Does anyone in psychology know if Freud,Jung, or any important psychologist addressed the problem of evil?

Question

TWH 08222006

Answer 1

"Gosh heeltap, Freud and Jung certainly did they're part in addressing evil along with many contemporary Phychiatrists and/or Psychologists. I could copy and paste many theories and hypotheses to support answers for your important question; however, lets go back to the roots of reason to explain it's beginning, and from there to the contemporary.

In the philosophy of religion and theology, the problem of evil is the problem of reconciling the existence of evil or suffering in the world with the existence of an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent God or Gods. Although most religions do not come into conflict with the existence of evil, some still find a problem with two coexisting. An answer to the problem of evil is called a theodicy.
Theodicy is the branch of theology which defends God's goodness and justice in the face of the existence of evil. In the course of time, many have questioned the apparent inconsistency of God. Why would a just and loving God create a system in which evil is so pervasive? As it was phrased by Epicurus, a Greek Stoic philosopher:
Stephen A. Diamond, Ph.D.: Hostility, hatred, and violence are the greatest evils we have to contend with today. Evil is now--ever has been, and ever will be--an existential reality, an inescapable fact with which we mortals must reckon. In virtually every culture there has existed some word for evil, a universal, linguistic acknowledgment of the archetypal presence of "something that brings sorrow, distress, or calamity...; the fact of suffering, misfortune, and wrongdoing."[1] Yet another of Webster's traditional definitions links the English word evil with all that is "angry... wrathful,... [and] malignant."[2] The term evil has always been closely associated with anger, rage, and, of course, violence. But today we seem uncomfortable with this antiquated concept. Our discomfort resides largely in the religious and theological implications of evil, based on values, ethics, and morals that many today find judgmental, dogmatic, and passé. In a secular society like ours, we Americans have tended to avoid biblical characterizations such as "sin," "wickedness," "iniquity," and evil."[3] Nevertheless, as Jungian analyst Liliane Frey-Rohn rightly remarks: "Evil is a phenomenon that exists and has always existed only in the human world. Animals know nothing of it. But there is no form of religion, of ethics, or of community life in which it is not important. What is more, we need to discriminate between evil and good in our daily fife with others, and as psychologists in our professional work. And yet it is difficult to give a precise definition of what we mean psychologically by these terms."[4]

