Evil

Zillah

What exactly does "something wrong with them" mean? Other than you wanting to portray them as some sort of erroneous deviation from a species filled with otherwise inherently good people, of course. Like, parts of their brain missing? Where do you get this stuff?



Also,
"Their" signifies ownership.
"They're" is short for "They are".
"Were" is the past tense of "is".
"Where" refers to location.
An apostrophe signifies a missing letter or possession.

ScumLord

Zillah wrote: »

What exactly does "something wrong with them" mean? Other than you wanting to portray them as some sort of erroneous deviation from a species filled with otherwise inherently good people, of course. Like, parts of their brain missing? Where do you get this stuff?

Feral children that grow up without human intervention often have underdeveloped brains because they don't get the right stimulus at the right time, I'm going off memory here but I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong. They can be thought the basic's of language but can't develop complex sentences and it's the same with their morality from what I remember.

It could be that people that do these things have an underdeveloped part of the brain, I'm not saying all, some of them. One little part that could contribute to them killing someone where another would hold back.

The Mad Hatter

Zillah wrote: »

Also,
"Their" signifies ownership.
"They're" is short for "They are".
"Were" is the past tense of "is".
"Where" refers to location.
An apostrophe signifies a missing letter or possession.

Also,
'Allot' isn't a word; neither is 'alot'

Dave!

Also,
'Allot' is a word

:pac:

http://www.answers.com/allot

Zillah

ScumLord wrote: »

Feral children that grow up without human intervention often have underdeveloped brains because they don't get the right stimulus at the right time, I'm going off memory here but I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong. They can be thought the basic's of language but can't develop complex sentences and it's the same with their morality from what I remember.

It could be that people that do these things have an underdeveloped part of the brain, I'm not saying all, some of them. One little part that could contribute to them killing someone where another would hold back.

Er, yes, people who grow up without contact with other human beings do not develop their ability to communicate or successfully interact with other humans very well. What does this have to do with otherwise normal people who are capable of rapacious murder? (It doesn't...)

MrPudding

Zillah wrote: »

He wasn't a sociopath, or crazy or anything like that, he just had very little respect for the lives of others.

Correct me if I am wrong, but if he has a lack of respect for the lives of others a sociopath is exactly what he is. Add a bit of organised behaviour and maybe a higher than average IQ and we could maybe even stretch it to psychopath.

MrP

Zillah

MrPudding wrote: »

Correct me if I am wrong, but if he has a lack of respect for the lives of others a sociopath is exactly what he is.

The very fact that you had to rephrase "very little" to "lack of" would demonstrate why this is incorrect. There's is a difference between viewing life as cheap and having no concept of empathy. He was a thug, not a Patrick Bateman.

ScumLord

Zillah wrote: »

Er, yes, people who grow up without contact with other human beings do not develop their ability to communicate or successfully interact with other humans very well. What does this have to do with otherwise normal people who are capable of rapacious murder? (It doesn't...)

Well is it not an example that shows an underdeveloped or damaged part of the brain can cause a person to act inhuman?

Zillah

Since when are rape and murder inhuman? It's an odd claim considering they're so common, today and throughout history. Your argument is turning a little circular. You define humans as essentially good, and therefore anyone that acts contrary to this goodness is inhuman, and therefore people are inherently good because the evil ones are inhuman.

ScumLord

Zillah wrote: »

Since when are rape and murder inhuman? It's an odd claim considering they're so common, today and throughout history.

They're not exactly uniquely human though. They've been around since the dawn of time and are completely common in nature. What is unusual about the human animal is that we don't do it more often, it's not a normal everyday occurrence to kill someone because they wander into your town. It never really has been, it's happened because of ignorance or misleading hatred.

Your argument is turning a little circular. You define humans as essentially good, and therefore anyone that acts contrary to this goodness is inhuman, and therefore people are inherently good because the evil ones are inhuman.

I don't mean inhuman as if their a sub species, I mean inhuman in that they are not living up to their potential or can't due to illness. Humans are more than just the sum of their parts I think we are conditioning our selves to be good despite nature.

karen3212

Zillah wrote: »

What exactly does "something wrong with them" mean? Other than you wanting to portray them as some sort of erroneous deviation from a species filled with otherwise inherently good people, of course. Like, parts of their brain missing? Where do you get this stuff?

Surely that would be from scientific research.

Wasn't there a recent paper in the UK discussing injections to make people more ''moral'', isn't it all about the brain? Some people really are born different, in that they are more likely to cause harm to other members of society, whatever their environment.

