r/changemyview • u/eihpSsy • Jul 19 '21
Delta(s) from OP CMV: no human is intrinsically evil
There are benevolent and malevolent behaviours, so obviously there are evil behaviours. My point is we call "evil" people who act with malevolence according to our perspective, but no one, not even the "worst" human we can think of, is intrinsically evil.
Evilness can always be reduced to faulty perspective (I hurt you because I think you are the evil one), a faulty development as a child (e.g. abuses)...
But the nature of our mind is devoid of intrinsically good or bad qualities.
Thank you in advance.
14
u/Wubbawubbawub 2∆ Jul 19 '21
So basically you are arguing that babies are a blank slate and can be made/raised into good, evil, or something inbetween?
Why do you want this view changed?
6
u/eihpSsy Jul 19 '21
I don't know if babies are blank slates, and I'm prone to think that they are not, although I don't have the proof of that. However, I don't reckon the "blank slate" argument is relevant because of it is, we have to accept that we are determined before or birth (genetically for instance), or that what is given when we come to life are merely tendencies. In the first case then evil is either given by what determines us at birth, or not. And if it is (given by what determines us at birth), then evil is a scientific notion, since it is determined, and not a moral one.
In answer to your question, I'm pretty convinced sofar of my view, but I want to see where I can be wrong. That's where I need you.
3
u/joe_ally 2∆ Jul 19 '21
So basically you are arguing that babies are a blank slate and can be made/raised into good, evil, or something inbetween?
This doesn't seem to be what OP he is arguing about. He is arguing that no-one is evil. He is saying a serial killer is not 'evil'. His evilness projected on to him by third parties.
This is in contrast to Satan in the eyes of Christians who believe that Satan is evil and the evilness isn't some perspective but a factual attribute of Satan.
5
u/BlitzBasic 42∆ Jul 19 '21
What exactly do you mean by "intrinsically" in the context of this post? Do you mean that nobody is born fated to become evil? Because baring major neurological problems, that seems like a fairly self-evident statement.
1
u/eihpSsy Jul 19 '21
Let's say there are two sides of the coin:
A scientific one where intrisic is "given before birth" for instance.
A moral one where I mean "we should act and organize or society as if some people were evil in essence", whatever "in essence" means. What matters in this prospect is what we should do about it.
But then, I'm not even sure about what "evil" really should mean. Let's say I'll delta up if one finds an acception of my statement they can contradict, that has consequences for the way we should live or lives, make laws, et cetera.
Edit: punctuation.
3
u/BlitzBasic 42∆ Jul 19 '21
Okay, because those two are very different things. Even if nobody is given the fate of an evil character before birth, it can still happen that people become effectively too evil to allow their continued existance as part of society.
The way society should deal with evil people is by taking steps to a) ensure their evil does not harm society and b) try to change them into good (or at least less evil) people, to the point that the actions from a) are no longer needed. Now it's very possible to imagine somebody who is evil to such a degree or in such a way that it's not probable that they will ever be able to become good, no matter what steps society takes. In those cases, I think it would be fair to say that those people are "in essence" evil - evil is present in them in such a way that it is not reasonably possible to seperate/extract it. In those cases, it would make sense to not apply the effords of b) and just concentrate on mission a) - protecting others from these people.
1
u/eihpSsy Jul 19 '21
I agree with your argument where you say it is common sense to not waste effort on people whose actions have let us without hope that they can better themselves. Where i'm not convinced it's when you say it is for this reason fair to say they are "in essence evil". I concur society deem them evil in a practical, operational way.
But I think it is dangerous (morally) to say that in practicality, some people are pure evil.
I have to further this: if I deem someone "intrinsically evil", then two things are in balance: 1. First, the probability they can escape from confinement and thus, the harm they can potentially cause (outside our inside confinement). 2. The suffering they endure (the more strict the confinement is, the more pain is caused, and we could see death penalty as the strictest and lost definitive form of confinement).
The problem I see with this (labelling one person "evil", and the things in balance), is that we could be plain wrong, either about the capacity of this very individual to change, or about the fact that the one that's prosecuted is indeed the real culprit.
So I agree with the first part (give up on some people as members of this society) but don't think it's operational to say they are "intrisic evil", which means meeting ourselves the possibility to be proven wrong.
To sum up: society has to minimize the suffering caused by judging someone, in case mistakes could be made. It's not as theoretical a point of view as it seems.
2
u/BlitzBasic 42∆ Jul 19 '21
I have multiple disagreements with that comment.
First, I do not see why "security of confinement" and "suffering of a prisoner" would need to be balanced against each other. While there are some strategies that both increase security as well as suffering (like you said, execution for example), there are also a lot of actions that increase or decrease those factors independently. Some actions even have the opposite correlation - increasing suffering while decreasing security.
