The Scale of Evil

This originally appeared on another blogsite which has since gone under. I think it makes an excellent fit here:

Years ago, I read a phenomenal book, the title of which escapes me, in which the author focused on several, real cases to determine whether or not Evil actually exists and to define it. A little light reading for a rainy day. Still, I think most of us can agree that there is a huge difference in an evil act and actual Evil; we're all capable of evil acts, but most people are not actually Evil.

A lot of the popular notions regarding such things include intent, premeditation, and covering up the crime, all of which have been used to condemn someone as Evil at one time or another (and remain the primary measuring sticks for such determinations) but these aren't perfect indicators -- good indicators, certainly, but by no means the best. After all, even the best intentions can go awry and these are generally premeditated acts -- yet, their unintentional results are often covered-up.

Not to mention that, sometimes, people believe they have to perform an Evil act for a greater good. This is the case with most abuse victims who kill their abusers. These are sometimes (though not always) premeditated acts in which the immediate intent is Evil (by nature) and are then often covered-up by those who commit them and/or sympathetic supporters.  However, the overall outcome is not at all Evil (abuse is unquestionably Evil so stopping it is not).

Then, there are those who are mentally and/or emotionally ill or unstable. These people simply cannot think correctly; while they may have Evil intentions, plan their evil acts, and consciously obscure them, they truly can't be held directly responsible because they cannot process thoughts and feelings the way normal people do.

So what is Evil?

Well, the forgotten book gave a very good answer by way of an example:

A coal mining company knew they were using faulty equipment in a mine which was known to be poisonous, yet chose to send in a crew of miners -- all of whom died. The company knew they were endangering the miners, knew there was a very real (almost certain) possibility of death, hid this knowledge from the workers, and sent them in regardless because it was financially profitable to the corporation even if the crew was lost. 

After the miners had died, the company played the "pyramid" game -- shifting responsibility from one head of department to the next, which then shifted responsibility to lesser-ranking workers in the department, who were then instructed to shift blame to researchers, and on and on: They covered-up the crime.

That's Evil; that's not an Evil act, that's just pure Evil, from intent to event to cover-up.

But that doesn't mean someone who commits an evil act, knowing the act is Evil, is necessarily an Evil person. Again, there are mitigating factors in some cases; the abuse victim who kills his abuser is a perfect example of this, while the corporation (and all of the individuals which comprised it) provide the example of true Evil. Regardless of what most people want you to believe (regardless of what we all think sometimes), every person is an individual and thinks, feels, and acts differently. This also has nothing to do with the famous "situational" vs. "predatory" Evil.

Either way, Psychology shies away from the word, "Evil," believing it to be indicative of moral judgment, as opposed to clinical assessment -- that is to say, most psychologists shy away from the term.

One Michael Stone has developed an actual scale for Evil and I'm not too sure it holds up -- not because Stone's work is bad, but because the whole concept may be. Or maybe it's because he used bad examples. Susan Smith, for example, has a history of molestation and suicide attempts involving men; it's hard to consider her Evil, given that she is psycho-emotionally damaged. And, while not all of his subjects suffer from such obvious mitigating trauma, Stone appears to have based his research largely on people who committed outrageous crimes.

In fact, I find it impossible to say that anyone who commits Evil acts on a regular basis is actually "healthy." Of course, there has to be a line, but where and how do you draw it? You can't let people get away (literally) with murder just because most of us believe anyone who would commit murder is "sick," but we all know there's some grain of truth to that. And then, if you apply the "situational" caveat, you realize just how preoccupied with revenge this country and its legal system really is.

In effect, isn't it just as Evil to seek vengeance on someone who has done something Evil in order to assuage your sense of injustice? Especially when it inflames your sense of self-righteousness? Is "justice" then mere justification for the Evil you have committed in punishing the evil-doer? Or, is it more in line with the case of the abused who kills his abuser?

There are people who do Evil things -- knowing full-well they are evil, knowing full-well their actions hurt others -- and simply do not care. Their motives vary and their acts sometimes occur situationally --meaning that they are unplanned or even unintentional -- but are they premeditated simply because the person enjoyed them or wanted to do them? This is particularly the case in so many of the Internet "stings" on would-be child predators these days: If no crime was committed, how can they be convicted (even though their intent clearly was to commit a crime)?

Even though I agree that those who cannot be "cured" have to be put to death for at least a thousand reasons, which people are they and why aren't these laws applied unilaterally? A blackmailer or chronic drug-dealer who does not change their ways knowingly commits Evil -- knowingly jeopardizes, harms, and kills others (even if indirectly) -- and knows damn-well what they are doing when they do it. Why aren't they put to death?

Again, it's about the sense of revenge inherent in the judicial system: The laws are applied only to those who commit crimes which enrage the community. The death penalty is a premeditated action, knowingly carried out and justified as being for a greater good, and commonly accepted by those involved. 

Premeditation, action, cover-up; the Death Penalty fits the specific definition of "Evil."

The system is Evil. I told you so.

Evil vs. Mental Illness

This paradox has to be confronted because it is, and has been, very controversial within the psychological community for -- well, basically since Psychology was developed (or being developed) in the 19^th-Century:

Where does one draw the line between what is Evil and what is caused by mental illness?

