Evil

1. "Evil" is a subjective label, not an objective reality.

Only when we assign something the label ‘evil’, only when we think that something is evil, does it become so.

Rethink "evil." The concept of evil is a subjective human construct, not an inherent quality of a person, object, or action. We often use the label "evil" to dismiss what we don't understand, creating a black-and-white dichotomy that prevents nuanced discussion and empathy. This "othering" dehumanizes individuals, making it easier to judge them without comprehending their complexities.

Personal reflection. Consider your own most regrettable actions—infidelity, theft, lying. Imagine being judged forever by that single act. We see the nuances in our own decisions, but often reduce others to a single heinous label: murderer, rapist, psychopath. This hypocrisy highlights that what seems normal to one person can be utterly reprehensible to another, suggesting that perhaps we are all "evil," or none of us are.

Beyond condemnation. The book advocates for a scientific approach to understanding behavior often labeled "evil," moving beyond philosophical or religious interpretations. By breaking down complex actions into their constituent parts, we can gain insight into why terrible things happen, rather than simply condemning them. This understanding is crucial for preventing future harm and fostering a more informed society.

2. Our brains are wired for both cruelty and compassion.

Instead of thinking of some people as particularly bad, and others as good, let’s rethink this and flip the question: rather than asking if a few specific people are predisposed to being sadistic, we should ask: do we all have a sadistic predisposition?

The "evil" brain? When we consider figures like Hitler, we often imagine a fundamentally different, "evil" brain. However, psychological profiles suggest Hitler, despite his atrocities, functioned adequately and was not clinically "mad." Neuroscientific models propose that "evil" acts like dehumanization and deindividuation involve a network of brain areas, including decreased activity in the ventromedial prefrontal cortex (decision-making) and increased activity in the amygdala (emotion). Yet, even individuals with psychopathic brain patterns, like neuroscientist James Fallon, can lead pro-social lives, demonstrating that brain wiring doesn't dictate destiny.

Everyday sadism. Research reveals that many "normal" people exhibit subclinical sadism, deriving pleasure from harming others. Experiments, such as those involving "bug-crunching" or noise-blasting innocent victims, show that a significant portion of participants enjoy inflicting minor harm. This suggests that sadistic impulses are more common than we might assume. Even "cute aggression"—the urge to squeeze adorable animals or babies—is a dimorphous emotional response, where the brain counteracts overwhelming positive feelings with a pseudo-aggressive display, not actual malice.

Aggression's many forms. Aggression, defined as intentional behavior to harm a living being, manifests in various ways:

• Direct aggression: Yelling, hitting, mocking.
• Indirect aggression: Spreading rumors, damaging possessions.
• Passive aggression: Ignoring, showing up late, withholding.
  These behaviors are often driven by anger, stress, or a desire for attention. While testosterone is often linked to male aggression, research suggests its role is more complex, often increasing in competitive situations rather than being a sole cause of violence. The "Dark Tetrad" traits—psychopathy, narcissism, Machiavellianism, and sadism—represent a cluster of socially aversive tendencies that can make individuals more prone to aggression, yet even these traits can have "good sides," fostering ambition or corporate success.

3. Murder is a common human fantasy, not just a criminal act.

Humans murder because they have been designed to do so.

Homicidal ideation. Murder fantasies are surprisingly common, with a majority of both men and women admitting to having them. Evolutionary psychologists suggest these fantasies are an adaptive strategy, allowing us to mentally rehearse scenarios and consider consequences, potentially preventing real-world actions. While most people realize the devastating repercussions of murder, these fantasies highlight a universal human capacity for violent thought.

The banality of murder. Global homicide rates, though declining since the 1990s, remain significant, with nearly half a million intentional killings annually. Most murders are committed by men against men, often stemming from seemingly mundane situations:

• Altercations: Fights escalating over trivial matters.
• Felony homicides: Killings during other serious crimes like robbery.
• Domestic violence: Murders within intimate relationships or families.
• Accident homicides: Unlawful killings due to reckless acts like drunk driving.
  These categories reveal that murder often arises from impulsive responses to frustration or as a byproduct of other criminal acts, rather than solely from premeditated malice. Most individuals who commit murder never reoffend, challenging the simplistic "murderer" label.

Beyond the "monster." The case of serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer, who dismembered and cannibalized victims due to extreme loneliness, illustrates the complex motivations behind horrific acts. While society often demonizes such individuals, understanding their underlying human needs—even if distorted—is crucial. The "toxic masculinity" argument suggests societal pressures on men to take risks and be aggressive contribute to higher male homicide rates, rather than purely biological predispositions. Ultimately, the difference between a fantasizer and a perpetrator often lies in the capacity for inhibition and a functioning prefrontal cortex, not an inherent "evil" nature.