Naz_st

Zillah wrote: »

I'm not sure you're quite grasping what I'm saying. The problem with the term "evil" is that it has pretensions to objectivity. That the crux of my problem with it. If someone says "That man is evil" and means "In an entirely subjective sense that man has traits that I disapprove of and I will summarise these traits under the term 'evil'" then I have no problem. But what I encounter actually happening is that someone says "That man is evil" as if evil has an objective existence of it's own, in the same way that water is wet or the sky is blue, and if anyone thinks otherwise they are wrong. Like the servants of Satan in Fallujah. It's not that the Lt Col really dislikes them and is willing to oppose them, it's that he thinks they are evil.

Is it reasonable to suggest that evil can be objectively defined as "that which is collectively subjectively deemed contrary to the dictates of the society of which the user of the term is a member"? In this way can certain deeds not accurately and objectively agreed to be evil?
Since most societies have similar tenets when it comes to moral or immoral (and by association good & evil) the above definition could provide a common ground to an essentially subjective term? (e.g. in all but the most contrived societies, random murder would have a commonly agreed label of "evil")

Zillah

Yes, certain groups of people can agree on a definition of evil. I'd make two observations; 1, It's still a group of people having similar but subjective opinions, rather than objectivity and 2, the real problem is "contrary to the dictates of the society", which implies a single position on which a whole society takes in these matters, which simply isn't true. Hell, we'd be hard pressed to find a group of ten people that can reach complete agreement.

Even in the case of random murder I don't think the word "evil" is inappropriate. Someone who commits such an act might be schizophrenic, in which case they're more unfortunate than "evil". Even if such an act was carried out due to selfishness, or an uncontrolled temper, or revenge, I still think there's better and more specific words to describe it.

Naz_st

Zillah wrote: »

Yes, certain groups of people can agree on a definition of evil. I'd make two observations; 1, It's still a group of people having similar but subjective opinions, rather than objectivity and 2, the real problem is "contrary to the dictates of the society", which implies a single position on which a whole society takes in these matters, which simply isn't true. Hell, we'd be hard pressed to find a group of ten people that can reach complete agreement.

So do you believe that things can be classified as good and evil, even if only subjectively? Or do you think that without an objective basis, the words/concepts have no meaning?

Even in the case of random murder I don't think the word "evil" is inappropriate. Someone who commits such an act might be schizophrenic, in which case they're more unfortunate than "evil". Even if such an act was carried out due to selfishness, or an uncontrolled temper, or revenge, I still think there's better and more specific words to describe it.

Ok, well it's hard to argue this point as I've already asserted that these concepts are subjective in nature so it's easy to find a context in which any act can be defended. I was just pointing out that where there is a collective subjective agreement of "right" and "wrong" amongst a large group of people (a fundamental basis of a "society" I'd speculate) then it's possible under that context to classify something (albeit crudely) as good and evil. E.g. "Random Murder is evil" seems a generally reasonable assertion under the dictates of our society. The same statement doesn't hold for 15th century Aztec society (ritual sacrifice), but this fact doesn't change the veracity of the statement now.

ChocolateSauce

Zillah speaks wisely on this subject, I must say. Although I like to look at humans as being good, I'm aware this isn't actually an intrinsic trait of our species. We are moral as a species, but for ultimately selfish reasons. We're good because it suits us as a whole, not because of some noble idea we're instilled with at conception.

Some people are born different, for example lacking the ability to understand compassion and right or wrong. People who are born "wrong" are truly unfortunate beings, and in many ways can be less responsible for their actions than a "normal" murderer who does understand and just doesn't care. Having no respect for others is rarely something you're born with, it is something a person arrives at by living their lives without proper guidance.

It is also worth noting that being a psychopath doesn't mean you're going to be immoral. They might not understand morality and people, but they're not stupid and often recognise that it is in their best interests to obey the rules and get on with life. One of my family members knows a pair of sociopathic twin sisters. They're mean, they're unfriendly and they're not nice to be around, but they haven't murdered anyone and they live normal enough lives.

So, to add my 2 cent for the title, I don't think evil exists, except as a concept. Evil is an almost biblical concept, along with what might be called "good". Evil is something bad which has no purpose other than itself. Even the most reviling of acts, even the worse crime imaginable, cannot be evil. Even crimes that have no purpose, like an emotionless man killing an innocent, not for his own amusement, but just "because", is not evil, because evil implies some purpose which cannot be put to anyone's logic. Crimes can be for many reasons; pleasure, insanity, hate, a means to an end, and so on. Evil isn't the absence of good intentions, it isn't the presence of bad ones either. It is also subjective- what is evil for one might be good in the eyes of another. Evil would have to be some kind of universal constant which self perpetuates for its own sake. It goes far beyond anything humans have the ability to do.

"Random Murder is evil"

I wouldn't say so at all. Random murder is just random; stupid, immoral, pointless. Evil cannot be pointless, by definition, IMO.

