amatyultare (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
amatyultare) wrote2019-01-03 06:01 pm
amatyultare) wrote2019-01-03 06:01 pm
Entry tags:
"evil doesn't pay"
This is a post from early 2017. While not explicitly political, I'm pretty sure I was thinking about the political climate when I wrote it.
Tonight I was thinking about two lessons I’ve learned about evil- or wrong-doing. Specifically, I learned them from Why Does He Do That? Inside the Minds of Angry and Controlling Men by Lundy Bancroft (it’s a great book, read it if you haven’t already.
Lesson #1: Wrong-doing doesn’t automatically hurt the person doing it.
We have this weird cultural myth that “evil sows the seeds of its own destruction” which, in the very long term has some truth in it I guess? If you keep hurting people, they will do their best to escape or stop you. But the idea that doing wrong in and of itself makes you sad, makes your life worse, etc. is just false.
(Bancroft touches on this when contrasting abuse and addiction. Addicts go into downward spirals; it’s one of the defining attributes of addiction, in fact. Abusers, on the other hand, can go for decades abusing their partners without damaging their careers, friendships, physical health, or psychological wellbeing.*)
Lesson #2: People generally do bad things because it gets them things they want.
Okay, this sounds really obvious? But one of the most mind-blowing sections of Why Does He Do That? is when Bancroft carefully explains that abusers abuse because they get a lot of benefits out of being abusive.
(In particular, abusers get the privilege of never, ever having to compromise about the issues they care about. Say one partner wants to live frugally while the other wants to go on expensive trips every year. Or one believes in corporeal punishment for their children and the other doesn’t. In an abusive relationship, the abuser will ALWAYS get their way.)
The Point Is…
It’s uncomfortable to consider that doing bad things does, in a limited sense, work. Evil is not, in the short term, actually doomed to fail.
In practical terms, I think this leads to a counter-productive, even dangerous cultural construct on how to handle being wronged. We want to find closure through consensus with the wrong-doer. We need the person who wronged us to agree that they did wrong and apologize. We want to see concrete proof that “evil doesn’t pay”.
But how likely is that, really? The wrong-doer got concrete benefits from what they did. While they hurt us, they likely didn’t do themselves any harm. They have no incentive to agree with us, and every reason to defend their behavior. The idea that we must pursue consensus&rapprochement leaves us trapped when the person who hurt us is not interested in playing their part.
Instead:
On a PERSONAL level, we need to find a way to say “What you did was wrong” and then…walk away. Our ethical judgement cannot be dependent on the agreement of those who have wronged us.
On a SOCIETAL level, we need to understand that “appealing to their better nature” is not a winning strategy. Reinforcing social and ethical norms is important, yes. But that must come in tandem with concrete penalties that impose negative consequences and eliminate the benefits of wrongdoing.
*here we’re talking about “natural” emotional/psychological/social consequences, leaving aside than the possibility of being punished by the judicial system.
Tonight I was thinking about two lessons I’ve learned about evil- or wrong-doing. Specifically, I learned them from Why Does He Do That? Inside the Minds of Angry and Controlling Men by Lundy Bancroft (it’s a great book, read it if you haven’t already.
Lesson #1: Wrong-doing doesn’t automatically hurt the person doing it.
We have this weird cultural myth that “evil sows the seeds of its own destruction” which, in the very long term has some truth in it I guess? If you keep hurting people, they will do their best to escape or stop you. But the idea that doing wrong in and of itself makes you sad, makes your life worse, etc. is just false.
(Bancroft touches on this when contrasting abuse and addiction. Addicts go into downward spirals; it’s one of the defining attributes of addiction, in fact. Abusers, on the other hand, can go for decades abusing their partners without damaging their careers, friendships, physical health, or psychological wellbeing.*)
Lesson #2: People generally do bad things because it gets them things they want.
Okay, this sounds really obvious? But one of the most mind-blowing sections of Why Does He Do That? is when Bancroft carefully explains that abusers abuse because they get a lot of benefits out of being abusive.
(In particular, abusers get the privilege of never, ever having to compromise about the issues they care about. Say one partner wants to live frugally while the other wants to go on expensive trips every year. Or one believes in corporeal punishment for their children and the other doesn’t. In an abusive relationship, the abuser will ALWAYS get their way.)
The Point Is…
It’s uncomfortable to consider that doing bad things does, in a limited sense, work. Evil is not, in the short term, actually doomed to fail.
In practical terms, I think this leads to a counter-productive, even dangerous cultural construct on how to handle being wronged. We want to find closure through consensus with the wrong-doer. We need the person who wronged us to agree that they did wrong and apologize. We want to see concrete proof that “evil doesn’t pay”.
But how likely is that, really? The wrong-doer got concrete benefits from what they did. While they hurt us, they likely didn’t do themselves any harm. They have no incentive to agree with us, and every reason to defend their behavior. The idea that we must pursue consensus&rapprochement leaves us trapped when the person who hurt us is not interested in playing their part.
Instead:
On a PERSONAL level, we need to find a way to say “What you did was wrong” and then…walk away. Our ethical judgement cannot be dependent on the agreement of those who have wronged us.
On a SOCIETAL level, we need to understand that “appealing to their better nature” is not a winning strategy. Reinforcing social and ethical norms is important, yes. But that must come in tandem with concrete penalties that impose negative consequences and eliminate the benefits of wrongdoing.
*here we’re talking about “natural” emotional/psychological/social consequences, leaving aside than the possibility of being punished by the judicial system.