More About Good People, Evil Society…

How did we end up in a world where greed is good, alternative facts and fake news compete with reality, and corruption seems to be everywhere?

Although we might be able to identify a couple of genuine “bad guys,” our experience with our friends, family and neighbors suggests that the “bad guys” are in the minority.  Yet, why do they seem to have so much influence?

Here we begin to answer the question. There is no simple answer, and indeed, simplistic thinking is part of what got us here.

In Part I, we ask what makes a good society. We first examine the problem of how to measure what is “good.”  We next look at the effects of extreme individualism and the role of religion, including its historical evolution.

Part II is based on the findings of behavioral science. We are genetically hard-wired for both cooperation and competition, and each of these has evolutionary benefits and disadvantages. Newer (late 20th century) research gives us insights into the dysfunctions created by hierarchical power structures and privilege, how good people can go bad (the Milgram electroshock experiments), and the emerging study of administrative evil.

Part III covers the work of Dr. Andrew Lobaszewsky, a Polish psychiatrist who conducted his studies during the Nazi occupation (and subsequent Soviet domination) of Poland. Dr. Lobaszewsky was particularly interested in the behavioral changes among “regular” people when they are subjected to a pathological system. He advocated for a scientific approach to the study of evil, which he called ponerology.  

Part IV connects Lobaszewsky’s theory of ponerology to what is happening in our world today: Our work life sucks (we are overworked, underpaid, inferiorized, precariatized, disempowered, or our work is meaningless); obscene inequality is destroying any sense of community; fascism is increasingly threatening our democracy; mass and social media challenge the basis of our reality, devolving into moral inversion and a war of all against all.

Part V asks what our likely future will be. Here we revisit religious teachings (specifically eschatological ones) and advocate for the incorporation of both faith and research-based ways of understanding our situation. Practical suggestions are also offered, if we can find the will to do them.