To start this discussion of basic human needs as the cause of evil, I would like to consider two examples that focus on people in “evil” situations. The first is a man who is suffering financially and lives in a country with an awful economy. He is trying to understand the root of his suffering and would do just about anything to make life better for him and his children. Through reading the papers, going to town meetings, and talking to his neighbors, he learns that the Jews are the source of his suffering and steps must be taken to squash their influence on his home country. After hearing this, he starts down a path that leads him to actively supporting the extermination of Jewish people.

There are two things to consider in this example. Was this an evil act? What was the cause of his actions? I feel that many people would agree that helping to exterminate a race of people is evil. It would also be pretty easy to look at this case and argue that he acted the way he did because his basic needs were not being met. In helping to kill Jewish people, the person committed an evil act that was directly related to his needs for security, effectiveness and control, and/or positive identity. As Staub (2004) suggests, people will go to great lengths to meet these basic needs even if it means doing things to harm others. For that reason, Staub (2004) argues that the frustration of basic human needs is the root of evil.

However, let us consider another example. In this scenario, a man is tired of the social injustice that is occurring in his country. He is personally affected by the injustice and racism that occurs daily. He has been discriminated against in the workplace and among his peers. He feels that his inability to help reduce this injustice makes him a guilty, ineffective person. Also, his image of reality is quite bleak because he feels that the world is generally unfair and individuals are quite powerless in it. Eventually he meets a charismatic man that persuades him to move to a different country along with a large group of people. Once he moves, he realizes that life has changed for the better and comes to believe in his new leader. One day, the leader tells everyone that the way to really end suffering and make life better is to kill themselves. The man, along with the rest of the group he is in, willingly takes his own life.

Whether or not this is an evil act is a bit more complicated to figure out. While some may argue that suicide is evil because it is murder, I will take a neutral stance on this. Taken individually, I do not feel that the man was acting in an evil way. His action was relatively contained and he did not harm anyone else. (I am purposely ignoring any influential effect his suicide may have had on other people considering to kill themselves.) However, while the man may not have been acting in an evil way, that act can still be classified as evil. It is just not the direct murderer that is the source of this evil. So what makes this evil and who or what did cause this act of evil? This act is evil because one man, the leader of this group, was able to get a large group of people to kill themselves. Because the rational person would not willing take his/her own life without any reason, the person that made these people think that killing themselves could solve their problem is to blame for their deaths. In essence, the leader, Jim Jones, willingly took the lives of these people and is consequently evil.

The reason that I have used these two examples and the purpose of this posting is to argue that while the frustration of human needs might make people willing to commit morally questionable acts, this frustration is not the cause of evil. People whose needs are not being met make good tools for evil leaders. However, the evil ideas and plans ultimately stem from the individuals or small groups of people in charge. Everyone else is a pawn in their game. This is not clear in the Holocaust example because the followers are being led to harm others and one is tempted to blame them for their actions. However, the Jonestown example allows the observer to realize that the people are not really in control of what they are doing. No one would readily believe that killing oneself would help him/her fulfill his/her basic needs. It is obvious that an evil leader is manipulating them. Granted, none of these people would be in the positions they were in if their needs were being met. But at the same time, none of these people would have done what they did if they had a good leader directing the way they attempted to fulfill their needs.