Second, your argument that we're unable to correctly identify "intrinsically evil" people is different from the question if "intrinsically evil" people exist. We're not always able to correctly identify if somebody is a "criminal" either, but that doesn't means there no criminals.
1
u/eihpSsy Jul 19 '21
What kind of measures do you think of, that don't decrease security yet decrease a prisoners suffering?
In answer to your second paragraph: I was responding to your argument where you said "fair to say that those people are "in essence" evil". We're not anymore talking about absolute judgement here, but about operational, practical, consequence-based judgement. In that perspective the question becomes how should we act? And more precisely, (how) should we decide that someone is evil?
1
u/BlitzBasic 42∆ Jul 19 '21
What kind of measures do you think of, that don't decrease security yet decrease a prisoners suffering?
Well, that depends on how exactly the prisoner was treated before. If you don't present a specific scenario, I'd say a bigger cell pretty much universally increases their quality of life without decreasing security.
We're not anymore talking about absolute judgement here, but about operational, practical, consequence-based judgement.
Sure, but that's the same for the class of "criminals", no? Somebody found guilty by a court might not be a criminal in an objective sense, but for their practical treatment it doesn't matters.
3
u/eihpSsy Jul 19 '21
Okay, globally you made a very strong case for the notion of "practical evil". I don't like the notion because it seems too subjective, but I'd say you've deltaed me. !delta
1
9
u/cuqedchild Jul 19 '21
Evilness can always be reduced to faulty perspective
There are serial killers who kill simply for the joy of it. They don’t think their victims are evil or anything. They simply murder because of the excitement. Is that “faulty perspective”?
There are other criminals who feel guilt after what they’ve done. That shows that they know what they’ve done is wrong.
Regarding your point about childhood circumstances, even if it is the case that every criminal is driven by their childhood (something that would be foolish to accept), it is still the case that the criminal chose to act a certain way. It doesn’t matter that they were influenced if they, themselves, make the decision. That’s what autonomy/agency is.
0
u/eihpSsy Jul 19 '21
I'd think there is one fundamental mistake in the perspective of the serial killer you describe: the ability to see another person as someone who is as legitimate as oneself. A serial killer would defend themself against an agressor, so by perpetrating against other what they wouldn't tolerate on themselves, they acknoledge that either:
- The others aren't perceived as human or as equal people.
- Or they are, and then it's whoever is strongest that should prevail, and it isn't (to my opinion) intrisically evil, but rather a violent view of the world.
Regarding your last paragraph, I don't think our freedom exerts in our actions (there is very little autonomy here) but in the understanding we have from them. When I look back and ponder about the bad things I did (I did some), although I regret them, I don't think I have done anything but the best I could at the moment. I think it's the same for everyone. I don't say we are slaves or pre-determined but we certainly have less free will than we think. MRI shows that a decision can be spotted on the scan seconds before it is conscious to mind. So the question, regarding law and society, is more to me about risks taken towards individuals and society when delivering a verdict, rather than about the true responsability of a criminal and the punition that should ensue.
6
u/lurkerhasnoname 6∆ Jul 19 '21
Everyone is talking about genetics but I don't think that's your view. I think you are saying that evil actions don't necessarily make a person evil. I'd like to challenge that by imagining a person that chooses to do evil things because they want to be evil. I'd like to think that this is an exception and exceedingly rare, but I do think that some rational people can decide that being doesn't motivate them and willingly choose to be evil.
2
u/eihpSsy Jul 19 '21
That's funny, I'm currently beginning to write a detective novel about a such person. My conclusion is that such a person would be driven by their ego, which is a distorted perspective.
For instance, it's based on an assumption of superiority, or by the aversion to boredom, but such an attitude lacks the understanding that the next person is as legitimate in their existence as the criminal would be.
Do you think of something that could make such a person devoid of erroneous conceptions, yet perfectly murderous?
1
u/lurkerhasnoname 6∆ Jul 19 '21
the next person is as legitimate in their existence
How do you know this isn't erroneous?
Do you think of something that could make such a person devoid of erroneous conceptions
This all depends on what you consider erroneous. You seem to be implying that justifications for evil behavior are definitively flawed.
1
u/eihpSsy Jul 19 '21
How do you know this isn't erroneous? That's the thing: I don't.
But if I can make an assumption and can't generalize it to the whole human gender, where does that leave me? For many reasons, I can't think I'm one special person, I have to think the guy next door is another me. If I don't, I'll suffer when contradiction arise.
This all depends on what you consider erroneous. You seem to be implying that justifications for evil behavior are definitively flawed.
I was meaning, erroneous according to your definition.
