Philosophers and theologians have long debated whether “pure good” and “pure evil” truly exists in the world.
While pure good and pure evil may or may not exist, believing in either has real consequences, according to research published in the November issue of Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin.
Two researchers, Dr. Russell J. Webster and Dr. Donald A. Saucier, conducted five studies that included more than 800 participants in total to examine the belief in pure evil and the belief in pure good.
The first three studies confirmed that the belief in pure evil and the belief in pure good were valid and reliable concepts that could be scientifically tested. The remaining two studies examined how the belief in pure evil and the belief in pure good interacted with political ideology, religiosity and social attitudes.
“Overall, it appears that people who more strongly believe in pure evil take a more aggressive approach to handling intergroup or international problems,” Webster, a visiting assistant professor at North Central College in Naperville, explained to PsyPost.
“First, our research showed that people who more strongly believe in pure evil supported the use of the death penalty, wanted harsher sentences for more a variety of crimes, and more greatly opposed criminal rehabilitation. Such individuals also preferred more aggressive approaches to foreign policy over more peaceful routes.”
“Most telling, I think, is that people who more strongly believed in pure evil see the world as a more dangerous place and strongly feel that preemptive violence is more justifiable (in fact, of all the different political variables we looked at, the only predictor of preemptive aggression was belief in pure evil),” Webster continued. “People who more strongly believed in evil also exhibited more anti-Arab prejudice and anti-Black racism, and also opposed pro-racial programs as well as opposed social programs benefiting disadvantaged groups in the US.”
The definition of “pure evil” used by the researchers consisted of eight core components: Pure evil involves the intentional infliction of harm, pure evil is driven primarily by the wish to inflict harm merely for the pleasure of doing so, the victim of evil is innocent and good, evil represents the antithesis of order and peace, pure evil comes from the “outside,” pure evil is stable and inherent in the person, pure evil is marked by egotism and narcissism, and pure evil is associated with difficulty in maintaining control over emotions like rage.
“Conversely, it appears that people who more strongly believe in pure good overall take a more empathic, peaceful, and nuanced approach to handling intergroup or international problems,” he told PsyPost. “First, we found that people who more strongly believed in pure good opposed the death penalty more and strongly endorse criminal rehabilitation programs. Such individuals also preferred more peaceful routes over more aggressive approaches to handling foreign problems.”
“Most telling, people who more strongly believed in pure good reported feeling greater perspective taking and empathy for others’ plights, see the world as a less competitive place, and strongly supported diplomacy and humanitarian efforts by the US. Such individuals also more greatly supported social programs benefiting those most unfortunate and who cannot help themselves (helping needy children).”
The definition of “pure good” used by the researchers also consisted of eight core components: Pure good is about intentionally helping others, pure good is about selfless help, pure good is about helping anyone — even enemies — in need, pure good is about helping without hurting others, pure good cannot be corrupted, pure good is a stable trait in people, pure good facilitates peace and order, and pure good is rare in the world.
Given that Christianity teaches that God is purely good and will triumph over Satan, the personification of pure evil, the researchers were surprised to find that devout Christian beliefs and practices were only associated with belief in pure good.
“We expected those who are devout Christians to more strongly believe in pure evil; perhaps we would find such a relationship among a more evangelical or fundamentalist sample,” Webster said. “We also reasoned that, perhaps, what is being preached in Christian churches today more aligns with ‘purely good’ traits: compassionate, impartial helping of those less fortunate.”
“However, although as people reported being more devoutly Christian, they more strongly believed in pure good, more devout Christians did not report a greater willingness to support social policies to help disadvantaged groups,” he added. “Thus, their belief in pure good did not appear to translate to greater prosocial attitudes; this is in line with previous research showing that more devout religious folks are willing to help others only if those others share similar (religious or social) values and beliefs. Saroglou calls this type of helping ‘limited prosociality.'”
Though the study’s findings are promising, the researchers warned against over-generalizing the results. The participants were mostly white and young college students.
“We do would not expect the pattern of results we found to change drastically with other samples (non-college, cross-cultural), but have not yet concretely verified this assumption. We are currently analyzing data to help establish the generalizability of the use of these scales beyond a college sample, and it looks promising,” Webster told PsyPost.