Zillah

Naz_st wrote: »

So do you believe that things can be classified as good and evil, even if only subjectively? Or do you think that without an objective basis, the words/concepts have no meaning?

We can classify "evil" as anything yellow but that doesn't mean it's a useful word. Of course you and I could sit down and exhastively define what "evil" means for the purposes of our discussion, but I maintain that the word, as used day to day, is counter productive, especially when considering disagreements and conflicts, like Israel, Iraq or abortion.

I was just pointing out that where there is a collective subjective agreement of "right" and "wrong" amongst a large group of people (a fundamental basis of a "society" I'd speculate) then it's possible under that context to classify something (albeit crudely) as good and evil.

Such a consensus never exists. And most people who use such words mean it in some objective sense rather than the sense you are proposing.

Naz_st

Zillah wrote: »

We can classify "evil" as anything yellow but that doesn't mean it's a useful word. Of course you and I could sit down and exhastively define what "evil" means for the purposes of our discussion, but I maintain that the word, as used day to day, is counter productive, especially when considering disagreements and conflicts, like Israel, Iraq or abortion.

Fair enough.

Such a consensus never exists. And most people who use such words mean it in some objective sense rather than the sense you are proposing.

I agree. I was just wondering if there was theoretically a way to objectively define it, regardless of erroneous common usage, or if it is by defintion subjective.

Zillah

Naz_st wrote: »

I agree. I was just wondering if there was theoretically a way to objectively define it, regardless of erroneous common usage, or if it is by defintion subjective.

I think the problem is that by definition it refers to a non-existant objective concept. We can redefine it for our own subjective use in any given scenario, but generally I think it's a redundant term.

Húrin

ScumLord wrote: »

There often is a reason they ended up like that. Under developed part of the brain or upbringing.

This is just scientifically justified objective morality. As if a "fully developed" brain will cause right morality.

Goduznt Xzst

Naz_st wrote: »

I was just wondering if there was theoretically a way to objectively define it, regardless of erroneous common usage, or if it is by defintion subjective.

have a read of this if you are actually interested in the answer to that question, it really is worth a read trust me, actually a lot of Thomas Nagels stuff is worth reading

http://www.tannerlectures.utah.edu/lectures/documents/nagel80.pdf

As I mentioned earlier, this is not unique to the term "evil" in anyway. Objectivity is severely limited when it comes to values.

For example, it is almost impossible to objectively say that pleasure is better than pain.

Ergo, being truly objective and looking at a situation from the outside with a complete detachment of all interests, you couldn't easily say a person has any reason not to put their hand in a fire.

acontadino

in a world without god the possibilits are endless...in other words we are ****ed.

we need god to survive

Zillah

acontadino wrote: »

in a world without god the possibilits are endless...in other words we are ****ed.

we need god to survive

I too loathe limitless potential.

thebigcheese22

As an atheist I do believe evil exists(look up North with those killings of soldiers and a policeman), but it is people's backgrounds and upbringing that make them do evil acts, not some inherent evil in a person.
The concept of 'original sin' and the fact that humans are damned forever because a person took an apple from a tree is typical religious bull**** :mad:

acontadino

Zillah wrote: »

I too loathe limitless potential.

yups, it has its advantages alrite but i mean human specie just doesnt know how to deal with it and ultimately it will DOOOOOOOOOOM us.

i reckon u take a look at 'what makes us human' docum...very interesting and sheds light on it

Zillah

acontadino wrote: »

yups, it has its advantages alrite but i mean human specie just doesnt know how to deal with it and ultimately it will DOOOOOOOOOOM us.

I see. God helps this, erm, situation how?

acontadino

keeps society in check.

5uspect

Invention of scary gods
Civilised society
...
profit

How'd you figure that one out?

You seem to think that fear (of a god) is the most powerful driving force to prevent people eating babies etc. If people dreamed up gods to instill fear in others to keep them in check surely the ability to rationalse one's own morality existed before gods?

There are many genetic reasons why we are altrusitic. These traits are found throughout the animal kingdom. Many social animals survive perfectly well with only a small bit of baby eating.

Zillah

acontadino wrote: »

keeps society in check.

lol

It sure helped Christendom in the Middle Ages.

Daemonica

There is balance and there is imbalance. You can spend a life time looking for it and it wouldn't be a life wasted.

karen3212

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Having no respect for others is rarely something you're born with, it is something a person arrives at by living their lives without proper guidance.

I would dearly love to see the current statistics on the nature v nurture debate. For sure, I can understand the idea that underfed foetii and starved kids don't always become rounded adults, but beyond that I think genes are everything.

Sorry this might be a bit off topic.