Your argument is that society has defined certain "patterns of morbid interests" as evil. <<<MB
No, that is not my argument. The question......"Innate or Learned"? My answer........"Innate" An infant can have innate positive and negative qualities. Dahmer was just an example to show that his was not a learned behavior but one that was innate, and! how the exhibition of innate negative quality can and does occur later in life. IMO, of course! As I said earlier: The argument of evil, or the evil argument, remains problematic in that we can only deduce from a set premise only to reach a fallible conclusion. We cannot prove or disprove the existence of evil but only present assertions laden with ambiguity and perplexities and there are no uniform opinions on the matter other than those of segmented groups within society that deem evil existence as a necessity to their function. So the carousel goes round! On Mar 22, 11:52 am, Michael Berkovits <[email protected]> wrote: > Dearest Slip, > > Allow me to respond. > > > Michael, you are responding out of context. No one ever stated that > > people withmorbidinterests were evil. My post expressed opposition > > to Jenkins idea....."We are taught what good and evil are, not born > > with it.". > > You may not have stated that people with morbid interests are evil, > per se, but I'm not sure what else you were getting at by the > following: > > 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". > > Your argument is that society has defined certain "patterns of morbid > interests" as evil. I disagree. I was arguing that society defines > actions, not interests, as evil. I was supporting my argument by > pointing out that people can have morbid interests without being > viewed as evil. For example, people can be into death and dying > without being viewed as evil. Indeed, someone could even enjoy > fantasizing about the most grotesque mutilations and evil actions, but > if said person doesn't do such things, said person is not considered > evil. (I hear your echo - "by whom" ? Obviously, what I am doing > when I make such statements is suggesting that the majority of the > general populace has intuitions in agreement with the statement I am > making. If you disagree, feel free to say so, but I try to only make > such statements when I'm pretty sure I'm speaking for the intuition of > most.) > > In other words, someone who rapes people might be considered evil, but > someone who's watched rape porn for 60 years and never done anything > like it - indeed, shudders at the thought of harming someone else's > autonomy that way in real life - would probably not be considered > evil. > > Next point: > > ....."We are taught what good and evil are, not born > > > with it.". I must ask who are the "we" in your > > statement............"Generally what "we" think of as evil is > > unconcern for pain and suffering of others......" > > See above. I use "we" when I believe I am speaking for the intuitions > of the vast majority of ordinary people. What I was getting at is > the following. If someone really, really liked to hurt people and kill > people, and did so, but was wracked with guilt when he did so and > hated himself for it and lay awake at night crying over the poor > victims, I don't think the word "evil" fits as well there. Meaning, I > don't think "we" tend to see such an individual as evil. I think "we" > see evil as having a tinge of coldness, detachment. Hence my foray > into the world of sociopathy. > > Here's what you argued: > > Sociopaths are not empirical subjects in any definitive study. A > > > sociopath may simply be exhibiting a psychological defense mechanism > > which results in dissociation, detachment and suppression of emotional > > stress, among the myriad of other reasons. Purposeful cognitive > > dissociation is not evidential of good/evil and therefore is not > > admissible in this sense of establishing pertinence. > > I was referring to a set of studies establishing that sociopaths do > not exhibit ordinary, automatic, physiological response to gruesome > imagery, while normal people do. In other words, these studies > established that sociopaths are not "simply exhibiting a psychological > defense mechanism" which results in "dissociation... and suppression > of emotional stress." The point of the studies was to explore whether > sociopaths had normal aversions to gruesome stimuli, and then > suppressed those reactions in order to effectuate their misdeeds, or > whether they lacked such automatic aversions in the first place. The > studies established the latter. So unless you have an argument with > respect to the methdology or interpretation of those studies, I would > cotend that your paragraph is factually wrong. > > Your last point was as follows. In response to the following > paragraph, you said "What?" : > > > 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. > > Translation: Sociopaths are people without adverse physiological > reactions to the prospect of hurting others (or, as I put it, the > "negative affect experienced by others," meaning the prospect that > others will experience negative emotions such as feeling pain and > hurt). Sociopaths may not be "evil" in any absolute sense, but hey, > if you want to call their position "evil" (their position being the > fact that they don't "feel" anything when they think about the > "negative affect experienced by others," and hence that their > decisional calculus is not "tempered" by such considerations the way > your decisional calculus or my decisional calculus *is* so tempered), > then go ahead and label that evil. > > On Mar 20, 10:12 pm, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Michael, you are responding out of context. No one ever stated that > > people withmorbidinterests were evil. My post expressed opposition > > to Jenkins idea....."We are taught what good and evil are, not born > > with it.". I must ask who are the "we" in your > > statement............"Generally what "we" think of as evil is > > unconcern for pain and suffering of others......" > > > Sociopaths are not empirical subjects in any definitive study. A > > sociopath may simply be exhibiting a psychological defense mechanism > > which results in dissociation, detachment and suppression of emotional > > stress, among the myriad of other reasons. Purposeful cognitive > > dissociation is not evidential of good/evil and therefore is not > > admissible in this sense of establishing pertinence. > > > 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. > > <<<MB > > > What? > > > On Mar 20, 4:36 pm, Michael Berkovits <[email protected]> wrote:> I > > look at > > > > > people likeDahmerwho, during early childhood without parental > > > > knowledge, already exhibited patterns ofmorbidinterests, defined by > > > > society as evil. > > > > Lots of people havemorbidinterests. Morbidinterests don't make you > > > evil. (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, > > ... > > read more » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
