Understanding What Drives Harmful Actions
Understanding what drives people to commit harmful or evil acts is a nuanced and multifaceted discussion. Sometimes, individuals who are generally considered good can make costly mistakes without any malicious intent. Conversely, those who are highly educated and well-mannered may engage in horrendous acts due to specific circumstances or psychological factors.
Let me explain the difference between Good, Bad and Evil:
“Good people” are those who consistently try to do the right thing. They act with integrity, take responsibility for their actions, and generally care about others. They aren’t perfect, but they learn from their mistakes and aim to make things better for those around them. Their actions are guided by a clear sense of right and wrong, and they don’t shy away from tough choices when it matters.
“Bad people” hold twisted social values and norms. Their bad deeds are transactional. “I steal your wallet, so I will have your money.” They get something in return for their action. And they don’t feel bad about it after the fact.
“Evil people” commit bad deeds with different motivations. They derive pleasure from causing harm and often seek to inflict suffering for its own sake. This form of malevolence goes beyond mere transactions; it’s rooted in a deep-seated need to exert power and control over others. I see these individuals as possessing a profound disconnection from typical human empathy and moral reasoning. They may have underlying psychological disorders, but their actions reflect a more pervasive and intrinsic corruption of character. Understanding these motivations is crucial for developing effective interventions and strategies to protect society from their harmful behaviors.
Evil, perhaps, is rare, but it affects more loudly than any act of kindness or even bad deeds. We fear evil because it can cross any line, and it is also hard for the “normal mind” to understand. That is why we put so much weight on the “less likely event” and sometimes forget to “train the 90%”. (The 90% rule emphasizes focusing on the most common scenarios, which account for the majority of occurrences. The remaining 10% should address the more extreme and rare cases.)
Bad People Or Bad Deeds?
A crucial distinction exists between bad people and bad deeds. Individuals categorized as “bad people” typically hold distorted social values and norms, often committing harmful actions for personal gain without experiencing remorse. For instance, a thief might steal a wallet to obtain money and feel no guilt afterward, viewing the act as a transactional gain.
At the far end of the spectrum are those who derive pleasure from inflicting harm on others, which we might term “pure evil.” These individuals are, fortunately rare. Most people, however, fall into categories of otherwise regular individuals making poor decisions or those with a distorted sense of reality who commit harmful acts without being inherently monstrous. More common are the small, cumulative acts of violence—emotional or physical—that can manifest over time. Examples include bullying, abusive relationships, or theft driven by frustration and desperation.
The case study of the woman on the Lower East Side on June 26th, who was attacked by two thugs is an example of pure evil. They didn’t ask for her belongings, they wanted to harm her and left seconds after they began a vicious, unprovoked attack.
Many times, people commit harmful acts without recognizing them as bad due to their internalized value systems, which excuse or normalize such behavior. This phenomenon can be observed in actions like theft or dishonesty. While these behaviors are unacceptable, they can be understood within the context of the individual’s value system. For instance, terrorists may perceive their actions as “good” because their perspective is fundamentally distorted.
Evil, while rare, has a disproportionately significant impact. It often overshadows acts of kindness or minor misdeeds because it crosses fundamental moral lines and is challenging for the “normal mind” to comprehend. This fear of the extreme can sometimes divert our attention from addressing the more common, everyday harmful behaviors that also require our focus and intervention.
This raises the question: What should be the consequence for someone who is generally virtuous but has crossed a line? Once a boundary has been breached, there is a higher probability of crossing it again, of encountering that line once more. As we delve into the intricacies of human behavior, we encounter a spectrum ranging from acts of kindness and compassion to instances of cruelty and, in the most extreme cases, evil. While our ideal society is free from violence, it is an impossible goal to achieve.
A legal argument could be: “Once a boundary has been breached, there’s a higher probability of crossing it again.” This means that the person is more likely to commit bad deeds again. That doesn’t consider the fact that people can learn from their mistakes and better themselves.
We also need to differentiate between legality and morality. Legality is about what the law permits, while morality is about what society or individuals deem right or wrong. Sometimes, legal actions can be immoral, and moral actions can be illegal.
From a legal perspective, the question of whether good-intent deeds with bad outcomes are punishable depends largely on the specifics of the situation and the applicable laws. Generally, the law tends to focus on intent, negligence, and the foreseeability of harm. While good intentions are a mitigating factor in many legal systems, they do not automatically absolve individuals from liability if their actions cause harm. The key factors include intent, negligence, foreseeability, and the specific legal framework governing the situation.
Sometimes, the results of good and ignorance are similar to those of evil. “The road to hell is paved with good intentions,” so what defines us as Good, Bad, or Evil? If you ask me, it’s the intent. Legal systems are designed to maintain social order and may punish actions with bad outcomes to deter future harm, regardless of intent.
From a moral standpoint, a good example would be a person who donates food to a homeless shelter with the good intention of helping those in need. If the food inadvertently causes food poisoning, the donor’s good intentions do not negate the harm caused. Morally, the donor might be seen as responsible if they failed to ensure the food was safe. However, rather than punishment, the focus might be on understanding the mistake, making amends, and learning to take better precautions in the future.
While intentions are important, they do not fully absolve one of the consequences. Moral responsibility involves a nuanced assessment of intent, foreseeability, and the actions taken to prevent harm. I believe Jordan Neely and Daniel Penny as a case study, is a perfect example of this issue.
In the complex interplay between good, bad, and evil, understanding human behavior is crucial for navigating these moral landscapes. By distinguishing intent from consequence and recognizing the difference between legality and morality, we can better address harmful actions. Focusing on both everyday decisions and extreme cases, we can develop more effective ways to reduce harm and promote responsible behavior. In the end, it’s about learning from our mistakes and striving to be better.
Do something amazing,
Tsahi Shemesh
Founder & CEO
Krav Maga Experts