nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Evil: Is it learned or are some people naturaly born evil?

SparkyTech

What are your thoughts on evil and how it comes across in a person. Is evil learned by our surroundings/parent/family influences etc? Or is evil something some people are inherently born with (IE disposed to elements of a sadistic/demonic personality)?. If tales like Lord of the Flies, Animal Farm and all the Wars around this earth over centuries past are anything to go by, I think everyone has the potential for some evil within them, but (thankfully!

) most people will never become fully blown evil in their lifetime. :cool:

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

eco2live

Is a loin evil when it sees a lioness and decides he will take her? Is a bear evil when it decides to kill another ones young? Yes it is agreed that these things are very wrong in humans but is it evil?

Humans are capable of reason and premeditation but in the animal kingdom they do some things just for fun that we would consider evil. Whales throw seals around for fun. Other animals kill just for fun. The effects of humans are more drastic (Holocaust etc) because people have the intelligence to escalate their actions and influence others though group think as we are pack animals.

I believe in evolution but I never underestimate the age old tendencies or decisions made by humans. If you mistreat an animal it will bite. Some will anyway. Humans are the same.

Group think and society is a powerful force for good and bad intentions towards others.

conorhal

Sad Professor wrote: »

You can't be born evil because there is no evil. Just like there's no objective morality. Evil is just a word to describe certain human actions and has been defined and redefined many times.

Nevertheless, I think it's a useful word to have and perhaps the only way to describe some of the things that human beings are capable of. It's difficult to read about the horrors of the Holocaust and not use the word evil. Personally I would define it very much terms of choice, but that assumes that human beings have free will. Violence, murder, taking pleasure in another's suffering - maybe these things are just part of human nature which hundreds of thousands of years of evolution has still failed to weed out.

I've always found moral relativists disturbing, mostly because relativism isn’t relativistic about itself, it’s absolutist. Openness isn’t open to closed systems of thought, syncretism and other relativist buzz-words are self refuting to a point of absurdity. Besides, scratch a pluralist and usually a mean absolute statement against absolutes gushes out.

I think we can talk about an objective morality.
Show me of one culture that condones rape or murder within in it's own society? There is none, because such actions of random violence threaten the ability of the collective to function as a society.
Which brings me to my next point, “where does it [universal morality] come from?”
Easy question to answer, universal morality is an aspect of human nature, it’s in our DNA.
Our species evolved as social animals and so it is only logical that we have to be empathetic and altruistic to collectively survive (and succeed). In other words we need a moral code and universal taboos around how we treat each other to maintain the social order that without which society cannot function collectively. For that reason, violence against the person can only be tolerated when applied for the protection of the greater good, and since rape and murder serve no common good within a society, no society considers them permissible. Of course, how you apply your cultural morality to another society is only a question of how far you are willing to be morally relativistic to groups you see as 'other'. Hence the dichotomy between, ‘America, the land of the free’ and of course, America the land of the slave owner. A dichotomy that the ephemeral quality of cultural morality eventually eliminated.
I'd argue that a culture with a high level of collective moral values that pertain to inclusivity and altruism actually weather such storms far better and recover far more quickly then most (look at Japan after the tsunami), because those with strong moral and collective cultural values act more cohesively to address the problem together.
I think that it is no accident that cultures with a moral imperative towards protecting the young and old and respecting the needs of the many rather then the few are the most successful cultures. It's no accident that civilizations that place an emphasis on equality and respect are the most advanced. After all, who's more likely to progress, those cultures that advance all their people utilizing all their talents and provide an equal opportunity to all its members to succeed, or those who's culture and morality are sanctioned by few for the few?
The values which are benefical for a collective group of individuals is generally the same across all groups of our species, I think it is fair to talk about a common morality. Often a criticism of cultural relativism is that the apparent large discrepancies of morality between cultures are not so large after all and can be explained by different factual beliefs as opposed to different moral values.

Scanlas The 2nd

There is no such thing as morals really. What we have in place is a system of implicit and explicit agreements/rules there works out in the best interest of the group for the most part. Stealing a can of coke is wrong and something to be ashamed of, yet the slaughtering of animals is fine and dandy. Stealing hurts another human so we agree not to do it and that it is wrong to do and that we will look down upon those who do as a system of punishment. Slaughtering animals is good for most humans so we say it's ok even though it's on a par with the holocaust. One could easily argue it's far worse than the holocaust, but then they aren't human so who cares. Us humans are a bunch of hypocrites.

Right and wrong doesn't exist, they are an illusion.

QED

Seachmall

conorhal wrote: »

Show me of one culture that condones rape or murder within in it's own society? There is none, because such actions of random violence threaten the ability of the collective to function as a society.

Any society that enforces Sharia Law is one, of which there is few and has been many.

