"We cannot be good without ceasing to be human..."

This topic submitted by Nick and Levi (nik4alanis@aol.com) at 5:06 pm on 2/28/01. Additions were last made on Saturday, March 2, 2002. Section: Cummins.

It was our initial intent for this human nature field project to explore concepts of good and evil and formulate some conclusive information to answer whether or not, or to what degree, humans are innately evil. While we will still be investigating concepts of good and bad, good and evil, we resolved that it would be too difficult to separate what is thought to be intrinsic evil from social constructs. Therefore, our revised question for study arises from inquiries concerning what personal characteristics influence what a person perceives as evil. The foremost problem involved in this plan of study is conceiving working definitions for good and evil. We hypothesize that there will be measurable variability in what people perceive as evil based on their demographic information. Using this empirical data gained from human surveying, we plan to find a correlation between perceptions of evil and personal characteristics such as age, gender, race, religion/belief, and academic major. This research is interesting because concepts of good and evil are constantly being revisited and redefined in contemporary society. Evil is an extremely broad and abstract idea that is not static from person to person or social grouping.

When exploring the disciplines of theology, philosophy, psychology, and sociology, and their interrelated disciplines, one cannot avoid discussions of good and evil. Most literature contains roundabout discussions concerning these two concepts rather than providing concrete, finite definitions. Much of these discussions involve the asking of more specific questions such as: is evil universal, how is evil conceived, why are some persons evildoers, why are people victims of evil, or how can evil be prevented and combated? Each literary source that we examined for this project made the assertion that each being of free will has the potential to commit and or promote evil. Leonard E. Doob states that "…every man contains within himself a mixture of good and evil" (4). The most solid definition of evil that we could find, other than evil is the absence of good, which is defended by all sources, was based on the observations of Doob. Although not exactly similar, most of the discussions and working definitions of evil provided by our other literary sources indirectly support the definition provided by Doob. Doob declares that there are two criterions for establishing the existence or non-existence of evil. These criteria are psychological and social or moral. The psychological involves pain, unhappiness, suffering, and otherwise negative or aversive feelings. The social/moral criterion is the condition in which aversive feelings or actions are considered undesirable by one or more judges. All literary sources recognize that even within a given society, the concept of good and evil fluctuates. Evil seems to exist primarily in the eye of the beholder, especially in the eye of the victim. Each person, and every social grouping, has his or her own values, which are utilized to judge. Values are neither universal nor eternal; thus, there can be no universal set of evil. Varying perceptions of evil will emerge. This will serve as the basis for our final project.

To test our hypothesis, we will be using a survey to prove what relationships, if any, exist between demographic information and an individual’s perceptions of "evil." In this survey, participants will be asked to organize a list of actions from most to least "evil." The actions we have chosen to include, rape, incest, suicide, etc, have predominately "evil" connotations and are supported by various literature. The final tabulation of the data will provide conclusive information of perceptions of "evil" amongst the survey population, yet not necessarily the population at large.

Aside from the survey data, we will rely on an extensive literature review concerning past and present definitions of "evil." We will rely on our peers for not only survey data, but will also ask for their input on perfecting our survey technique. This dialogue will help us to both increase the usability of our survey and may provide vital insight on our topic for further investigation.

Our sample audience will primarily consist of students residing in the three Western campus dormitories. This tactic will allow us easy access to our subjects, as well as enhancing the relevance of this study to our particular course. We are currently considering expanding our sampling to include a wider audience of both students and faculty, but require further peer input into this issue.

Projected Time Line

Week 9 (3/6 – 3/8): In-class poster presentation, edit / print surveys, progress report
Week 10 (3/20 – 3/22): Distribution / Collection of surveys, continued
Week 11 (3/27 – 3/29): Distribution / Collection of surveys, progress report
Week 12 (4/3 – 4/5): Compilation of survey data, begin data analysis
Week 13 (4/10 – 4/12): Completion of data analysis, progress report
Week 14 (4/17 – 4/19): Begin Final Paper
Week 15 (4/24 – 4/26): Edit Final Paper
Week 16 (Finals): Project completion