The 7 Levels of EVIL | Psychology of Evil

Overview

The video argues that “evil” can’t be neatly ranked on a single linear ladder—even though the creator proposes a “seven levels” framework. Its main thrust is that horrific acts emerge from different psychological structures, and each structure generates its own form of moral blindness or motivation.

Early Framework: Four Common “Faces” of Evil (Speed-Run)

1. Non-responsible evil Harmful events occur, but the agent is not morally responsible due to lack of conscious agency.

   • Example: A Canadian sleepwalking incident in which Kenneth Parks killed his mother-in-law.

2. Irresponsible evil The person is responsible for risky circumstances even if the harm itself isn’t intentional.

   • Example: A drunk driver killing someone.

3. Ignorant evil The person does wrong but doesn’t recognize the wrongness.

   • Example: Logan Paul filming in Japan’s suicide forest, portrayed as disrespectful with apparent lack of awareness.

4. Complicit evil The person knows wrongdoing is happening and chooses to participate or ignore it; moral blindness is gone.

   • The creator places this above ignorant evil because the agent knowingly chooses inaction.

“Justified Evil”: Violence Treated as Righteous Within a System

As a key example, the creator discusses the Nanjing Massacre (1937). The argument is that atrocities can be “justified evil” not because a single explicit order to kill exists, but because an entire system makes brutality feel permissible—and even virtuous.

Contributing factors include:

• Nationalism, hierarchy, and ideology of superiority
• Normalization of violence through military culture (e.g., beatings, desensitization from prior battles like Shanghai)
• War conditions that blur lines between civilians and combatants (e.g., civilians without uniforms seen as disguised fighters)
• Doctrines discouraging prisoners
• Group dynamics that punish refusal
• Propaganda that shapes perpetrators’ self-image so they rarely view themselves as villains

Core argument: massive atrocities become possible when people genuinely believe they are acting correctly, even without direct written commands.

“Compulsive Evil”: Knowing It’s Wrong, Yet Unable to Stop

The video contrasts “justified evil” with compulsive evil, where perpetrators typically do not believe in a righteous cause. Instead, the behavior is described as driven by overwhelming impulse and psychological compulsion.

• Jeffrey Dahmer serves as the central example: the creator reports he acknowledged the monstrosity of his actions, hid them, and tried to avoid detection—suggesting moral awareness but inability to inhibit urges.
• The creator adds that researchers often identify multiple contributing factors in violent offenders, such as:
  • childhood trauma/abuse
  • developmental distortions
  • possible brain impairments affecting impulse control (Not as excuses, but to explain the mechanism.)

A recurring theme is an “internal war”: one part of the person knows right from wrong, while another pushes toward the act—until the darker impulse wins.

“Instrumental Evil,” Then a New Rare Category: “Meta-Instrumental” / “Ritualized” Evil

After introducing instrumental evil (doing wrong as a means to another goal), the creator claims there is a rarer, newer form: meta-instrumental evil, also called ritualized evil.

How Instrumental Evil Shades Darker: Epstein / “Kompromat”

Using the Epstein files as a case study, the creator suggests that some abuses may function strategically through kompromat—compromising evidence that creates leverage and silence.

In this view:

• evil becomes useful for control
• wrongdoing becomes valuable not just as a tool, but as leverage

The “New” Twist: Evil Committed “For Evil’s Sake” (As a Binding Ritual)

The creator’s central claim is that sometimes powerful actors commit evil deliberately to generate mutual leverage and group trust—framed as costly signaling rituals:

• Entry into exclusive power/media circles requires proof of willingness to cross moral lines.
• Participants become mutually dependent because everyone has something to lose (shared exposure).
• The acts are described as evil instrumentalized for building a structure of loyalty, where agreement on wrongdoing creates a “bond.”
• The creator speculates explicitly that compulsion alone may not explain behavior; instead, wrongdoing itself may be used to establish trust through compromising shared vulnerability.

Conclusion / Guiding Question

The video concludes that meta-instrumental evil is psychologically and socially distinct from earlier categories:

• not justified by ideology,
• not purely driven by impulse,
• not merely instrumental for outside goals,
• but functioning as the mechanism that holds the system together.

It ends by asking the viewer:

Is there anything worse than evil done for the purposes of evil itself?

Presenters / Contributors

• Tibo — channel host; presenter of the philosophy/science video.