“If I had to say what the primary law of human nature is, it is to deny that we are subject to these forces. We think, I’m not irrational, I’m not aggressive, I don’t feel envy, I’m not a narcissist. It’s always the other side…they’re the ones who are irrational and aggressive. Me? No.”

—Robert Greene (The Daily Laws)

There is a widespread belief that evil acts come from evil people.

People often view the crimes of Nazi Germany, Maoist China, and the Soviet Union through the eyes of the victims.

But to understand evil, it would be wise to view it through the eyes of the perpetrators.

Had you or I been an ordinary German, Chinese or Russian person living under those regimes, we would in all likelihood not have resisted. We would have been supporters. And the less you believe this to be the case, the more likely it is to be true.

The best book to understand the psychology of evil is *Evil: Inside Human Violence and Cruelty* by the renowned psychology professor Roy Baumeister.

This extended essay is an overview of this incredible book, along with some commentary.

The book is about the psychological understanding of evil, not a philosophical or moral treatise on what constitutes evil.

Baumeister writes, “The hardest part of understanding the nature of evil is to first recognize that you or I could, under certain circumstances, commit many of the acts that the world has come to regard as evil.”

The best way to avoid committing such acts is to understand that we are capable of them.

Evil is Intentional

For the purposes of the book, Baumeister defines evil as “actions that intentionally harm other people.”

For example, the book treats loss of self-control as a result of emotional distress as a possible cause of evil, but not psychosis.

This is because the person who is under distress is still aware of what they are doing, while the person with psychosis does not.

Some people here might get hung up on free will or whatever. But for evil to be defined as evil, there has to be room for conscious choice.

Here is an example from the psychology professor Paul Bloom, which illuminates the distinction Baumeister is making:

“Consider a man who thrashes in his sleep and hits his wife in the face, breaking her nose. They both wake up, and he is horrified at what has happened. Compare this to a man who hates his wife and wants to hurt her. One night, he waits for her to fall asleep and then, fully awake, hits her in the face. When she awakes, he pretends to be horrified at what had happened. Common sense tells us that only the second man is blameworthy because only he chose his action. It is impossible to imagine a legal or moral system that doesn’t take this difference between the two men seriously.”

The Myth of Pure Evil