Transcript Topic Four - The (Davis) Basic Model of Evil

Terrorism & Political Violence
A Basic Model of the Road to Evil
© William Eric Davis – All Rights Reserved
“The Road Model” of Evil
Each phase of becoming evil represents a unique
intersection where, until the last stop, a person can
turn back from evil.
However, once a person commits an act of terrorism,
there is practically no return because the
perpetrator will be held responsible for his or her
actions (if it is not a suicide bombing) with a lengthy
jail sentence or worse.
The point is that once a person has arrived at the final
destination, it is considerably difficult, if not
impossible, to return to a normal life of non-violence
even if the person wanted to.
2
Intersections on the “Road to Evil”
1. Strong Group Identification (Collectivism)
2. Perceive others as outsiders
3. Perceive self as “right”
4. Perceive self as righteous
5. Belief self oppressed by outsiders
6. Rationalize violence by in-group
7. Abandon Fatalism
8. Abandon or Reject Debate & Deliberation
9. Abandon or Reject Democratic Methodology
10. Encourage Violence against out-groups
11. The Moral Imperative
3
The First Intersection
Strong Group Identification
This refers to a “sense of belonging” to which almost
all humans desire. Socializing with others in similar
circumstances is an important first step to
developing one’s own identification.
There is, accordingly, a natural tendency to develop
group identification, but some develop a stronger
sense of it than others.
4
The Second Intersection
Perceiving Non-Identifiers as Outsiders
Essentially, people that are NOT in the same condition
or do not have the same racial or ethnic identity, or
who hold a different (competing) value will be
perceived as different and therefore as outsiders.
What gets reinforced during a socializing process is
the perception that one is different, not from the
people one is socializing with, but from those with
whom one is NOT associating or in the same
condition.
This is an individual level and a collective level
phenomenon and each reinforces the other. That is
to say, individuals seek out their own kind and so
5
do groups.
The Third Intersection
Developing a Sense of Being “Right”
The third intersection begins the process of
developing a sense of being correct in one’s
assumptions and beliefs.
At this point, however, one sees the self as
being correct, that is, “right” on the issues,
correct about one’s victim status (though
still fatalistic about it), correct for holding
the notion that oneself is not responsible for
one’s victim status.
Concerns with morality begin to come under
inspection.
6
The Fourth Intersection
Perceiving Self as “Righteous”
The lines between self-interest, group-interest, and
morality become blurred. If one perceives self as
right, then it is but a short distance to perceive the
self as righteous and to see outsiders as “evil.”
Outsiders have to be evil because the self and one’s
primary peer group are right and righteous and
outsiders differ from them. So, people who think
differently must be non-righteous or evil.
US and THEM thinking evolves into US “versus”
THEM. There can be no partly righteous or partly
evil person by this point. Only absolutes seem
coherent.
7
The Fifth Intersection:
Developing a Sense of Being Oppressed
The development of a belief that one is a victim of
outsiders. One adopts a sense of being oppressed
by those who think differently, have different
interests, and who have power.
Thus, the meaning of “innocent” begins to be
redefined -- The only “true” innocents are those like
oneself in the same condition as oneself with the
same values, but are suffering at the hands of
outside establishment forces.
Indeed, the redefinition of “morality” has begun by
this point. Some scholars call this “moral
disengagement.”
8
The Sixth Intersection:
Justify/Rationalize acts of oppression against others
One begins to justify violence by members of
one’s own group against enemies as
necessary for the in-group’s righteous
purpose.
It will not just be for the physical survival of
the group, but intellectual/ideological
survival as well.
One is not willing to personally commit
violence (yet), but will condone it when
committed by members of one’s own group
or by other’s acting against the enemy.
9
The Seventh Intersection:
Abandon Fatalism / Develop Ambition for Power
One has developed a desire for power along with a
sense of mission, because righteousness demands
it.
One is still open to working within the system, even if
democratic, as long as one is assured of getting
what he or she wants in the end. But, there will be
some resistance to using democratic methods
because they do not guarantee the righteous
preferred position is going to be the result.