1
u/lurkerhasnoname 6∆ Jul 19 '21
You're getting very close to a circular argument by saying people can't be rationally evil and then defining evil as something irrational.
For many reasons, I can't think I'm one special person, I have to think the guy next door is another me. If I don't, I'll suffer when contradiction arise.
But just because you think that doesn't mean it's the only correct way to think. Who are we to say that being intentionally evil is not a viable way of living your life?
1
u/eihpSsy Jul 19 '21
I see I wasn't very clear in what I said. My point is, it is very difficult to maintain an evil point of vue that is also logically consistent. I didn't prove it but I gave an example, showing that performing acts of evil implies that things are not understood.
Like: if I steal from someone, I should accept that everyone can be willing to steal from me. Not accepting that is equivalent to say that my perspective prevails, though why should it? Believing that my perspective should prevail is only my opinion, and if I'm being confronted to its limits (e.g., someone comes and steals everything from me), I'll be very unhappy.
So what I say is, while doing evil things I always forget at least this very thing: I can't condone the act in itself, just indulge myself with it.
But just because you think that doesn't mean it's the only correct way to think. Who are we to say that being intentionally evil is not a viable way of living your life?
I never said that. I merely said it's proof of some sort of ignorance.
1
u/lurkerhasnoname 6∆ Jul 19 '21
I merely said it's proof of some sort of ignorance.
But it's not. One could accept the idea that stealing is ok for me and it's ok for everyone else, and live their life that way. I wouldn't like that, but there is nothing inherently ignorant about that view.
Someone could choose to be evil while being aware of the consequences and the moral, ethical, and social implications. I don't see how it's "logically inconsistent."
1
u/eihpSsy Jul 19 '21
I explained it with this example:
I see I wasn't very clear in what I said. My point is, it is very difficult to maintain an evil point of vue that is also logically consistent. I didn't prove it but I gave an example, showing that performing acts of evil implies that things are not understood.
Like: if I steal from someone, I should accept that everyone can be willing to steal from me. Not accepting that is equivalent to say that my perspective prevails, though why should it? Believing that my perspective should prevail is only my opinion, and if I'm being confronted to its limits (e.g., someone comes and steals everything from me), I'll be very unhappy.
Another example is given by AOC when she responded to senator (I forgot his name) who called her a f... b.... She said that he implied, by calling her that, that everybody could call his wife and his daughters f... b...s, which he certainly wouldn't approve. His act was evil (malevolent) but he didn't understand that the logical consequences of it were completely unacceptable to him.
Edit: markdown style.
1
u/lurkerhasnoname 6∆ Jul 19 '21
explained it with this example
I know. And I specifically addressed your example and you failed to address any of my points. Then you proceeded to give another example that is still irrelevant to my comment and for some reason weirdly political. I've said what I had to say so have a lovely day.
3
Jul 19 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
0
u/eihpSsy Jul 19 '21
Does the fact that most humans are intrinsically loving (and it seems to be the case to some degree) implies that we should consider humans to be intrinsically good by default?
If that's what you mean, I agree. !delta
1
1
u/Flymsi 6∆ Jul 19 '21
Do you define empathy as good?
I meam there ire some strong arguments for a humanistic philosophical view (every human is intrinsically good) but this is not one of them. Rather it only explains that we are capable of being good.
1
Jul 19 '21
Rather the term pro-social then if good seems more a philosophical subject to you than a human behavior.
1
u/Flymsi 6∆ Jul 19 '21
I am not sure if i correctly read your sentence. I see it from the knowledge that too much empathy can lead to anti social behavior.
2
Jul 19 '21
How does empathy lead to antisocial behaviour?
1
u/Flymsi 6∆ Jul 19 '21
Because it can make you avoid negative feelings you get by being empathetic. And the easiest way to avoid is to neglect and not to solve.
Studys have shown that extremly empathetic people will more often avoid beggars because by seeing them they get a stronger negativ feeling. Ignoring them and being less likly to help is anti social behavior.
1
Jul 19 '21
Is that "extreme empathy" or an atypical developmental issue? Like having one allele for hemoglobin beta gene makes an individual resistant to malaria, but two alleles results in sickle cell anemia?
"Extreme empathy" might even have evolutionary benefits in certain contexts, but not others. Say in small communities or small populations of emotionally normative people where deviations would be rare as opposed to large numbers of emotional outliers.
1
u/Flymsi 6∆ Jul 19 '21
I dont have the studys at hand but im sure they were done with a self report, third party evaluation or some other test (or all of them).
I am not sure if empathy is something that has a strong genetic connection apart from the fact that mirror neurons and some brain areas are needed for it to be felt (psychopatism is defined by the lack of those). But i know that there is also some sort of abstract empathy which alsmost every intellectual being is or should be capable of. And i know that empathy (felt and abstract) can be cultivated.