In most Islamic countries Sharia Law is minimally enforced, if enforced at all, by the government but that's not to say it hasn't been. In those societies stoning or beating men, women and children was morally justifiable.

Morals are defined by the society, they are not absolute. Evolutionary altruism is innate in all of us and as a result is often considered the basis for morality however societies have, and do, make exceptions for religious or cultural reasons.

In our society abortion is widely considered immoral, in others it is not. There is no absolute answer as to whether it is or not because it's that societies decision. I'm not saying we shouldn't promote (or enforce as the UN does) our morals just that you can't look at these things absolutely.

conorhal

Seachmall wrote: »

Any society that enforces Sharia Law is one, of which there is few and has been many.

In most Islamic countries Sharia Law is minimally enforced, if enforced at all, by the government but that's not to say it hasn't been. In those societies stoning or beating men, women and children was morally justifiable.

Morals are defined by the society, they are not absolute. Evolutionary altruism is innate in all of us and as a result is often considered the basis for morality however societies have, and do, make exceptions for religious or cultural reasons.

In our society abortion is widely considered immoral, in others it is not. There is no absolute answer as to whether it is or not because it's that societies decision. I'm not saying we shouldn't promote (or enforce as the UN does) our morals just that you can't look at these things absolutely.

I think that the apparent large discrepancies of morality between cultures are not so large after all and can be explained by different factual beliefs as opposed to different moral values.
I do not think in an Islamic society, that because a man can take a woman by force or kill another man by virtue of superior stregth, that his right of force is endorsed, murder and rape are punishable crimes.
The problem of Sharia law is that it is as you say 'enforced' (nowhere in the world has a democratic decision been made to impliment Sharia law) rather then collectively agreed based on a set of common values, and because it is a morality of the few enforced on the many and so it is not a universal moral code.
It is a perversion of morality because it runs counter to any sort of effective social order that would progress a species.

everyday taxi

Agricola wrote: »

Yeah, God. That's where we're goin wrong I tells ya. Theres no good God fearin folk left no more.

i concur.

Seachmall

conorhal wrote: »

I think that the apparent large discrepancies of morality between cultures are not so large after all and can be explained by different factual beliefs as opposed to different moral values.

I don't think beliefs and morals are in opposition. I see morals as an extension of beliefs. I'm not really sure if you disagree with me on that but that's the impression I got (correct me if I'm wrong

)

The problem of Sharia law is that it is as you say 'enforced', and because it is a morality of the few enforced on the many and so it is not a universal moral value, in a democracy of the many such a code of morality simply could not exist because it runs counter to any sort of effective social order that would progress a species.

But if an Islamic country agreed, democratically, that Sharia Law should be enforced it would be considered moral in that country. But it wouldn't change our opinions of it.

Also I disagree that morals need to advance a society or species.

Evolutionary altruism doesn't define morals. There are many moral issues today that are intellectual problems as oppose to emotional ones.

Saila

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_mDTLphIVY

PeterIanStaker

People look at the likes of Jeffrey Dahmer etc and think that "he had to be born evil" as a sort of defence mechanism, which is almost this natural reaction in order to make the aberration that is the serial killer into an "other" or a "monster". Not that I have any sympathy for Dahmer, but maybe if he was brought up in a different environment and nurtured he wouldn't have been a necrophile serial killer. Or whatever.

Catari Jaguar

The level of reasoning and open mindedness on this thread has given me a lot of faith in the future of civilization.

Mickeroo

pragmatic1 wrote: »

I'd say a tiny minority are born without empathy. Depending on circumstance, this can lead them to commit acts that can only be described as evil.

I don't think they're born without it, empathy is developed over the course of your lifetime like lots of other human traits, people with no empathy are referred to as affectionless psychopaths, I don't think anyone is born that way.

As has already been said there is no such thing as evil or good, it all depends on the society you live in and what is acceptable in that society, you could say it is evil to kill someone, but is it evil to kill them if they were a threat in some way? Basically if the allies had not won WW2 it's unlikely the actions of the nazi's would be regarded as so evil now.

steelcityblues

The two lads who tied Jamie Bulger to a train track are a perfect example of being born evil.

cosmicfart

Just reading the tail end of this thread: Evil people are like gays and normal people, Dammit anyway!!

flutterflye

DexyDrain wrote: »

But your argument depends on members of a group sitting down and deciding 'well genetics tells us that inbreeding can cause a build up of copy errors and mutations that will impair future offspring, so let's all agree that this is a bad idea and protect it with a taboo'. But that almost never happens. It also depends on people having rational arguments in favour of taboos when most traditional societies strictly forbid even attempting to discuss such matters, with any attempt at rational, objective argument seen as an evil act in itself (as David Norris found out).

It fails to explain how all of the possible permutations of what is right and what is wrong is transmitted to children. Nobody says 'it's bad because my parents/teachers told me once they are past age six or seven. People are essentialists in this regard, they have gut feelings rather than rote memory when novel situations never encountered before throw a dilemma in their way.

