People assign evil where rational preparation precedes a horribly irrational act

Evidence

We posit evildoing when we see that an individual is following our general societal template for the commission of an intentional action, and that the action is not only wrong but horribly wrong. The contrast between the apparent rationality of the sequence of behaviors that lead up to the action and the irrational character of the act is one cue we use to assign evil. To buy the instruments that will be used to torture another, or to dig the grave in which the kidnap victim will be buried alive, are evil acts. To plan to kidnap an individual for the purposes of deriving pleasure from torturing that individual is an act from which, among other things, an inference of evil is likely to arise. The buildup of the impulse in a serial killer to kill again, which I imagine to be experienced by the killer as an outside force, does not fit our usual definition of intentional action. Perhaps the imputation of evil arises because the killer deliberately organizes the acts to fulfill his “irresistible impulse.” — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 3872

Categorization

• DEFINE: Frames evil as a mismatch between rational, purposeful preparation and irrational, horrible outcome.
• DEEPTHINKING: Key insight: deliberate organization of acts to fulfill an irresistible impulse is what grounds the inference of evil — planning plus compulsion.
• STORYSTEM: A narrative could hinge on this: a character whose evil is ratified precisely because they planned around a compulsion they experience as external.