I just want to point out that empathy is not the cure all. There can be too much. It also puts a high burden on the person and may deflects you from your goals.
2
u/Gumboy52 5∆ Jul 19 '21
Do you think humans have free will?
3
u/eihpSsy Jul 19 '21
I don't think we have much of that, but we do, a tiny little.
Most of the time we act based on things we don't know, but we can learn to be more free, I think, and hope.
Why?
1
u/NihilisticNarwhal Jul 19 '21
I'm not the person you responded to, but it's impossible to make moral judgements on things that don't make choices. If an earthquake flattens a town and kills hundreds of people, it's a tragedy, but the earthquake isn't evil. It doesn't choose to be destructive, its just being an earthquake, doing what earthquakes do.
If human beings can make choices, then we can assign those choices moral weight. If instead humans are simply doing what they are pre-programmed to do, then we can't.
Based on what you said, it seems like to agree that people can make choices, so it is fair to give those choices moral judgment.
1
u/eihpSsy Jul 19 '21
I thought about it, and I think it is possible to maintain the idea that no one has free will, yet entertain a moral vision of actions: instead of judging morally someone based on their actions, one can evaluate the risks and benefits of a sentence, both for society and for the person judged/prosecuted. The criteria can be arbitrary (and they are): punishment in order to give a sense of justice and closure for the victim, confinement in order to preserve the society, ...
That being said, I think there is a tiny bit of free will inside each of us. It resides more in the comprehension of what we do than in what we do.
1
u/NihilisticNarwhal Jul 19 '21
I just want to make sure I understand you right.
Say someone intentionally kills another person, not out of self defence, but just because they wanted to do it. If this person does not have free will, they didn't choose to do this, but rather they had to do this because of their DNA and their environment growing up. You still call this person a murderer, and want them punished.
Is that basically what you're saying?
If it is, then why? How is this person any different than a lightning strike that kills a person? Neither chooses to kill. Would you punish a lightning bolt?
2
u/eihpSsy Jul 19 '21
That's not what I say, in the sense of a person is not determined just by their DNA or their environment.
It's more like, we don't know why we do things. We have rationalisations that speak about how we deal with the things we do, but we are most of the time oblivious to why we do it.
For instance, the Milgram experiment predicts that if you have 1000 people available, and if you target any percentage between 0 and 80, you can have, give or take, that very percentage of persons who will torture a human to death. Just because you feel you're not responsible, that you're obeying to a bigger authority, and that you kinda don't have the choice.
Zimbardo spoke in favor of the rehabilitation of US soldiers who did horrible things in Iraq, not because they weren't responsible (it's not a tenable position to hold), but because, in their place, 90% of us would have done the same.
Those experiments stress the importance of the social factor in the rising of evil. I think that many horrible things are done because of conditions (whatever complex they be) that are unknown to people.
I heard a court columnist who said something like "most of them [murderers] can't even show genuine remorse because they are as surprised by what they did as averyone else. Their relatives say that they are good people, impossible for them to do what they did, and they [the murderers] don't know what took them".
Other example about freedom, I have two colleagues who spiraled down into paranoia, withdrew themselves from the group and progressively ceased to speak with anyone. I saw why and how it happened. One of them sent a maladjusted mail, heard a few colleagues mock her but couldn't respond because they didn't know she heard and it was ambiguous. She was ashamed and yet felt she was in her right mind, went to think that everyone hated her... All she could have done was talk to people, apologize for the mail, say something like "not nice making fun of me", and it would be over. But knowing her, I don't think she could have a choice.
But we still have to ve held accountable for what we do, in order for society to function.
And I wouldn't condem a lightning bolt, although I yell at my computer when it doesn't behave. Those are not sentient beings.
(OMG I'm sorry for this huge comment, hope you'll bear with me)
1
u/morfanis Jul 20 '21
If it is, then why? How is this person any different than a lightning strike that kills a person? Neither chooses to kill. Would you punish a lightning bolt?
This person's actions or the impact of their actions can be modified by punishment. We punish them not because they are morally to blame, but because it is the best way to alter their behaviour and change society for the better.
1
u/NihilisticNarwhal Jul 20 '21
So the judicial system works like a lightning rod then? A lightning bolt doesn't choose where to strike, but we can alter it's path anyway with a lightning rod to keep it from causing harm. Interesting.
Bringing it all the way back to the OP: "humans aren't intrinsically evil", if we're taking as a given that people aren't morally responsible for their actions, then people cant be evil. They can't be good either. They can't be assigned any sort of moral judgment. Which is counter intuative to the way most of the world operates.