There is no easy way, that I’ll grant, but I believe Evil to be an actual force, as I’ve set forth herein, and thus external.  But, that is not at all meant to suggest that someone has to be "possessed" to show signs of Evil.  In fact, were it that simple, then everyone who commits an Evil act could be cleared or convicted by the manner in which the act was committed.

There is Dissociation, where the person committing the act is unaware of their action(s) -- this is possible Evil influence, but most likely a matter of actual mental illness; there is Psychosis, where the victim knows what he is doing, but is so delusional as to believe that what he is doing is the right thing -- what he has to do (as in the case of Andrea Yates); then there is the matter of Evil influence. 

Evil influence can take any number of forms, but it is rarely direct or evident.  This is what I mean when I say that, if it were, the matter of innocence or guilt would be simple; was Supernatural strength employed in this crime?  Or did the perpetrator exhibit knowledge which s/he could not have known?  If things like that were exhibited, we could easily say: "This was a crime perpetrated by external, Evil influence(s), and this one was not."

So, one Dr. Michael Stone has developed -- and is consistently working on -- what he calls a scale of Evil: A system of measuring Evil that goes from 1 to 22, with 22 being the Most Evil.  Gary Heidnik is one of the few people who reaches the 22^nd level of Evil.  Of course, the problem with this is that Heidnik, who ran a charnel house in which he enslaved several women in his basement whom he raped on a daily basis, two of which he killed -- one of which he forced the other women to eat (along with dogfood) -- sounds like anyone's poster child for mental illness.

Dr. Stone argues that Heidnik was "organized" enough to have invested well, having made over half a million dollars and bought a Rolls Royce, so he was acutely aware that his actions were Evil.  Yet, Dr. Stone neglects to mention that this same guy taped dollar bills and pennies all along his walls, and that the drain of his kitchen sink was stopped-up by flesh.

Were Heidnik's actions Evil?  Beyond question.  But, is he, the man, Evil by nature -- whether twisted by environment or somehow genetically-impaired?  Highly debatable, especially since Heidnik claims to have heard the "Voice of God" which told him something that led him down this terribly dark and twisted path.

Regardless of your religious convictions or beliefs, it seems that a reasonable person would know that God did not want them to enslave, kill, dismember, and cannibalize young women.  Still, hearing an ethereal voice tell you anything would make an indelible impression on one's psyche, so you would have to forgive them their mental incapacities insofar as reasoning and comprehension go.  Hell, for as far as any of this goes, when is the last time you met a Baptist who got the right message from the Scripture?

Still, while I agree that Evil is a very real force -- even palpable at times where it is active -- and have not read Dr. Stone’s book, in which I assume he discusses his methodology and policies in-depth, I find what I have seen and heard of his methods highly suspect.

Emotional States and Chemical Changes

As I mentioned over to The Rundown, I am amazingly disorganized. And I use that word specifically; I am not unorganized - I am disorganized, meaning that I have "A System" and I have files and folders and cabinets and shelves, they're just in such a state of disarray that I can never find what I am looking for when I want it, and tend to come across stuff I've completely forgotten I even had at random times.

Today was one of those days.

I was (and still am) looking for notes on the S.A.F.E. RPG system for the website, and I came across a page of notes from some research I was doing a year or so back which I found interesting and pertinent to the recent conversation, re: poltergeists, Dæmonic infestation, Elementals, and so forth.

I was apparently thinking along the lines of the sometimes controversial and thoroughly modern scientific belief that emotions are caused and controlled by chemical changes within the body - something with which I stringently disagree. The priests of the great god, Science, have been trying for years now to reduce human life to a binary code - a series of chemical processes and switches in which there is no spirit, no real free will, no such thing as "being." I disagree with this in principle, and not necessarily on any socio-psycho religious basis, though those beliefs I hold cannot be completely divorced from the matter; suffice it to say that I believe people have a soul or spirit - even if you just want to call it a “personality” - which may have some scientific structure and can certainly be pondered from a scientific standpoint, but is not a fully scientific matter.

In my notes, I say, “If an agitated state at the time of death is associated with prolonged spiritual attachment to the prime material plane - and a haunted site is said to be likewise emotionally impacted - this proves that emotions are not chemical reactions. Unquestionably, emotional states result in chemical changes, but these chemical changes are the result of emotional status, not vice-versa. This then points toward emotional status and emotions [in general] being atmospheric in nature - occurring naturally on their own [separate from any internal chemical influence], but affected by other atmospheric influences.”

What this means is that, for example, you don’t get mad because your body suddenly dumps a load of Testosterone (that didn’t come out exactly right, did it?); your body produces Testosterone because you get mad. This sounds basic, but Science has been trying for a very long time to posit the reverse. Science is trying to tell us that we have no soul, no spirit, and no real individual personality; we are nothing more than a series of chemical reactions, and this simply is not true.

We are each possessed of an individual spirit which, though affected by our environment and experiences throughout life, are somehow formed when we are born. You can see this in the individual actions of children! This is important for many reasons, but goes a long way in proving the existence of Evil as a force unto itself.