Violence: Beyond Good and Evil

My alma mater, SMA 34 Jakarta, got a lot of publicity lately. Not because of the intellectual achievement of its students, but due to the case of bullying of junior students by other students. I feel sorry for that, not that I have sentimental attachment to my school whatsoever, but more to the fact that this increasingly aggressive society of ours has seemingly corrupted the mind of the young.

It makes me think whether evil actually lure behind human’s mind causing their violent conduct. Or is it a well calculated step taken for a specific purpose.

My friend the economist from café salemba has a theory about this. (As usual, economist can always come up with some sort of rational explanation about humans’ behaviour. What you need is the imagination to ask the right kind of question). Asked about the reason behind mass lynching for petty theft for instance, he postulated that this is because it’s the most economic way in finding justice. When the law process is perceived as costly (time consuming or uncertain) people tend to rely on alternative way to get what they value as justice. Say the petty theft is caught and brought to police for further process. People have no incentive in terms of certainty that the petty theft will get a well deserved punishment. So why don’t they take the law into their own hands and presto, instant result.

You can have it the other way around too: there’s no disincentive for people who take the law into their own hands. We rarely seen people get punished because of their involvement in mass lynching. Maybe my friend is right, because I feel the law enforcers see it’s easier to let the mass do their own justice. They might have limited resources to take care of insignificant crimes.

Now that’s an example of violence as a well calculated measure: the means to reach some ends. But what is perceived as a well deserved punishment? Is it worth to kill a man because he steals a hen or a cloth? Well, my friend the economist might answer that it’s not the value of stolen goods but the value of security lost that conjures the act. The bottom line: it’s about the incentive to do or not to do certain action. In economics term what all homo economicus doing is merely maximizing his / her utility, in spite of limited resources.

Other friend of mine who’s trained as psychologist, explained to me that mass violence happens because of its promiscuity nature. I mean, since everybody openly does it, those who are not involved initially, would think that it’s okay to do it. The absence of social restriction will unleash the beast inside the man, and make them a wolf against their own.

Again, that only explains the circumstances in which act of violence can happen at all. But what about this: I asked someone who in the past involved in this kind of thing, beating a petty theft—not to the death luckily—why did he do that? Didn’t you feel sorry for the guy? Do you have any remorse at all? It’s a combination of things, he said. I had nothing personal against him per se. My car’s stereo was stolen in the past, it could be his friend. I had a really bad day at that time. I was carried away by the situation. He deserved it. I can feel he’s looking for a justification, which was none. Basically he just feels like it.

For sure the economist can say he’s still maximizing his utility, albeit in a peculiar kind of way. But what utility he’s maximizing?

This leads me to a conclusion that violence is actually inherent in us. Basically, if unchecked, we, humans, like to see the others suffer. It can be a manifestation of other urges, for the use of violence often is a source of pride and a defense of honor, especially among males who often believe violence defines manhood. But in reality, everything is blurred and the act of violence itself has become the purpose.

We despise violence not because it’s against our philosophy of love, but because uncontrolled violence is unproductive for the society as a whole. That’s why humans created law, morality code & norms so limited violence can be justified if used to achieve some common objectives. It’s useless to think we can eliminate violence completely.

The book A Clockwork Orange tells a vile adventure of a young delinquent named Alex and his friends. At the end he’s apprehended by the authority and subjected to an experiment which makes him nauseated at any impulse towards violence.

Can the world be a better place when everyone is incapacitated from their violent urge? Well, I believe at the end it’s all up to us to choose between good and evil, and even to define what actually is good and evil. It seems that world in which evil can be freely chosen might still be preferable to one in which goodness is forced. After all, only when we can use our capacity to decide, rather than driven by our impulse or forced by the others, that we can term ourselves a free man.

***