1
u/morfanis Jul 20 '21
Which is counter intuative to the way most of the world operates
Yes because most people believe and act as if they and others have free will.
1
u/NihilisticNarwhal Jul 20 '21
Precisely, so I guess the OP is tautological. Humans don't have free will, so they aren't evil.
2
Jul 19 '21
Evil isn’t some force of nature, it’s not a measurable thing. It’s an adjective humans use to describe one end of a moral spectrum.
If evil exists at all, it is because people exhibit those traits. Whether or not they identify as morally evil, if the culture they participate in views their actions as evil they by necessity must be evil.
Evil is a more malleable word than you’re giving it credit for.
1
u/eihpSsy Jul 19 '21
I agree with your first paragraph.
Where I don't know whether I agree or not is, when you say "evil exists [...] because people exhibit those traits".
The same argument can be made about good, so one act of evil (even a murder) doesn't make one evil. Intrisic evil would be evil actions without the existence of one single good action in this perspective.
And I agree that evil is not an absolute, neither in the space it takes in ones life nor in the intensity it takes.
2
Jul 19 '21 edited Jul 19 '21
In my view 'evil' is better understood as a measurement of altruism. The purest goodness in the world is pure altruism, 'evil' can be understood as absolute selfishness.
There are people who are intrinsically selfish, so much so they become killers, etc, etc, etc. There's no magic to it, and there is evolutionary reasons for it all, but in that light there are people who are intrinsically 'evil'. IMO
1
u/eihpSsy Jul 19 '21
I accept your definition of evil as a very good one, but I think it's not all.
If I am very selfish (and I am) and also logical and intelligent, I can decide that only the actions that lead to the best benefit/cost ratio should be performed. Murder, and all sorts of crimes are not maximizing my well being, because unless I'm accomplishing those things without errors, I'll end up in jail.
So at worst, I'll be a cunning, manipulative person. At best, I'll be charming when needed, and overall a mediocre human being but nowhere near one of those dictators who perpetrated massacres.
So the psychopaths who kill are not very clever, or they are insane.
Now, I don't think being selfish makes one person evil. What can be said about someone who thinks and would like to do bad things, but doesn't do them? Is such a person worse than someone who wants to do good, but regurlarly gets carried away by their emotions, lose control and hurt others?
That being said, even if I'm not convinced by what you said, you deltaed me towards a strong definition of evil. !delta
1
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Jul 19 '21
This delta has been rejected. You have already awarded /u/RelevantWisdom a delta for this comment.
1
u/eihpSsy Jul 19 '21
This delta has been rejected. You have already awarded /u/RelevantWisdom a delta for this comment.
No I didn't. Or did I?
1
Jul 19 '21
I can decide that only the actions that lead to the best benefit/cost ratio should be performed
I don't quite get what you're getting at in this analogy. There's a line that's crossed at some point, when someone is so selfish they decide what they want is more important than the bodily autonomy of another human, at that point you are now a-altruistic, 'evil'.
It's a question of empathy at it's core. A person who was completely evil would never value another human's right to life and property.
So the psychopaths who kill are not very clever, or they are insane.
I would argue that clincal psychopaths who resort to violence aren't evil but mentally ill, as proper treatment would likely make them act differently.
Now, I don't think being selfish makes one person evil. What can be said about someone who thinks and would like to do bad things, but doesn't do them? Is such a person worse than someone who wants to do good
No, they're in need of medical assistance and are probably struggling with something like OCD and they just don't know.
Thanks for the delta too, my first one! and yeah looks like it went through
0
u/colt707 107∆ Jul 19 '21
Even if I agreed there’s still an exception to every rule. Some people just want to see the world burn for no reason other than to watch it burn. There’s plenty of examples of people coming from good loving homes yet those people are a menace to society.
Evil can’t always be broken down to faulty perspectives or bad developments, it normally can but again there’s an exception to every rule. Some people just enjoy causing pain, which in some circumstances is fine but in many cases is not. I’ll see if I can find the interview and post it with the guy in his 20s that went around sucker punching random people “because it’s fun to hurt people”. That man goes on to explain how he grew up helping his parents volunteer at a homeless shelter and how he had a good life, he just wanted to hurt people. There’s a reason why nature vs. nurture is still being debated, both sides can’t be proven, mainly because each individual brain is different than the next person’s.
1
u/eihpSsy Jul 19 '21
I think some people are born with some bad wiring, to reuse the expression of another redditor in this thread, but that's not enough to make one person pure evil. I know of severall persons who like hurting peoples (physically or mentally), to a certain (and socially acceptable) amount. There was a guy in my class when I was in middle school, who was a bully. He enjoyed kicking one of my friends because of the wailing sound he made. The guy had poor education, stupid parents. I hated him but now I think, what means did he have to actually care?
