I look at > people like Dahmer who, during early childhood without parental > knowledge, already exhibited patterns of morbid interests, defined by > society as evil.
Lots of people have morbid interests. Morbid interests don't make you evil. Generally what we think of as evil is unconcern for pain and suffering of others (or perhaps even relishing in the pain and suffering of others - "pathophilia" ?). We already have a decent understanding of this. Many, many violent criminals are diagnosable sociopaths. A prime component of sociopathy is absence of physiological response to disturbing images. Sociopaths have less sensitive neural pathways when it comes to stimuli that are perceived by the average person as very negatively arousing. If people want to insist that there is such a thing as "evil" people, sociopathy is pretty much your best bet for describing what you mean. At least if you want to have an empirical, workable definition. People who don't care about the suffering of others - because of reduced neuro-emotional sensitivity - are "evil" in the sense that their selfish impulses will not be tempered by adverse, visceral reactions to predictions of the negative affect experienced by others - the way the selfish motives of non-sociopaths *are* so tempered. Of course, if people need to understand evil in the context of vast philosophical or religious bodies of thought, then what I've just suggested isn't helpful. But, of course, talking about things in the context of vast philosophical/religious bodies of thought comes with a certain measure of sacrifice of the tangible, the empirical, the testable, and consequent loss of some of the ability to discourse with those unfamiliar with or unfriendly to said bodies of thought. To me, the concept of "evil" is best left to the arts. It's a powerful concept that we all relate to on an intuitive level. But as for its utility in philosophical debate - I'm at a loss to see it. On Mar 19, 4:04 pm, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > How can something be both innate, and learned?<<CJ > > I see a problem here on the interpretive level. > > I said clearly......... "As much as we can accept the (possibility) > that good and > evil are innate qualities embedded in the psyche , we (can't rule out) > that "forces/energies" beyond our physical space can have or attempt > influence upon our action. > > The content is clearly not a statement of absolutes. What is > unrecognized are the variable aspects of innateness, ie; the degree of > the good/evil personae. Take for example a crime witness quote "I new > he was bad but I didn't think he was capable of such a heinous act". > OR "I know she was a bad mother but don't understand what possessed > her to boil her baby". > > So there is a "degree" of innate good/evil but in reiteration, we > can't rule out the forces/energies can have or attempt influence on a > person. Also as had been discussed early in the thread, the > interpretation of good/evil is in how it is defined. So what I'm > trying to get at here is that a person can have qualities that are > innate and yet be influenced by said other. Might hatred be innate > but not murder? > > You state factually "We are taught what good and evil are, not born > with it." <<CJ > > That is a matter of opinion, one that I disagree with. I look at > people like Dahmer who, during early childhood without parental > knowledge, already exhibited patterns of morbid interests, defined by > society as evil. You think he was "taught" this but I think he was > born that way and so are many other children that display similar > (evil) tendencies. The same goes for the "good". > > If you spend some time in a room with a large group of one year old > children, you can easily see the good/bad, which at that age is hardly > learned. What children "learn" is what aspects of their (innate) > behavior is unacceptable in our/their society and which aspects are > perceived by our/their society as good and evil. > > There was a thread not long ago, chris, in which a new member > misinterpreted your post about how children break their toys. While > you were intending to make another point the member took it as a > declaration that negativity was a good thing. You do remember? > This is typical of internet discussion dynamics. Sometimes we need to > slow down to understand each other and clarify content. > > Slip > > On Mar 19, 10:44 am, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Nor can we rule out that Russell's Teapot is orbiting Saturn, but we don't > > entertain serious conversation about it. What's intersting to me is that > > you don't note the contradictory nature of your paragraph. How can > > something be both innate, and learned? You recognize in your post that > > concepts of good and evil are fluid, and I'm sure you've experienced shifts > > in your moral compass even in your own lifetime. Something which was truly > > innate would not be so infinitely flexible, no? We are taught what good and > > evil are, not born with it, and what's more, can be "un-taught" it, > > converted, deprogrammed, brainwashed, or have that tenuous understanding > > shifted in countless ways. > > > The concept of Universal Good and Evil was one even Kant kouldn't make > > stick. ;-) It still relies on subjective interpretation, and has never been > > shown to have manifested sans social mores. > > > [ Attached Message ]From:Slip Disc <[email protected]>To:"\"Minds Eye\"" > > <[email protected]>Date:Thu, 19 Mar 2009 04:18:19 -0700 > > (PDT)Local:Thurs, Mar 19 2009 6:18 amSubject:[Mind's Eye] Re: Does evil > > exist? > > > and then we > > truly start to believe that there must be some dark thing outside > > ourselves which forces us to want to do these things which are > > "evil". <<CJ > > > Nothing forces us to do anything. We still have choice, awareness, > > rationale. As much as we can accept the possibility that good and > > evil are innate qualities embedded in the psyche , we can't rule out > > that "forces/energies" beyond our physical space can have or attempt > > influence upon our action. There are no fixed perspectives or > > absolutes concerning good or evil other than those established by > > individual or group choice, for whatever reason. They still float > > about in the opinion pool. > > > On Mar 18, 11:30 pm, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Thank *insert deity* you're here, Michael. I was hoping someone was > > > going to point out that everyone seemed to be making the point that > > > Good and Evil were subjective ("Without cold there would be no > > > hot..."), and then turning right around and following that up with > > > something that seemed to imply they were somehow objective. > > > > The problem with fixed perspectives of moral absolutes of good and > > > evil, such as those handed out by a purportedly objectivist view, is > > > that they can't possibly be such, and fail in scenarios which require > > > moral relativism. Not every situation does, and some might argue few > > > situations truly do, but some situations certainly do, or we wouldn't > > > be able to sit up here and play "What would you do if a madman pulled > > > a gun and said bomb the tube or I kill your daughter?" Belief in a god > > > given moral set is the only possible justification humans can give for > > > moral absolutes, because it's the only explanation which over rides > > > the common sense which suggests that sometimes, it's ok to break the > > > rules. > > > > We further delude ourselves with this concept that our natural human > > > instincts to eat, and take, and fight and fuck are wrong, and then we > > > truly start to believe that there must be some dark thing outside > > > ourselves which forces us to want to do these things which are "evil". > > > We are not evil ourselves. There must be something outside ourselves > > > which is evil. QED, there must be something good, and that something > > > good can save us. > > > > The premise is based on a flawed assumption to begin with; that our > > > natural hungers and desires are themselves, not a normal, healthy > > > expression of us. That we should all be naturally, unassumingly > > > altrustic, and that to feel any other way is a sign of negative > > > outside influence. Once we dispel that myth, and recognize that our > > > conscious choices to become altruistic as a method for the improvement > > > of society, ONLY because better society provides better personal > > > quality of life, it all starts to make sense. We see how we still are > > > on the same biological evolutionary track, how sociological > > > progression has occurred, and how the long conversations over > > > seemingly minor twitches of semantics somehow seek to mystify > > > something as natural as grass growing, and chicks hatching in spring. > > > > Organisms all act in a fairly similar fashion. We do not spend much > > > time thinking about whether a lion is evil when it brings down a young > > > gazelle, and tears it limb from limb. Yet the same act in a human is > > > "beastly!" > > > > Of course it is. We're beasts. Some of us are better adjusted than > > > others. This is not the influence of outside radio waves of dark > > > malice. This is straight up old school Maslovian progression, with all > > > the standard textbook pathologies, and we understand it a million > > > times better than we did a hundred years ago. > > > > Debate the definition of evil if you like, but the fact is, there's a > > > pill for that. > > > > On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 12:33 PM, Michael Berkovits > > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > True, cold could exist only if hot exists. "Hot" and "cold" are > > > > cognitive constructs referring to the subjective response we all feel > > > > with respect to being in the presence of molecules whose average > > > > kinetic energy is higher or lower than a baseline number we feel as > > > > mild. > > > > > What transcends humanity is the fact that molecules have kinetic > > > > energies. What does not transcend humanity (arguably) is "hot" and > > > > "cold." You can make arguments for "hot" and "cold" on the basis of > > > > other organisms that arguably feel. But "good" and "evil" are way too > > > > abstract, and those I think purely depend on human definition. > > > > > re: Archy's post: In what sense do we contain evil and need a cure? > > > > From whose perspective? There's a reason some philosophers posited > > > > that humans are fundamentally good, and others posited humans are > > > > fundamentally bad. It's a definitional matter. (Unless, say, you > > > > believe in God and define good as "that of which God approves"). > > > > > Needless to say, I agree with Pat 100%. Sure, I'm a normal human > > > > being so on a visceral / colloquial level, I "feel" and "know" Mr. > > > > Fritzl is "evil." But we're not having a colloquial discussion right > > > > now. If I were talking to a friend I might say something like "Dude, > > > > that Austrian guy is so frickin eeevil." But we're having high- > > > > minded debate right now, and that won't cut it. > > > > > Pat's key point, from my perspective, is: "Now, even I tend to coldly > > > > lump Mr. Fritzl into the category of > > > > evil, but I do so knowing that my declaration doesn't make it so." > > > > > I join ornamental in asking someone to expand on why it is so obvious > > > > that good and evil precede and transcend humanity. > > > > > I also posit this further view: Where does viewing things as "good and > > > > evil" help us, as opposed to the reductionist view that hey, people > > > > have visceral reactions borne out of a combination of brain structure, > > > > personal experience, and cultural absorption (part of experience, of > > > > course, but I'm breaking it out because it's important), and most > > > > people happen to have the same positive or negative visceral reactions > > > > to a wide array of things (e.g., everyone reacts viscerally negatively > > > > to the idea of killing a helpless baby). > > > > > On Mar 17, > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
