No Socially Unacceptable Motives, Just Socially Unacceptable Behaviors

Lykken (1995, p. 9) writes that the “classical theory of criminology” proposes “that human behavior is directed toward the pursuit of pleasure and the avoidance of pain.” Behavior is a tool of the mind, behavior isn’t random, it is directed and motivated, it is instrumental. All behavior is at the service of the motive. To disagree with this is tantamount to proclaiming that humans are random, directionless machines. This Freudian “pleasure principle” that reduces all human behavior to a common denominator of protecting or advancing one’s well-being remains a logically indisputable but culturally unpopular proposition. Unpopular because of the seemingly hedonistic connotation of the word “pleasure.” The word “pleasure” has been narrowly construed to pertain to sensory pleasure as if to exclude such cognitive and affective pleasures as living in accordance with one’s principles or feeling good about belonging to a group of one’s choice. Therefore, as soon as we replace the word “pleasure” with such semantic siblings as “satisfaction,” “fulfillment,” or “well-being” the prudish reaction to the notion of pleasure as a motive begins to subside. Eventually, it becomes apparent that there is absolutely nothing immoral or unethical about wanting to advance one’s well-being (i.e. to pursue pleasure) or to wish to protect one’s well-being (i.e. to avoid pain). While certain means by which we pursue our well-being may be undoubtedly socially inappropriate, the underlying desire for well-being appears to be morally pristine and beyond judgment.

Consequently, it seems accurate to say that since all behavior is motivated by a desire to advance and/or protect one’s well-being, all behavior – regardless of whether it is socially acceptable or not, - is predicated on socially acceptable motives. The pursuit of pleasure and the avoidance of pain are the only two motives that we have. There are no other motives but these two. The plethora of motives ranging from wanting an ice-cream to wanting to be on good terms with one’s higher power are but permutations of one and the same idea of wanting to achieve an enjoyable, meaningful state of mind. This isn’t a misplaced reductionistic hedonism, but a reality of inevitable homeostatic self-regulation.

To sum up, all motives (and there is really only one, that of self-regulation with pursuit of pleasure and avoidance of pain being but two sides of one and the same motive coin) are moral. To be able to appreciate this inevitable morality of the motive we have to exercise a motive-level of analysis when interpreting an event such as crime and not be distracted by the unacceptability of a given behavior that served as a means to an end. In evaluating a morality of a given crime, thus, it could be said that while the motive (like all motives) was socially acceptable or moral, the means by which the fulfillment of the motive was pursued was socially unacceptable or immoral (within the context of a particular culture).

Let’s take a classic “psychopath” that admits to enjoying the stimulation of a burglary. How in the world can such behavior be driven by a moral motive?! Let’s ask the perpetrator. Cromwell, Olson & Avary (1991, p. 63 – in Lykken) provide a useful example in their report from their study of active burglars: “the informants unanimously reported a “rush” upon entering the site. Some referred to the feeling as a ‘rush of adrenaline.’ All found the feeling very pleasurable. ‘I know that once I’m inside, everything I find is mine. I can have anything there. It’s like Christmas.’”

What is the morality of the motives that underlie this behavior? While obviously socially unacceptable, these behaviors, at the foundation, are motivated by a desire to procure material wealth with minimum of effort expenditure (on the assumption that it is easier to take what one needs than to earn it) and by the promise of stimulation. Reduced to an even deeper level of analysis, these motives can be, as always, deconstructed to wanting to regulate one’s well-being by means of procuring material wealth with minimum of effort and by way of creating a situation of stimulation.

Is it morally wrong to want to be comfortable or stimulated? Of course, not! Is the behavior chosen to fulfill this motive for well-being socially unacceptable? Of course, yes!

A typical analysis of this situation would result in a moral judgment that the person that performed a burglary is a bad person, fundamentally immoral. An analysis that allows for a differentiation between the motive and the behavior would, however, allow one to conclude that while the behavior was obviously unacceptable, the underlying motive of wanting to preserve and/or enhance one’s well-being through assuring access to material wealth with least effort and through the stimulation of the “adrenaline rush” is morally no different than the motivation that drives most of the “normal” population to try to optimize their cost-to-benefit ratio in the work arena by asking for a raise and to take a yearly trip to Disney to try adrenaline-pumping “death drop” rides.

The fact that a person has committed a crime in order to obtain material wealth is, in essence, driven by the same socially sanctioned motives as a person who goes to work to obtain material wealth is rather straightforward and easy to acknowledge. The fact that a person who has committed a crime in order to feel powerful is driven by socially acceptable Adlerian strivings for superiority (that are akin to any upwardly mobile individual motivated by the narcissistic gains of social recognition and status) is also apparent but is a bit harder to acknowledge. Being able to see the fact that a person who has committed a crime that involves intentional, if not sadistic, element of violence is also motivated by socially acceptable goals is very hard to acknowledge.