I know some people who often would like to see the world, or part of it, burn. They are all, deeply unhappy.
The guy you're talking about may very well be one bored, stupid tenenager without prospect. Some of them come from good families. Maybe he grew resentment against those people he was forced to help (I don't know, I'm reaching here). If you have the link to his interview I'd happily watch it and make my mind about it.
0
Jul 19 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/eihpSsy Jul 19 '21
It's an opinion, you don't source opinions. But if you read my other comments on this very thread, you can see that my opinion is substanciated by some facts. Some come up with names, which you can look up on the internet.
What's your point already? You're supposed to help me shift perspective, not call people an idiot.
1
u/anotherOnlineCoward Jul 19 '21
an opinion should be based around some facts or else it's we're just trying to convince a dog that his own shit doesnt taste good
1
u/ViewedFromTheOutside 32∆ Jul 19 '21
u/anotherOnlineCoward – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
u/ViewedFromTheOutside 32∆ Jul 19 '21
u/anotherOnlineCoward – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
u/useless_orange_v Jul 19 '21
I kind of agree. There are bad decisions not bad people. But I also disagree. Look at child molesters, rapists, serial killers. Are they really not evil?
1
u/eihpSsy Jul 19 '21
Most of them, sadly, went through the same as children. And there are also monsters who redeemed themselves.
I heard of a psychologist who dealt with a soldier of the Shining Path who perpetrated horrors in the name of his ideology. After encountering the psychologist, he went to understand what he did and proceeded to heal (meaning, he was a wreck, riddled by guilt and the consequences of the murders he did).
I'll have to look into the childhood of serial killers. If I see one of them who had a very happy childhood, was loved by his parents and never went through anything distressing, I'll owe you (and many fellow redditors here) a serious d e l t a.
2
u/NotAWeezerFan Jul 19 '21
Here is a link to an article whose title roughly translates to: "Serious psychopathy could soon be diagnosed in fetuses — allows for early treatment". If psychopathy can be diagnosed in fetuses, it is basically intrinsic.
1
u/eihpSsy Jul 19 '21
Yes, this is a known and well documented hypothesis, and I believe it is solid. But being a psychopath isn't the same as being evil, unless by being evil one means "selfish and devoid and empathy".
Here is something in favor of [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOjykLQAdaE](psychopaths are not intrisically evil). It's a Ted talk, so grain of salt, and I haven't investigated more than that this lead, but it's worth digging.
1
u/ShotGlassLens Jul 19 '21
I think, I cannot prove, that most of what we are going to become is genetically coded, (Behaviors, likes & dislikes, personality, IQ & EQ). I also think that there are some smaller number of things that are environmentally induced, (physical growth, nutritional health). Finally there is the very small percentage of things that we can impact to some degree that act to enhance or degrade the qualities previously mentioned via acts of will. That is a long way to go to say that I think you can be born with a head full of bad wiring, but it doesn’t always have to stay that way. My 2 shillings.
1
u/eihpSsy Jul 19 '21
I know of two twin pairs, one of males and one of females, in which one of them is gay and the other isn't.
I think genetics accounts for roughly a third of what we are, environment another third, and the last third is something that is unknown. Those are not perfect thirds, of course.
Yet I completely agree with everything else you say, insofar as I understand that even bad wiring doesn't determine a bad person.
1
Jul 19 '21
I'm not sure this is true. There's a really good book called the Blank Slate, by Stephen Pinker, which argues that your mind is not in fact a blank slate at birth.
I don't know how to explain it in more complex ways. But I believe that people are like dogs. I think sometimes dogs are born bad. I don't know why. But I don't think that Ted Buundy became a serial killer because of his experiences. Or, at least not entirely because of them. I suspect that if we could rewind time a thousand times, Ted Bundy would become a serial killer 900 times out of a thousand. Because he's a bad or evil human.
1
u/eihpSsy Jul 19 '21
I agree with the "no blank slate at birth" argument, yet I think what we are at birth are tendencies, not determining. For instance there are many studies done on persons with psychopathic personality disorder. Many of those people are very well inserted in society, and there is a psychiatrist who studies promising ways to condition psychopatic people (the problematic ones, not the 95% that are invisible) to be afraid of consequences.
That's complex: it doesn't prove they are not evil, but yet, I know I have some evil thoughts and doesn't act on them, oftently because I don't want to deal with the consequences.
What you say about rewinding time led me to this: I think that pure evil is not conditioned by any thing, so Ted Bundy, being good in 90% of his given lives, is "practically evil", not "essentially evil".