4. First impressions and "creepiness" often mislead us.

Creepiness, it turns out, is probably our reaction to not knowing whether or not we should be scared of someone.

The creepiness detector. Our perception of "creepiness" is an innate threat detector, signaling unpredictability and potential danger. Studies show that men are more often perceived as creepy, and specific behaviors or physical traits—like standing too close, peculiar smiles, greasy hair, or odd laughter—trigger this response. Professions like clown or taxidermist are also deemed creepy. Crucially, most people believe creepy individuals are unaware of their creepiness and cannot change, leading to unfair social ostracization.

Judging a book by its cover. We make instantaneous judgments about trustworthiness based on facial appearance, often within milliseconds. However, these judgments are highly inaccurate. A study comparing Nobel Peace Prize winners to "America's Most Wanted" criminals found participants performed only slightly better than chance at identifying untrustworthy faces. The "halo effect" leads us to perceive attractive people as more trustworthy, while the "devil effect" causes us to view undesirable-looking individuals as inherently bad, even influencing legal outcomes like harsher sentences.

Perceptual dehumanization. Deviations from the "average" or "normal" face, whether due to disfigurement, acne, or even excessive symmetry, can trigger our "creepiness detector." This can lead to "perceptual dehumanization," where we stop seeing a person as a whole human and instead focus on their abnormal features. This cognitive shift makes it easier to inflict harm or discriminate. Similarly, mental illness, due to its perceived unpredictability, often leads to social and physical distancing, despite evidence that most mentally ill individuals are not violent, especially when substance abuse is not a factor.

5. Technology amplifies our worst (and best) human tendencies.

AI can compound, magnify and accelerate human biases.

The double-edged sword of tech. Technology, while offering immense benefits, also creates new avenues for harm. From early commercial planes used by "air pirates" to modern cybercrime, new tech is quickly exploited. Airport security, often a form of "security theatre," illustrates how fear can lead to ineffective and even harmful responses, like increased driving deaths due to travel inconvenience. The core issue isn't the technology itself, but how humans choose to wield it.

Artificial "evil"? The case of Microsoft's chatbot, Tay, which quickly learned to tweet racist and misogynistic comments from online interactions, highlights how artificial intelligence (AI) reflects human biases. While some saw Tay as a victim, others viewed her as a monstrous threat, foreshadowing a dystopian future. This "symbiotic agency" projects human qualities onto AI, blurring lines of responsibility. While AI can learn and make decisions, the question of whether it can be "evil" remains contentious; the greater risk, as Stephen Hawking and Elon Musk warned, lies in AI's competence to achieve goals misaligned with human interests.

Cybercrime and the "Dark Figure." Cybercrime, a rapidly growing and often overlooked field, presents new challenges to traditional criminology. It's not just "old wine in new bottles"; hacking, website defacement, and bot-driven trolling are novel offenses. The "Routine Activity Theory" (RAT) helps explain cybercrime:

• Motivated offenders: Abundant online.
• Suitable targets: Billions, easily accessible.
• Absence of guardians: Minimal online authority.
  Cybercrime's global, anonymous nature allows for greater dehumanization and faster, more widespread damage, costing trillions annually. The WannaCry ransomware attack, which crippled healthcare systems, demonstrates the devastating real-world impact. Online anonymity also fuels trolling, as negative moods and social contagion make individuals more likely to conform to aggressive group norms. To combat this, we must re-humanize online interactions and be conscious digital citizens.

6. Sexual "deviance" is far more common and nuanced than we think.

How anomalous are paraphilic interests?

Beyond "normal" sex. The definition of "normophilic" sex—genital stimulation with "phenotypically normal, physically mature, consenting human partners"—is culturally dependent and historically fluid. Many sexual interests deemed "deviant" are surprisingly common. Studies show high prevalence for:

• Voyeurism: Observing unsuspecting individuals (52% men, 26% women).
• Fetishism: Arousal by inanimate objects like leather or shoes (28% men, 11% women).
• Sadomasochism (S&M): Inflicting or receiving harm/humiliation (19% men, 10% women for sadism; 15% men, 17% women for masochism).
  BDSM, in particular, is often driven by a desire for disinhibition, allowing individuals to break social norms and indulge in pleasure. These fantasies, like murder fantasies, often remain private and are rarely acted upon in harmful ways.

