|
Watson believes that evil is commonplace and widespread, not
uniquely manifested in the oddball person. It's also not
confined to the human species. He himself has observed cruelty
in animal behavior with finely honed predatory skills and even the
killing of offspring. Starting with the notion that evil
involves overstepping bounds or going beyond due measure, Watson
thinks that at the heart of evil are influences that destroy the
integrity of the whole. Thus if "good" is defined as
whatever encourages that integrity, then whatever pulls it apart is
evil.
Living systems constantly change. According to the Second Law
of Thermodynamics, systems tend to run down, grow disorganized, and
eventually disintegrate altogether. Entropy, or disorder,
devolves into chaos, which spells death for the system. Systems
attempt to protect themselves, but capricious forces are part of
change. They help to redefine the system for growth, but may
also act as a black hole that sucks up a universe and then recreates
it.
Good--or integrity--coexists with this capriciousness and both
forces can influence the system. Some things contribute to the
order and cohesion of life and some things subtract from it.
Evil, then, can be equated with a morbid condition, such as a
pathogen, that enters or exploits some aspect of the system to knock
it off balance. Watson sees three primary ways for this to occur:
- Something good is removed from a context where it works and is
placed in one where it doesn't work, so it then becomes
destructive.
- Too much or too little of a good thing becomes disruptive.
- Elements of the system cannot relate in a coherent manner
These elements provide the biological frame through which to
understand how we can view evil as a force within a system, he says.
People like Hitler, Ted Bundy, and bin Laden are pathogens that arise
from within the system, contributing to its disintegration. They
represent one of the three principles of natural disorder listed
above. Perhaps the instinct for survival, which is good in one
context, becomes exaggerated into a virulent self-centeredness that
diminishes the importance of others.
Along these lines, in Speaking with the Devil, psychiatrist
Carl Goldberg uses a multi-step theory to explain the deformed
personality from which evil emanates. To his mind, the devil
represents "individuals who have transformed themselves into
beings capable of extreme brutality and atrocity." It's a
developmental sequence that involves:
- shame and humiliation during childhood that impairs self-esteem
- protecting their own "defects" by developing contempt
for others
- adopting belief systems that allow them to rationalize and
justify their actions
- losing empathic bonds with others
- acquiring a habit of treating others without respect
- learning to enjoy the infliction of cruelty
- losing the ability to be self-aware
- magical thinking—‘I can make it happen if I can imagine it
thus’
People who go through this process can then create a frame through
which they can inflict deliberate cruelty on others without seeing how
they themselves have regressed as moral beings. They can
identify with monstrous acts and behave in the same manner. It's
a series of logical steps from point A to point Z that evolve in the
direction of antisocial destruction rather than social integrity and
repair.
Yet even with a theory intact, we still need a better language for
dealing with evil in certain practical contexts, such as the courts.
To be able to determine sentencing - how long an evildoer, whether
sick or just bad, should be locked away from society - they need to
determine just how depraved an act of brutality might be. That's
where another psychologist is attempting to make a contribution.
Let's take a look.
|