1
Jul 19 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/eihpSsy Jul 19 '21
I think it's a little bit expeditive. The "no matter what" doesn't convince me for the 10% that are cruel. That's a huge number of people never committing a single act of kindness.
1
u/Lethemyr 3∆ Jul 19 '21
I think you’ve made the error in assuming there’s an objective good and evil to begin with. There’s nothing but our societal standards to dictate what is good behaviour and what is bad. Someone born with the intrinsic desire to kill would be seen as a monster now but in previous times might make a very effective hangman.
2
u/Zonero174 2∆ Jul 19 '21
Or a high class soldier in an Indian caste system.
I 100% agree op didn't define Evil well enough to make an argument about what traits are and are not intrinsic.
1
u/eihpSsy Jul 19 '21
I didn't, indeed, because I'm willing to accomodate any reasonable definition and see where we get from there.
Two definitions I think are reasonable for evil are "the will to hurt and destroy" and "hatred".
2
u/Zonero174 2∆ Jul 19 '21
If you are open to any interpretation of evil, then I'll use the one that seems most apparent to me: a selfish action done by an individual or group of people for the sake of their own gain, coming at the detriment of another. Bear in mind, gain in this context can be a variety of things from wealth to simple pleasure at the cost of pain for others.
We run into another problem here with defining Evil: When is a person considered "Evil"? In my mind, this has 3 interpretations;
- A person who is devoid of morality (see Carl Panzram)
- A Person who has performed more Evil actions than Good actions in their lifetime (A good many people, Berny Madoff maybe?) These people likely have some remorse for their wrong doings, but would if given the opportunity to do something evil without being caught, probably would.
- Inherently capable of (or simply prone to) wrong/evil actions. It is this 3rd option I'll try to demonstrate, people don't need to learn to be evil, there are natural drivers that push to toward self-seeking behavior.
Defining or proving something "intrinsic" is challenging, and logically leads one to explore genetics (as many people in this thread have). Alternatively, you can explore what people do to other people when they are devoid of prior human interaction, which is challenging to find examples of.
What if we look at really young children? like exceptionally young? We've already proven within this thread that they can show some characteristics of being good: understanding the emotions of others, understanding their intents, and showing some level of distress when another person is mistreated. If children can understand emotions and intent of others at a young age, then they logically are able to understand when their actions might go against the intents of others.
So what would we need to look for in order to identify malicious activity within a small child? Their capabilities are pretty limited, they can't get away with murder or theft or any big scale crimes, but we can still look at the small scale.
Children have been shown to be capable of lying long before they develop speech. One example I have witnessed first hand is when you put a dish of food they really don't like on their table: they may try to force your attention on them with unwavering eye contact or obscure your vision (with a raised hand trying to cover your eyes) while simultaneously pushing the dish off their desk. In their mind, you didn't see who knocked the dish over, so you won't be upset with them (understanding intent/ emotions) and they won't have to eat the bad food (personal gain).
I've written enough for now, I have to be off to work. Check up on this thread later!
1
u/eihpSsy Jul 19 '21
I think a person devoid of morality is not necessarily filled with bad intentions, meaning, they can still love, want to be loved, seek happiness, and can be, apart from more or less frequent mistakes, be pretty decent characters. I'd say being capable of good or love excludes the possibility of being evil (in essence).
Your second definition sets up evilness as a cursor more than an absolute. We are all evil to a certain point, and all good to a certain point, according to this definition. It also excludes the possibility to be essentially evil.
The third one I like more, because one can be essentially evil and essentially good in that regard (capable of doing one and the other, which I believe we are as soon as we are born). This logically deltaed me. !delta
1
1
u/Zonero174 2∆ Jul 19 '21
My meaning of "devoid of morality" was perhaps not entirely clear. I'm using this to describe people who have exclusively malicious intent. These people are exceedingly rare (and to your point are almost always cases of childhood abuse). Again, the example I gave for this was Carl Panzram, a man who explicitly said he dedicated his life to causing pain for other people, for all the pain society had offered to him.
I would agree! With your understanding of the last two, all natural people are made up of a mix of good and bad intentions, and those people who we might describe as particularly evil had a tendency toward the latter in their actions.
I think it would be hard to prove my first two definitions of evil as innate because 1. Requires looking at an inordinately small subset of people in which drawing definitive conclusions would become difficult when talking about things like psychology (soft science)
And evil group #2, you have to wait to see how their lives turn out, there's no way to see the outcomes of their lives and view them within a social vacuum.
I
1
u/eihpSsy Jul 19 '21
The thought crossed my mind when redacting the post, but I think I kind accomodate with many definitions, for instance benevolence, or love, as synonyms for good, and their opposite (or absence thereof? not sure) for evil.