It fails to explain why some acts are strictly taboo and others just 'sins of the system' where the only taboo is getting caught.

Look at it another way, there is the famous ultimatum game. Someone offers two stranges a cash reward simply for taking part. One participant is given the entire amount and asked to make an offer to the other participant, if both accept, they each keep that amount. When this is played with real money (say 100 euro), offers of 80/20 splits are rarely accepted, below that the rate of acceptance goes down to zero.
This is a puzzle. No one was told by parents and teachers 'you must make a fair offer to complete strangers when given cash to distribute'. Yet the results are always consistent.
The researchers describe it this way: the second participant is paying the researchers to punish the one who made the unnacceptable offer. Both came in with nothing and the one who declined could walk out 20 euro better off for no effort. But they refuse to allow such a bad offer go unpunished, they will forsake the 20 euro only for that reason.

Social contract theory and it's like cannot explain this, these are two random strangers.

What the hell does this post even mean?
I can't understand any of the points that you keep trying to make.

Why on earth would social contract theory be based on members of a group discussing anything?

Seriously, what are you talking about?

Social contract theory is one of the oldest and most dominant theories on morals and such, throughout history.

From Socrates and Plato, to Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau, and a multitude of other leading philosophers and sociologists right up until the present day.

It is only a theory of course, and there are many variations, but it shouldn't be dismissed as rubbish when it obviously must carry at least some truth to it.

It fails to explain the entire subject of morality, but in my opinion, it comes damn close, and makes a lot of sense, unlike some of the points that you keep attempting to make.

Odysseus

Personally I don't believe in the concept of evil. Through my work I have encountered many sick people over the years, but never an evil one and with saying that I have worked with people who have committed some very bad acts. When we write off someone as evil, we are washing our hands of them, if we see them as sick then as a society we have a responsibility to try treat them. I see the classification of people as evil as one big cop out.

Now with saying that I do believe that people should be punished, but we should be trying to treat or rehabilitate people. It's very easy to write off lets say sex offenders as evil or any other category of crime/act that some people describe as evil. However, it is much harder to try understand not condone or justify it, and in turn then not only come up with a suitable punishment, but just as importantly aim to prevent that person from re-offending.

Emz133

I dont think you are born evil, i think its a series of circumstances that happen in your life that trigger it. Yes, some people are brought up in bad environments and are still "good" but i believe that every person is different and different circumstances can affect them differently, hence some people "turn" evil.

Odysseus

Seachmall wrote: »

Sociopath and Psychopath aren't considered medical disorders anymore, their definitions were essentially the same (and bloated). The term used today is Antisocial Personality Disorder.

Most people with ASPD are relatively normal people. I wouldn't call them evil as they're not inherently immoral, they're amoral. They don't look to hurt anyone, nor do they look to help anyone, unless it has some benefit to themselves. Essentially they're the same as everyone just without the emotional motivators and restrictions (i.e. we too act in ways that benefit us most [we feel good from helping others and when we hurt others we feel bad about it], they do the same without the feeling good/bad).

The term psychopath is still used in forensic psychology and psychiatry, and it is different when compared to the DSM ASPD or ICD-10 dis-social personality disorder. I know the term is not contained in either the DSM or ICD-10 anymore, but I still see the classification psychopath being used in medical circles.

As you noted with ASPD not all people who tick the boxes for a psychopath fit the bill for the criminal psychopath.

steelcityblues

Odysseus wrote: »

Personally I don't believe in the concept of evil. Through my work I have encountered many sick people over the years, but never an evil one and with saying that I have worked with people who have committed some very bad acts. When we write off someone as evil, we are washing our hands of them, if we see them as sick then as a society we have a responsibility to try treat them. I see the classification of people as evil as one big cop out.

Now with saying that I do believe that people should be punished, but we should be trying to treat or rehabilitate people. It's very easy to write off lets say sex offenders as evil or any other category of crime/act that some people describe as evil. However, it is much harder to try understand not condone or justify it, and in turn then not only come up with a suitable punishment, but just as importantly aim to prevent that person from re-offending.

I know you won't like this, but most psychology students and theorists came from affluent backgrounds, and have never been subject to many shady characters in their youth.

When they reach adulthood, this leads them to adopt an overly naive view that everyone is or can be 'good at heart', via rehabilitation. It is lead to the massive problem in today's judicial system where clearly sociopathic people get out early on technicalities, when they should be away from normal society.

Not so easy to sell this belief to a pensioner living on a council estate, who may be s*it scared on a daily basis of a small group of heartless, drug addled, knife carrying youths trying to terrify him/her. Especially, if there is no one around to watch out for that person.

By your logic in the final paragraph, if someone describes the various paedophile priests of years past as evil, are they really being inaccurate?