HUMAN EVIL How Do We Explain that?

Self-Actualization Psychology: The Psychology of the Bright Side of Human Nature is about the paradigm shift that Abraham Maslow initiated positing that “human nature” is not evil, but good. This does not settle well for people who operate from a frame about “human nature” being bad, evil, corrupt, depraved, sick, animalistic, etc. And so, in the past couple weeks I’ve had some conversations with some people who believe in the dark side of human nature.

In this Meta Reflection (and perhaps a couple more), I’d like to share some highlights from some of those conversations. Mostly, I want to address the question of evil and man’s inhumanity to man. So given the premise of Self-Actualization Psychology of the goodness of human nature, the question is: If people are so good, and how why can they be so bad?

For me, Self-Actualization Psychology offers several answers to the questions of this exploration and my guess is that these answers are critical for all of us, especially for those of us who work with people. After all, if we don’t understand how people can turn aggressive and end up doing ugly and hurtful things to others, then it will be easy to turn cynical, distrustful, fearful, defensive, negative, and pessimistic. So to prevent that, we need a theory of “evil” that can maintain respect and awe and love of “human nature.” So, is that possible?

Let me begin with a simple assertion.

The potential for good includes the potential for evil. Every one of us has within the inner potentiality for both constructive and destructive behaviors. We have within us the potential to choose either good or evil, to express ourselves constructively or destructively.

In fact, it is this dual potentiality that makes us moral beings with a sense of conscience. If we didn’t have this dual potential within our freedom and powers, there would be no moral choice or ethical behavior. We would simply be acting out programs of our nature.

To answer the question of human “evil,” Maslow introduced the Theory of Thwarting. The central principle here is that if we thwart an important and non-trivial human need so that a person experiences it as a threat to survival, self, and self-actualization needs, and human beings will become aggressive. We will aggress toward that which threatens us (or the person who threatens us). That is, we defend ourselves. With significant and personal threat, we become defensive and access our defensive techniques. We go into a state of self-defense. We don’t want to die, lose precious and valuable assets, be diminished by something or someone.

Is any of that inherently “bad” or “evil?” Who would claim that? The value and preciousness of life itself is a value to be fought for and defended against. So the foundation that comprises “aggression” that can lead to being hurtful to others is in itself a good thing. Even aggression, in itself, is not bad. It can just as equally be a force for good.

But how it is used, when, where, with whom, in what way, etc., these are the factors that determines if the aggression is good or evil. The force, the energy, the perception, the urge, and the drive to aggress against a threatening force is not innately evil. Anger, the emotion behind the aggression, as well as fear —both of these are valuable emotions. To be without fear or anger is to be without the ability to fight for life and the quality of life.

Having said that, the problem with anger and fear (and every other negative emotion) which indicates that we feel threatened with danger or loss or attack in some way is whether the emotion is appropriate or inappropriate, whether it is strong enough or too strong, whether it accords with our morals or if it overwhelms our morals. To feel fear or anger is just the beginning. How we respond to these emotional energies is the next step. How we act out the fear or anger in behaviors—that’s when the moral and ethical considerations arise.

Each of us have it within us the potential to destroy. We can destroy things, relationships, and people. We can turn our destructive potentiality against ourselves in suicide, against others in homicide, and against society in rioting, stealing, blowing buildings up, terrorizing groups of people, etc. We can destroy through gossip, untruths, criticisms, lies, and scores of other activities that undermine people.

So what is the source of human evil if human nature is basically good? It is the misuse of our powers and our freedom. It is not the case that we are by nature bad, evil, corrupt, aggressive, unsocial, etc. It is that we have not adequately learned how to manage our powers effectively in a human and humane way. Adequately learning means that the impulse for being moral beings needs to be educated. As we are born without instincts for knowing how to be human, we are also without instincts about moral values. These we have to learn if we want to be good and choose goodness.

It is the very freedom we have to think, feel, speak, and act in a large variety of ways without any “programmed” instincts that makes us response-able persons, moral persons, and persons who have tremendous potential for both constructiveness and destructiveness. Or we could say that we have creative potential and this potentially can create good just as well as create evil. And to create evil is actually much easier than to create good. We can create hurt and pain and evil by being ignorant, not thinking long-term about consequences, not thinking about others, believing erroneous ideas like we are just animals and the world is a jungle, or believing that others are not fully human, or learning in a culture of violence to value violence. And these are central to what causes “evil” in our lives.