But let us try. Imagine you had a chance to explore the motivation behind a sadistic urge. What you are likely to hear, assuming that the perpetrators’ comments are frank, is that he or she was stimulated by the opportunity for violence or sadism, that is they wanted to break the law, to hurt someone, to see their victim suffer and plead for mercy. Morality, driven by indignation, and diagnosis, driven by dispositional attribution, would finalize our judgment right here: we would conclude that the person in front of us is motivated by violence and is thus inherently bad and immoral.

But let us pursue with the inquiry. Why would inflicting pain onto another and witnessing them suffer motivate certain individuals? Maybe, there is a sense of satisfaction from displaced justice. Maybe, there is a stimulation of trespassing the final social boundary of bodily integrity of another. Maybe, there is an erotic arousal that accompanies the act. Maybe, there is a sense of ultimate power from the use of pain as an uncompromising leverage of manipulation.

What this examination of the core motivation reveals is that the violent and/or sadistic behavior, as appalling as it may be, is designed to meet the same socially acceptable needs (for stimulation, pleasure and a sense of power and self-worth) as the rest of the human behavior. A sadist is not motivated by sadism per se but by the pleasure that it yields. A person that carries out a violent vendetta is not motivated by violence per se but by violence as a means of justice, in an attempt to remediate some actual or perceived wrongdoing by punishing the party involved or by symbolically displacing one’s pain onto an unsuspecting, innocent party. A person that rapes is motivated by a need for control or personal power. These needs/motives for pleasure, justice, control and self-worth are the very needs that keep most of the humanity going. The un-sophistication of the means chosen to meet these needs, to fulfill these motives, is proportionate to the sophistication and limitations of the individuals that commit these acts. If, however, as diagnosticians and students of behavior, we make a mistake of thinking that the sadist is motivated by sadism, the satisfaction of such a need naturally becomes largely unavailable outside the sphere of criminality. However, if an urge for sadism is deconstructed to the underlying motivational core of sensory pleasure, stimulation and power (that is established through relational dominance and downward social comparison), then, despite still being prognostically challenging, the case acquires a hope of a legitimate rehabilitation vector in the direction of finding alternative means to meeting one’s need.

The importance of discriminating between the social/moral acceptability of the behavior and the social/moral acceptability of the underlying motive can be usefully illustrated by the findings of the literature on psychophysiology of antisocial personality disorder that suggests that “antisocials,” at a baseline, are “underaroused and needing a “fix” of sensory input to produce normal brain function” (Black, 1999, p. 115). But the very fact of this psycho-physiological deviance is not necessarily synonymous with behavioral or cultural deviance: while one underaroused individual might seek self-regulatory stimulation through the behavioral activation of criminality, another might find it through such socially sanctioned behavioral activation means as extreme sports or extreme professions. It is certainly understandable that from a superficial level of analysis, knowing that a person feels stimulated by the process of crime might suggest that for such a person crime is an end in and of itself. However, by exploring if the same person would perhaps equally appreciate another, more socially sanctioned opportunity for stimulation, might help a clinician differentiate between an otherwise socially normative end and the socially questionable means by which a given individual chose to satisfy it. Blair, Mitchell & Blair (2005) emphasize: “While we would argue that there is a biological basis to the antisocial behavior of the 5 percent of criminals who commit a disproportionate percentage of crimes (mostly individuals with psychopathy), we certainly would not argue that there is a biological basis to the antisocial behavior of most criminals” (p. 154). This recognition of the fact that the majority of antisocial behavior does not have a biological basis allows a correctional substance use treatment provider to appreciate that “individuals classified as presenting with conduct disorder or antisocial personality disorder are not a homogeneous group but rather a highly heterogeneous one” (Blair, Mitchell & Blair, 2005, p. 43) whose criminality might be instrumental in meeting a variety of otherwise normative psychological needs, spanning the entire hierarchy of needs, with crime serving as a means to satisfy one’s basic logistical needs of sustenance, security, belonging, stimulation and narcissistic strivings for accomplishment.

At the risk of over-summarizing, allow me to reiterate the key point of the rehabilitation-compatible operating model of human behavior. When stripped of situational specifics, all human behavior is motivated by a desire to self-regulate by avoiding pain and pursuing pleasure (in its various permutations). Consequently, all human behavior, including crime (that is anti-social only in its means not goals), rests on a moral foundation which, if acknowledged, becomes also a foundation for rehabilitation. Crime is behavior. Robbing, hurting, deceiving, manipulating is behavior. All behavior is motivated. Therefore, crime, like all behavior, is instrumental and as it is in the service of a motive: a mind needs, desires, wants a particular state, and directs the machinery of the body to behave in a way that would yield a target state of mind. Seeing crime as self-regulatory, as a means to one and the same universal end of well-being, as opposed to being an end in and of itself, is essential for understanding rehabilitation opportunities. Such instrumental view of crime allows a rehabilitation clinician to see crime as but one of the many possible strategies for meeting one’s needs and, therefore, allows a clinician an opportunity for exploration of psychologically and physically healthier, legally safer and socially sanctioned alternatives to meeting one’s needs.

from “Crime and Recovery”- a Group Treatment Modality Exploring Crime as a Substance Use Relapse Factor (Somov, P. 2007).