The complexity of fantasies. The case of the "Cannibal Cop," Gilberto Valle, who was acquitted for extreme sexual fantasies never acted upon, highlights the legal and ethical challenge of criminalizing thought. Rape fantasies, though disturbing, are common among women (62% in one study), often serving as "eroticized portrayals" of power dynamics rather than realistic desires for actual assault. These fantasies can be confusing, ranging from "completely erotic" scenarios of forced surrender to "aversive" trauma-like experiences. The focus should be on the effect of a fantasy, not just its content, as many "unusual" fantasies do not lead to harm.

Pornography and its impact. Pornography consumption is a mass phenomenon, with many viewing it monthly. While some research links porn, especially violent porn, to increased verbal sexual aggression, the relationship is complex and often correlational rather than causal. Frequent porn use can alter brain reward systems, potentially leading to a need for more extreme content. However, porn also serves educational and exploratory purposes, with some studies suggesting it can improve sexual knowledge. The ethical debate around porn should move beyond shame to discuss its realities, including the distinction between consensual adult content and illegal material.

Beyond the binary. The criminalization of LGBTQIPA+ relationships in many countries, sometimes punishable by death, reflects deep-seated societal intolerance. Scientific evidence increasingly points to homosexuality being genetic, not a choice, challenging discriminatory beliefs. Internalized homophobia, where individuals struggle to accept their own sexuality, is linked to poorer mental health. The author's personal disclosure of bisexuality highlights the "bi-erasure" and invisibility faced by those who don't fit neatly into gay or straight categories. Transparency and the "contact hypothesis"—that positive interactions with minority groups reduce prejudice—are crucial for fostering acceptance and dismantling harmful stereotypes.

7. Understanding, not condemning, is key to preventing child sexual abuse.

People with paedophilia should better be dead, even if they never had committed criminal acts.

The stigma of paedophilia. Paedophilia, defined as a sexual interest in prepubescent children, is one of the most stigmatized conditions, with a significant portion of the population wishing death upon those with the paraphilia, even if they have never offended. This extreme dehumanization hinders effective prevention and treatment. It's crucial to distinguish between the sexual attraction (paedophilia, hebephilia) and the act of child sexual abuse.

Prevalence and misconceptions. Paedohebephilic interests are more common than widely believed, estimated at 2-3% of adult men, meaning many individuals silently struggle with these urges. Key misconceptions include:

• Not all child sex offenders are paedophiles, and not all paedophiles are offenders. Many offenders are "opportunistic," attracted to adults but exploiting vulnerable children. Two-thirds of men with paedohebephilic urges never act on them.
• Offenders are typically not strangers. Most child sexual abuse is perpetrated by individuals known to the victim, such as relatives or family friends.
• Most perpetrators were not abused themselves. While childhood abuse can be a risk factor, it's not a universal cause.
• Child pornography consumption doesn't always lead to offline offending. Victim empathy can act as a barrier.

Biological roots and harm reduction. Research suggests paedohebephilia has biological roots, linked to factors like shorter height, left-handedness, lower IQ, and distinct brain wiring, implying it's an innate sexual orientation rather than a choice. This understanding shifts the focus from blame to managing urges. Harm reduction strategies include:

• Anonymous helplines and therapy: Providing support to manage desires and challenge harmful cognitive distortions (e.g., "sex with children is harmless").
• Chemical castration: Temporarily reducing sex drive, though controversial and not a "cure."
• "Fake children" substitutes: Such as child sex dolls or CGI porn, which are ethically complex but could potentially reduce harm, though more research is needed.
  The goal is to help individuals "live responsibly with their sexual desires" and prevent them from becoming perpetrators, emphasizing that paedohebephiles are complex human beings, not simply monsters.

8. Money and corporate systems can blind us to profound harm.

People seek to justify these self-serving behaviors so as to protect their own interests.

The meat paradox. Our relationship with money often creates a buffer between our actions and their ethical implications. The "meat paradox" exemplifies this: we condemn animal torture but consume meat, creating cognitive dissonance. To resolve this, we justify our behavior by:

• Normalizing it: Tying meat-eating to social customs.
• Dehumanizing the source: Calling it "veal" instead of "tortured baby cow," sanitizing meat packaging.
  This process allows us to maintain a self-image as moral individuals while engaging in practices that conflict with our values.

