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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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 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?