Evil is an actuality, whether or not we choose to deny it. In their 1971 anthology, Sanctions for Evil, social psychologists Nevitt Sanford and Craig Comstock cogently justify resurrecting the religiously tainted term "evil": "In using the word evil, we mean not that an act or pattern of fife is nccesarily a sin or a crime according to some law, but rather that it leads to damage or pain suffered by people, to social destructiveness of a degree so serious as to call for use of an ancient, heavily freighted term."[5] When employed in this sense, evil is synonymous with "senseless violence." But, on a still subtler level, evil can be considered that tendency which -- whether in oneself or others -- would inhibit personal growth and expansion, destroy or limit innate potentialities, curtail freedom, fragment or disintegrate the personality, and diminish the quality of interpersonal relationships.
The fact that evil, as defined above, exists more or less throughout our world seems incontrovertible. We see evil every day in its infernally multifarious forms. First, there are the cosmic, supernatural, transpersonal, or natural evils like floods, famine, fire, drought, disease, earthquakes, tornadoes, hurricanes, and harmful, unforeseeable accidents that wreak untimely death havoc, and unmentionable suffering on humanity. This is the metaphysical or "existential evil" with which the biblical Book of Job concerns itself, and which religions worldwide try mightily to explain. Existential evil is an ineluctable part of our human destiny, and one with which we must reckon as best we can, without closing ourselves off to its tragic, intrinsic reality. But there is, of course, another kind of evil at large: human evil, "man's inhumanity to man" in the most panoramic sense. By "human evil," I mean those attitudes and behaviors that promote excessive interpersonal aggression, cruelty, hostility, disregard for the integrity of others, self-destructiveness, psychopathology and human misery in general. Human evil can be perpetrated by a single individual (personal evil) or by a group, a country, or an entire culture (collective evil). The Nazi atrocities directly or indirectly engaged in by the German people dramatically exemplify the latter.
The most pernicious form of evil today (as further discussed in chapter six), may be madness, mental illness, or psychopathology: It is evil in this guise, and in its most radical manifestation--destructive violence--that has now become the target of such intense psychological scrutiny and treatment. With escalating urgency, contemporary culture calls upon the psychologist and psychiatrist to do battle with this evil: to explain, control, or "cure" bedeviled individuals who tend to be homicidal, suicidal, sexually perverted, assaultive, abusive, addicted, anorexic, alcoholic, or otherwise violently destructive to themselves and/ or others. This--I am speaking here of the suffering, not the sufferers--is the true reality of evil today! And it raises the following question: How can the skilled psychologist--let alone the average citizen -- even begin to effectively cope with evil without more fully comprehending its fundamental nature?
Bruno Bettelheim, Viktor Frankl, Karl Menninger, Robert Lifton, Rollo May, and most recently, M. Scott Peck .[6] Freud's somewhat pessimistic solution took the eventual form of an evil "death instinct" (Thanatos) doing eternal battle with a good "life instinct" (Eros), with evil ever dominating this tragic duel. C. G. Jung, drawing upon Nietzsche's existential philosophy, spoke of the "shadow" to portray the problem of personal and collective evil. His position, summarized here by Frey-Rohn, was that social morality can never be considered the causal source of evil: it only "becomes negative [i.e., evil] whenever the individual takes its commandments and prohibitions as absolutes, and ignores his other impulsions. It is not the cultural canon itself, therefore, but the moral attitude of the individual which we must hold responsible for what is pathological, negative, and evil."[7] Frey-Rohn refers to the subjective relativity of "good" and "evil," and, more importantly, the individual's personal responsibility for deciding what is good or evil for themselves rather than relying solely on external laws, rules, and regulations.[8]
Psychiatrist M. Scott Peck, whose perspectives will be explored further in chapter seven, proclaims "that [human] evil can be defined as a specific form of mental illness and should be subject to at least the same intensity of scientific investigation that we would devote to some other major psychiatric disease."[14] He defines "evil" as a negative force "residing either inside or outside of human beings, that seeks to kill life or liveliness" (pp. 42-43). For Peck, the primary root of most human evil is "malignant narcissism" (p. 78), a term taken from Erich Fromm.[15] Peck identifies evil people not "by the illegality of their deeds or the magnitude of their sins" (p. 71), nor by their evil acts, for then "we should all be evil, because we all do evil things" (p. 70). It is rather "the consistency of their sins" (p. 71), says Peck, that makes people 'evil' or 'not evil.' In other words, it is the chronic self-deception, ego-inflation, and "unsubmitted will" (p. 78), the constant lying to themselves and others, and their rabid refusal to confront their own flaws that characterize Peck's "people of the lie."

Answer 2

Yes Carl Jung had theories on the problem of evil which adressed as one of achetype "shadow". Mankind concious have a good and bad components. Life is not complete without both of these force- like Ying/Yang, Light/Dark or Evil/Good. One must exist for the other to also exist.
Jung wrote that:

We need more understanding of the human nature, because the only real danger that exists is man himself. He is the great danger, and we are pitifully unaware of it. We know nothing of man, far too little. His psyche should be studied, because we are the origin of all coming evil (Stein, 1995: 1).

You can check the link attached for any further information. I hope this help.

Answer 3

Im not sure but the idea of Evil must been one best by C G Jung.He hadnt all our inner cut down to eros as Freud did.The problem is to determin what it is and since cultural diffrences tell diffrent things as evil the evil one IN a culture Just do a stage show and if you find evil OUTSIDE your culture its probably you with lack of culture that see it as evil.
Santa Claus is perhape evil to a dragon.
(US-CH)
But as we all know real evil is mythological.Its a set of outer boundries or limits."This is a NO NO,its 'EVIL')
I think TV is evil.
And money.

Answer 4

Sure, but the problem of evil is really an ethical and moral issue. Psychologically speaking the "problem of evil" would be a case of our having to reconcile the inner and outer worlds. Evil is not really a direct concern to the psychologist, other than through its historical philosophical roots.

Answer 5

Freud did when he theorized the concept of the id and impulses. His whole theory talks about instincts. He believed that we are id driven, which is like being driven by our animal instincts but this is regulated by our superego, which is the 'good' or 'moral' part of our personality.

Answer 6

Freud addressed evil as the "Id" as pure unrestrained urges, feelings, emotions.

Answer 7

I'm sure they have....but I don't know. I feel tho that evil is a soul.

Answer 8

wishes are evil---person who has bad wishes is symbol of evil-evil is in scienience-invetion of atom is evil-

Answer 9

yes

Answer 10

YES...PICK UP ANY PSYCH. BOOK AT THE UNIVER. LEVEL THEY HAVE CHAPTERS CONSERNING EACH ONES THEORIES.