Taboo trade-offs. Certain "sacred" values, like human life, freedom, or justice, are considered inappropriate to exchange for "secular" values like money. Yet, society implicitly places monetary values on these things, such as calculating compensation for injury or death. The Ford Pinto case, where Ford calculated that the cost of fixing a deadly design flaw outweighed the potential legal payouts for deaths, starkly illustrates how corporations can prioritize profit over human lives. This "instrumental evil" reduces complex human suffering to mere numbers on a spreadsheet.

Slavery as business. Modern slavery, affecting over 21 million people globally, is a stark example of extreme exploitation driven by profit. With an average slave price of $90, it's more profitable than ever. Slaveholders, often seeing themselves as "businessmen," justify their actions by dehumanizing slaves, believing they are maintaining order or providing basic necessities. This "myth of pure evil" allows perpetrators to distance themselves from the moral implications of their actions. Similarly, "ethical blindness" in corporate settings can lead individuals to make harmful decisions without recognizing their ethical dimension, often due to strong identification with the company's goals or a culture that prioritizes profit above all else.

9. Social pressures and authority can make "good" people complicit in atrocities.

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do nothing.

The banality of evil. The Holocaust, and figures like Adolf Eichmann who claimed to be "just following orders," profoundly challenged our understanding of human complicity. Milgram's obedience experiments demonstrated that "ordinary citizens could inflict harm on another person simply because he was ordered to," showing how easily individuals can outsource their morality to authority figures. Modern replications confirm that obedience can reduce one's perceived responsibility for harmful outcomes. This highlights the danger of mindlessly taking small steps, dehumanizing others, deindividuation, diffusion of responsibility, blind obedience, uncritical conformity, and passive tolerance.

Rape culture and complicity. Everyday sexism and "rape myths" contribute to a pervasive culture that normalizes sexual harassment and assault. Beliefs such as "the victim asked for it" or "it wasn't really rape" excuse perpetrators and blame victims, often rooted in a "just-world hypothesis" that assumes people get what they deserve. Studies have shown that quotes from "lads' magazines" promoting sexist views were sometimes perceived as more degrading than those from convicted rapists, indicating how mainstream media can normalize harmful attitudes. This widespread endorsement of rape myths creates an illusion of control, making society less likely to address the true causes of sexual violence.

The bystander effect and radicalization. The "bystander effect," famously linked to the Kitty Genovese murder, explains why individuals often fail to intervene in emergencies. Factors like diffusion of responsibility, fear of judgment, and pluralistic ignorance lead people to assume others will act, or that no action is needed. This inaction can be as detrimental as direct harm. Similarly, radicalization into terrorism is not typically driven by psychopathy or mental illness, but by an incremental shift in beliefs and actions, often fueled by social contagion, a desire for belonging, or perceived injustices. Terrorist organizations actively provide justifications for extreme violence, turning "problems of conscience" into perceived noble sacrifices.

10. We are all capable of both great harm and great heroism.

Evil acts are not necessarily the deeds of evil men, but may be attributable to the operation of powerful social forces.

Beyond the "evil" label. The pervasive nature of human flaws and the powerful influence of social forces suggest that "evil" is not an exclusive trait of a few "bad apples," but a potential within us all. This understanding, however, does not excuse harmful behavior. Instead, it places a greater responsibility on us to recognize and resist these influences. By breaking down atrocities into their individual components—examining brains, dispositions, and social systems—we can gain crucial insights into prevention and intervention.

The bright side of our dark side. Many traits that can lead to harm also underpin positive human endeavors. For instance, the rule-breaking mindset associated with dishonesty can also foster creativity, leading to innovation and progress. Deviance from the norm, while sometimes leading to villainy, can also be the hallmark of heroism—like a soldier disobeying an unlawful order or an individual standing up to bullies. These acts of "banal heroism" demonstrate that the capacity for extraordinary good, much like the capacity for harm, is ordinary and accessible to everyone.

Fostering heroic imagination. To counteract the "Lucifer effect"—how good people turn evil—we must cultivate "heroic imagination." This involves:

• Sharing stories of normal heroes: Inspiring others to see heroism as achievable.
• Cultivating readiness: Mentally preparing for opportunities to act heroically.
• Encouraging collective action: Recognizing that heroes can recruit others to amplify their impact.
  By understanding the complex interplay of individual psychology and social dynamics, we can empower ourselves and our communities to fight against harm, challenge our own biases, and actively choose compassion and intervention over apathy and complicity. The ultimate call is to stop labeling people or behaviors as "evil" and instead engage in thoughtful, empathetic inquiry to build a more just and humane world.

Last updated: February 5, 2026