state that where social relations are more affable prior to genocide, more cruelty during genocide is likely to ensue.…”