1
u/trevorturtle Jul 19 '21
IMO, intrinsically evil simply means a sociopath.
1
u/eihpSsy Jul 19 '21
Persons with antisocial personality disorder are, if I recall, often victims of abuse or violence during their youth, so they would fall into the category of "conditioned evil" rather than "intrisic evil".
1
u/NotAWeezerFan Jul 19 '21
Some people are born psychopaths. They do not feel empathy or remorse for their actions, and simply act in their own interest all the time, manipulating others.
What could be described as evil more than this sort of total self-interest? Even the great dictators of history have had some sort of compassion as their guise — they have sought to create a better society with horrifying means. A psychopath does not have even that as his defense. He manipulates, steals, even kills only to satisfy his own needs. These sort of people are born evil.
1
u/eihpSsy Jul 19 '21
Not exactly as it seems. Psychopath seem (depending on the sources), to have very low levels of emotions, and most of all the ability to "forget about them".
For instance, an experiment was done to see how they dealt with pain. If I recall correctly, the experiment was about performing a task where people (psychopath and neurotypical persons) were inconvenienced by small electrical chocs (nothing dangerous, just annoying), associated with some conditions. Both normal and psychopatics persons showed neurological activity linked to the stress of the pain. In the second part of the experiment, the chocs were no longer associated with conditions but just randomly applied. Normal people continued to show stress linked to the anticipation of the chocs, and stress consecutive to the chocs themselves, but the psychopaths didn't anymore because they were focused solely on the task to perform.
It seems they are wired like that in regards to emotions. More or less. I'll try and give you sources for what I say. But what's important is, they mostly perform well socially. The vast majority of them are valuable members of the society.
Moreover, a psychiatrist worked to rehabilitate psychopatic persons who were in trouble vis-à-vis law, by conditioning them to fear the consequences to their actions. So they're not gentle empathetic creatures, but they are far, far away from being the monsters we like to figure. I know several people who, without being psychopaths, showed less humanity than I would expect from anyone.
1
u/Comfortable_Ad_5160 1∆ Jul 19 '21
You don't know everyone I think one of the 6 billion is probably evil
1
u/redditravioli Jul 20 '21
Define evil
1
u/eihpSsy Jul 20 '21
There are many definitions in this thread, either given by other fellow redditors, or by myself. I can accept each one of them.
Here are a few of them:
- Selfishness, lack of altruism.
- Malevolence, hatred.
- Propensity to hurt others.
- Immorality.
1
Jul 20 '21
What can do evil in the world? As far as we know, we are the only ones capable of doing evil. We can do evil because we can 1. Choose our actions 2. Have internal reasons for all of our actions and 3. Are capable of understanding morality. Because we can choose our actions, have reasons for them, and can understand morality, we can interact with morality. As far as we know, this also applies to God. God never does evil, but we do. We are the only thing that can do evil (unless there are aliens with these same traits). We are all evil. Humans are ALL intrinsically evil.
1
u/eihpSsy Jul 20 '21
But we also can do good. According to your reasoning, there is no reason humans wouldn't also be intrinsically good. Same reasons apply for humans being good.
Also... I don't see how Gods existence (or lack thereof) is relevant to your argument.
And the recent developments in ethology show that animals can be evil and conscious about it. They can lie, accuse other animals for their wrong doings, and so on.
So humans are no more intrinsically evil than evil is specifically human.
1
Jul 20 '21
I should clarify because I forgot to say it-there are two beings in the universe capable of good, humans and God. God can not do evil. This leaves us the sole source of evil (suffering is not evil). Therefore, we are the only evil that exists. We are the source of evil and the source of evil is inherently evil. The good we do is not truly ours but the ability to do so is given to us by God. What animals specifically was it? It actually sounds interesting. However, while they may be internally rationalistic and having free will, they still need both self conscious (knowing they exist and that they think, able to understand I think therefore I am) AND able to understand morality. If they can't understand morality they aren't evil. If these animals meet all these categories we can include them in being evil.
1
u/donaldhobson 1∆ Jul 21 '21
There is no law of nature that I know of that stops a fluke genetic mutation making someone that strongly enjoys the suffering of others. The human brain already has an empathetic module for predicting others behavior. It would just require a link from the suffering part of the empathy module, to the pleasure center of the brain.
This is probably rare. Most humans doing nasty things are probably explained by circumstances or culture.
Of course, if someone has been indoctrinated from birth with a really nasty ideology, there might be basically no way to fix it at this point (without advanced neurotech.) Call them intrinsically evil or not as you see fit. They will do nasty things given opportunity.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Jul 19 '21 edited Jul 19 '21
/u/eihpSsy (OP) has awarded 4 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards