posted
I am going over a theory of mine, which states that no human is inherently evil. I do not think that people do things that are purely destructive, and I would like to get others views on the topic.
Posts: 883 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
When I read this, I immediately thought of "Antisocial Personality Disorder" or sociopathy. It's a condition in which a person shows absolutely no remorse for the physical or emotional harm of others- they lie, manipulate, and cheat in order to get their way. For this reason, they're often very good criminals.
From what I know of the subject, researchers believe there is a genetic predisposition to sociopathic behavior. But as with all genetic predispositions, it takes other (environmental) factors to bring it about. If that's the case, then I'm not sure if you're right or wrong.
People who have a greater genetic tendency toward sociopathic behavior would need something to trigger it. Trauma perhaps, or a poor upbringing. That would imply that a person is not purely destructive, they're just more in need of a safe, healthy environment. Then again, the fact that sociopaths have a genetic predisposition implies that there is something inherently evil in them.
But then I think, aren't all human beings capable of committing atrocious acts, if pushed too far? Maybe sociopaths are just extra-sensitive. If that's the case, then your theory is probably wrong.
Posts: 70 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
That is a question that's unanswerable if you're seeking proof that can be learned by just speaking with people.
Is evil a social construct? Is evil something that's always been in humanity and thus gets confused with being a social construct? Is evil really Evil, created and sustained by a malign supernatural or otherwise unexplained source outside humanity?
Who knows? Pretty much all theories about the nature of evil are based partially in faith or uncertainty
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
A purely evil being could not successfully nurture and control a human body. I suppose that there is some historical evidence for this, if you believe in such things.
But inherently doesn't mean "purely". It only means that the evil is an intrinsic part of the person. The evil is "inherited" from the humanity of the individual.
So, humans die. This is an intrinsic effect of the human body. Death, though not purely evil, is an evil. Therefore, humans are inherently evil.
Also, humans lie. This is an intrinsic effect of the human psyche and how it develops when raised in a human context. Lies, whether or not you think them purely evil, are an evil. Therefore, humans are inherently evil.
A human, in perfect isolation from birth, will become sociopathic even if all material needs to maintain the life processes of the body are met. Becoming a sociopath, if not purely evil, is an evil. Therefore humans are inherently evil.
Does anyone really want me to go on?
I will agree that no human is purely evil, which is what I believe that RB was really trying to say. But logic suggests that all humans (barring certain miraculous exceptions, on which no opinion shall be rendered for purpose of this argument) are inherently evil by simple fact of their humanity.
Posts: 763 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: A purely evil being could not successfully nurture and control a human body. I suppose that there is some historical evidence for this, if you believe in such things.
Hm. I'm intrigued by your definition of "evil," actually.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Judaism teaches humans are born with equal amounts of potential for commiting both good and bad acts.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
As the saying goes, One man's poison is another man's pleasure.... Evil is not always as clear as it may seem, nor is Good
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The definition of evil is the decisive factor. If there isn't a universal evil, things get very complicated. Different things are often good (or at least neutral) for one person and bad/evil from another persons point of view.
For members of a religion, things are easier. The religion imposes moral codes, and good is whatever goes along with those moral codes, evil is what is against them. But different religions can have different moral codes.
I think a lot of what is similar in different religions' moral values has originated from what helps the survival of the species, and from the evolutionary necessities. Humans have not been conscious of the exact workings of genetics until lately. However, some conclusions have been made, and so incest has often been a taboo in even the very primitive tribes.
Not everyone has reached the same conclusions, so the taboos and moral codes vary a lot. Some of them have been affected by warfare; cultures valuing savage behaviour higher than in peaceful cultures. Nomadic tribes didn't consider evil the killing of deformed babies, because they would slow down everyone else, and require more food than they could contribute.
For those reasons I find it very hard to imagine a universal good and evil. They seem to me to depend on time and place of the observer.
Posts: 8 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:But there is one thing that doesn't change. The truth.
Or, you know, something like that.
Like I said, humans, by nature, do evil. It doesn't matter how you define evil, any definition that admits that there is such a thing clearly retains it as something that humans do because of their nature. Any definition that doesn't admit that such a thing exists except as an illusion has humans doing it because they are the ones that entertain that illusion. But the question of what "evil" means is pointless. RB has already expressed an idea that "evil" equates to destructive activity, that is, something that undoes construction without any return.
And I don't believe that any human can exist which is purely evil in that sense of being totally destructive. Simply to attain to the form of a human in any meaningful way requires a certain level of virtue that may be termed "Good" (or at least non-evil). To have a functioning human body and even permit its life processes is to foster constructive activity, even though it comes at the cost of resources that could be used for other constructive activity. To have a functioning human mind (here putting aside the body) is to carry out constructive activity of a different kind. If you have neither of these (and I will admit, for purposes of argument, that a human with only one can exist), then you don't have a human at all.
Looking at it from the other direction, pure evil can never really be identified as a discrete entity. To have a self, bounds of existance, definition, these are all results of construction. Because humans are discrete entities, they cannot possibly be pure evil.
It is hard to imagine absolute evil, because there is nothing that you can sensibly imagine. And it is difficult to imagine absolute good, because it is beyond imagining. In fact, while evil can be absolute, good probably cannot be absolute in the same way, because good must always be undergoing constructive activity, it can never be finished in the same way that evil can be brought to an ultimate point (even though it isn't an imaginable point).
Posts: 763 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: It doesn't matter how you define evil, any definition that admits that there is such a thing clearly retains it as something that humans do because of their nature.
Hm. In this case, I'm going to need a definition of "nature."
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
If evil is merely a social construct, determinable by society, then it isn't wrong to construct it differently. Therefore if we construct it so that genocide and torture are good, and (say) being Jewish is evil, that's just as legitimate as our current social construct. All those who really believe this, get help now.
...but we don't. People can say they believe good and evil are just social constructs, but cheat them or someone they identify with, and you'll find out how much they believe it.
===
The original question framed the issue in a way I find odd: whether some individuals are inherently evil (and, presumably, the rest of us aren't). But we're so much the same! I would say that each of us is inherently evil and inherently good.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Evil is nothing but a term coined by humans to acts that they see as morally wrong. Meaning there has to be a conscious effort to do the "evil" act. Death in itself is not evil, it's just part of nature. Nature cannot be evil because it isn't controlled by a conscious mind. Even if you said God controlled nature, and willed people to die, it depends on your religion whether or not you believe God (or the creator, whomever/whatever) is "evil".
I don't believe genocide and torture are good things to do... I actively support stopping anyone who wishes such acts to happen, but that doesn't change the fact that evil is a social construct. Evil is what a society brings it to mean.
Before humans there was no evil, because evil does not exist except in the minds of humans. Different cultures define evil differently, and that is entirely the point. There may be things in nature that are unpleasant or greatly disliked by people, but these are not evil things.
Posts: 50 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You said you didn't thing genocide and torture are good, but that evil is just what society means by it. So: which is it? Are genocide and torture really not good, or is it just a matter of social preference?
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
He's saying that "Evil" doesn't exist in some grand sense, nor does "Good", there is only the summation of individual human preferences which end up governing a society.
Therefore, no human is purely "Evil" because there is no such thing as "Evil". I'm not denying the validity of that position as argued, because if you refuse to admit that something exists or even can exist in the abstract, there is no point to argument anymore.
I'll just point out that "genocide" and "torture" are also terms coined by humans to describe things they regard as morally wrong. They are just as meaningless, if you start to argue that way. "Human", "definition", and even "existance" are all terms made up by humans to describe things that exist only in concept, if you take it so far.
At this point I'll just point out that, regardless of whether such a thing exists in reality, humans create the concept of it for themselves. I know I mentioned that already, but it bears repeating. And there are no humans who do not, in practice, apply that label to the things that actual humans actually do.
Posts: 763 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
All thoughts and ideas are purely social constructs. We think of things that are promote the betterment of our society and make rules regarding them. The reasons why people get into arguments are because these are not inherent traits. Whether or not people want to believe it, killing Jews for the sake of killing Jews only ended because of the Holocaust. The Jews were brutalized and murdered for their religion long before Hitler came around. And had he NOT done what he did, it would continue even today.
It used to be in places, 'an eye for an eye'. You stole, they cut off your hand. Now we consider it barbaric. Society changed and so the actions that would have been justified is no longer justifiable.
People believe what they want to believe are right and wrong. In order to commit an act that is deemed a crime by society the person must justify it to themselves that the act itself is justifiable.
People do not commit acts believing that it is wrong. Otherwise they wouldn't do it. They may have thoughts that it is wrong, but to commit the act, they must find some justification for it.
Evil is what we say it is. George W. Bush uses evil when it fits his purpose. As all people do. We created terms for people who we disagree with.
During the invasion of Afghanistan, the Taliban was evil, and the Northern Alliance was good. The Northern Alliance essentially being a group of terrorists and rebels who continaully assaulted the reigning group in Afghanistan. But they became 'evil' and the Northern Alliance, a simple group of rebels and terrorists, became the good guys.
Words are just words. They are used to excuse actions and justify others.
posted
If no one can be evil because evil is a construct, then who is harmed by saying we are all evil? Or as I would put it: All are fallen, all are lost, all must perish. We either perish to our self-interest and pride in this life, or we perish spiritually in the next. Is all I'm saying.
P.S. But getting back to your original idea, I think all humans are evil, but my definition of evil is more inclusive than most: Proud and egocentric.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem with saying that words are just words is that words lead to actions. If we take the rather simplistic model Johivin postulated, then if we get someone to believe that a course of action is evil, that person will not pursue it.
I don't buy that, I do stuff I frankly know is evil all the time. The only people I know who never do things they believe to be wrong are people that don't believe that anything is wrong if they want to do it.
But let's say that it's a factor. If you really believe something is wrong, you're somewhat less likely to do it.
I presume that we could say the same of "good", that if people believe that something is good, they're more likely to do that.
Which brings us to the point where those "social constructs" lead to actions, and those actions have real consequences (now, if you're going to deny that, then please exercise your solipsist powers of perception to ignore the existance of this thread).
And here's where it gets interesting. The consequences of previous actions affect our perceptions of what is "good" and what is "evil". If an action leads to consequences we don't like, we are inclined to wonder whether the act was really "good". If an action leads to consequences we find desireable, then we're inclined to wonder whether it was really "evil".
And that gets fed back into the loop.
The problem is that this feedback system, coupled with even the rudimentary level of sentience that humans experience, will inevitably produce the concept of "good" and "evil" simply because there are things that you like and things that you don't.
Posts: 763 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
If words are just words, then there's no reason for anybody to listen to yours, including the statement, "Words are just words." This is an argument that asserts its own irrelevance.
...and nobody can believe this, including those who say it. If they believed it, there'd be no point in saying it (or anything else).
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that I must clarify another point, although this has been a very interesting topic. I am wondering about my belief that a person will not just go out and do something that is purely destructive with no sense that something good will come of it. My example is a common one, the power that goes to assist, but in the process, burns. Is that evil or wrong? the power is trying to help. I think that most, if not all people usually have a motive that they believe will help people.
Posts: 883 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Someone who steals is involving himself and the robbery victim. He doesn't think the victim will be better off without all that cash. But he *is* pursuing something good: cash. Even a sadist is after personal pleasure.
And, of course, Bear is right: sometimes those trying to help make it worse by accident.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:My example is a common one, the power that goes to assist, but in the process, burns.
Huh? Try an esoteric example next time
I will say that there are sometimes humans who do things just for what you would call "spite". Being humans, they will often think up "justifications" for why that action was somehow "good", but if you do the same kind of thing to them you'll quickly see how much they actually believe the justification.
Ultimately, no strictly human action can every be purely evil both because such actions are out of the scope of what humans can physically do and because humans live in a context that is too complex for any action to be considered "purely evil". I cannot establish the opposite because there is some chance that the overall context may be sufficiently non-evil to qualify as truely "good", and thus purely good actions would be theoretically possible.
But I know that humans are capable of non-physical "actions", and the evidence suggests that at least some humans commit "purely evil" actions some of the time. Naturally, the limitations of the human form prevent any human from being capable of performing such actions exclusive of any other actions.
Lest "limitations" sound perjorative here, I will admit that I'm no more capable of being purely evil than any human. It's a good limitation Posts: 763 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's...an interesting way to put it. I'm not sure that I totally agree with the comparison, but it does speak to all the core issues here. I'll mainly just quibble with the fact that you said "people" when we were just talking about humans.
Posts: 763 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Such a loaded question good luck. Your first idea would be to define evil, and if you can do that, then read nietzsche and realize why such a thing as evil doesn't exist, and how your attempt to define it is flawed to the core.
posted
Funny, wasn't Nietzsche the same guy who went completely mad and became catatonic towards the end of his life? (I won't invoke Godwins' law here <grin>)
I was expected to read his writings in College, I found them vile. And yes I can define evil quite simply. You do it by first defining "good".
The highest Good is perfection, which is G-d. Therefore "Good" is whatever brings you closer to perfection, whatever brings you closer to G-d.
Therefore evil is whatever takes you further from G-d.
Nietsches' writings were unique in that they truly understood the epitomy of evil, the concept that man is utterly alone in the universe and has no one to rely on but himself.
Hence, his philosphy was the epitome of evil, as it removed one completely and utterly from G-d.
In practice, he went insane. They say it was due to syphilis, but somehow I think his mindset, his philosphy, contributed a great deal to his madness.
A "Good" man is one who is approaching G-d. A "Bad" man is one who is removing himself from G-d. Therefore a man can be a criminal, but if he is improving himself he is in the category of the "Good". Another man could be a model citizen, but if his actions take him further from G-d, then he is Evil.
This can explain why in times of great stress and upheavel we will see men who were never of any previous use, suddenly burst forth and do great selfless acts of courage and compassion. While at the same time, boring fellows who were never any harm will revel in cruelty.
To approach G-d, one must look at the World and see what has been created, deriving basic concepts of the what the Artist had "in mind", and attempt to emulate those principles in his own life. This can be achieved both by Revelation and by Inspection.
Ultimately, it is easy for a fool to mouth platitudes and trick his friends, even himself into believing himself pious. But the truth is ultimately in the heart.
So I was taught this: Different men have different challenges, some have natures which encourage a fellow towards base acts. Others have been well taught and seemingly have good natures. But any man, regardless of who he is, or where he comes from can go up or go down. Ultimately it is the decision of the individual.
I stress what I said about the semmingly pious man. A man can pray and fast, and remove himself from all sorts of temptations. But if his aim goes against the will of his Creator, then ultimately he is an evil man. This was true of Doeg and Achitofel from the time of David. Both men were great sages and very holy. Yet both led themselves astray and pitted themselves against the will of G-d. They chose to use their saintliness to move away from the will of their Creator - hence they were evil, and damned themselves. That is something the Talmud discusses.
Certainly, you Christians who criticise the Rabbis for supposedly falling into the same error as Doeg and Achitofel should have no problem accepting that basic concept. Of course, I do not accept that your criticism of the Parisees is correct. Nevertheless, we both understand the principle of the thing.
Posts: 42 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
It seems to me that you are stating that only moving towards a "divine" purpose are you doing good, I suppose that the Inquisition was OK because it was "god's work" I think that while there are standard settings for religious goodness, if someone goes out and helps out his family, neighbors, etc. but is committing a sin against his religion he is not evil. I am not sure what it is... but I know what it is not.
Posts: 883 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Reread what I said running bear. I was very clear regarding someone who is fasts, prays, and reads scriptures but goes against the will of G-d even if he can justify his actions in logic and scripture.
<shakes head> I even gave a concrete example that contradicted the concept of the Inquisition being A-OK.
I don't mind someone disagreeing with me or proving me wrong, I don't even mind someone putting words in my mouth. But it is a bit ridiculous to say something and then have someone totally ignore it and claim I said the opposite.
edit: I think the confusion is that you think I am saying an individuals religion is the highest good. No, I am saying that G-d is the highest good. The question of religion is only a matter of approaching G-d and figuring out His will.
It's a difference between the ends and the means. Religion as a means, but G-d as the ends.
If anything, someone who places his religion or religious beliefs above G-ds will, is in effect commiting a form of apostasy - in the sense of setting up another god against the Creator. An individual must always ask and question himself as to whether he is fullfilling G-ds' will. In the sense that his focus has to always be to ask and inspect his motives and himself as to whether he is being honest about what he is doing.
This is a very serious issue and I say in all honesty and without false humility that this is something I do not do.
The maniacs of the Inquistion, as well as a large number of Muslim Sheiks who condone and encourage terrorism, who just like Doeg and Achitofel could justify their actions in countless ways; are, without any doubt in mind whatsoever, heading directly to hell. As they are doing what is so manifestly and clearly against the will of the Creator.
Why? Because a man is absolutely obligated to use all his faculties to understand what it is that his Creator wishes from him. A man cannot be lazy and just repeat whatever nonsense has been handed to him. But he must consider, weigh and justify all of his actions, particularly when it comes to life and death.
posted
I apologize, I thought you were stating that if someone was a criminal, but doing "god"s work, then they were good, I see what you mean now, its the direction you are going, not where you are, that matters.
Posts: 883 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