If the “system” is held culpable for oppression or is
seen as working against righteousness (as it has by
now been defined -- by the time a person gets to
this point), he or she will begin to reject established10
processes and the institutions that maintain them.
The Eighth Intersection:
Abandoning or Rejecting Fair Debate
The person loosens his or her support for fair debate,
if it ever existed in the first place.
One begins to engage in selective exposure to facts
and information -- where information is tuned out if
it contradicts one’s tenaciously held beliefs or
requires one to reconsider them (Cognitive
Dissonance).
Any information that is contrary to the belief system
will be seen a ruse by clever enemies to manipulate
them.
As far as the person is concerned, any discussion by
the enemy is an attempt to continue oppression and
exploitation of the victimized group.
11
The Ninth Intersection:
Rejecting Democratic Methods
By the time one believes that he and his primary peer
group is righteous, where compromise would
represent abandoning morality, any system of
processes that could allow just any outcome to
occur must be attacked and destroyed.
A system or process that provides the possibility that
a non-righteous condition results is totally
unacceptable and the person believes that it
contributes to the moral decay of the society.
Anyone who benefits from the establishment is a
legitimate target for violence, because the
establishment is responsible for the conditions of
victimization and/or because the establishment has
failed to prevent it. Revolutionary ideologies
become attractive.
12
The Tenth Intersection:
Encourage or condone acts of violence against the enemy
One has fully embraced the notion that the
righteous “ends justify any means” -- and
has gone beyond mere rationalization of
violence.
One perceives present and future violence
against outsiders as necessary for a greater
moral good, even if one is not (yet)
personally willing to engage in a violent
attack.
By this time, however, one condones violence against
“enemy” agents and civilians.
13
The Eleventh Intersection:
The Moral Imperative
The goal of a person reaching the eleventh
intersection is to personally help bring about the
end of what is considered evil through direct action.
At this stage, the idea takes root that “if I
personally don’t do something, the righteous
objective won’t get done, and because it is so
righteous, it is imperative that it get done.”
This final intersection on the road to evil represents
the implementation of evil in the name of
righteousness. The person becomes an evil “doer.”
[More than just a passive or active supporter, but
an actual killer of non-culpable civilians].
14
The Idea Put Another Way
“Indeed the safest road to hell is the gradual
one—the gentle slope, soft underfoot,
without sudden turnings, without
milestones, without signposts.”
- C. S. Lewis The Screwtape Letters (no. 12)
Hegel on Historical Evolution from Tribalism
1. Oriental despotism -- in which the only person that
was free was the despot. Everyone else was his
slave.
2. Greek-like city-states, each called a polis in which
the city-states were free, but not everyone within it
was free. The period basically allowed some to be
free while others were slaves. It represented the
birth of democracy, but not its maturity.
3. Liberal Democracy -- The third period is defined by
Protestant Europe as liberal democracy in which all
are free (full maturity of democracy).
16
So where are we now?
We have seen the expansion of the third period, the
expansion of the values of the West, all over the
planet.
But, there are forces that are looking to turn back
the clock and move civilization back to an earlier
period -- one wracked by considerably more
poverty and violence than the third libertarian
period.
Such groups seek to extinguish liberty and impose
their views of a moral order (“virtue”) or an
economic egalitarian ideology.
Democracy will not allow much success in this
regard.
17
How Democracies Perish
The 1st thing that radical collectivists do
when they shoot their way into power in a
democracy is to end democratic processes.
All terrorists desire to create a static society,
whether they are religious terrorists or
secular (ideological) terrorists. Change is
an imperative but becomes unacceptable
once they have obtained power.
Once ideological autocrats gain power, systems that
allow change become unacceptable and perceived
as the tools of counter-revolutionary evil.
In the end, evil will be redefined as righteousness,
while what is conventionally considered good has
been redefined as evil.
18
Three versions of terror motivation
1. The perpetrator of evil is seeking
psychological catharsis regardless of its effect
on the target or larger society.
2. The evil act represents an attempt to force
conformity to an idealized lifestyle.
3. The perpetrator believes he or she will be
rewarded in the next life for fighting for a
righteous cause in this life.
One might be motivated by more than one of
these motivations.
19