Are Human Beings Inherently Evil?

[LitNetIsGreat]

If “evil” is too strong a word (which it probably is) then read “selfish” or “self-centred” but the question remains.

Personally I am pessimistic in my belief that individuals are entirely motivated by self-interest and that there is no such thing as a real act of charity. That on the surface the individual may appear to be kind, but as Shakespeare said in Lear “beneath is all the fiend’s” under that mask of civility lies something much darker, something done entirely for the benefit of the self.

So in short, are human beings inherently selfish, or even potentially evil?

[weltanschauung]

since evil is a judgement of value, i dont think human beings are evil, but sure they are selfish, as i am.
the fact that certainly goes over one's head when thinking about such dilemas is that as humans, we should at least try to control our destructive inclinations everyday, and not just obbey and feed them. we are not just animals.
everyone is potentially evil because we certainly tend to love ourselves more than anyone else, but this condition is present in everyone, and selfishness is a weakness everyone possesses. however, that shouldnt mean, like it does for most people, that fighting the vulgarity of our soul isnt relevant. only by controling our blinding impulses will we be able to truly understand ourselves and others, so why shouldnt we devote our lives to it?

[jinjang]

Personally I am pessimistic in my belief that individuals are entirely motivated by self-interest and that there is no such thing as a real act of charity…
So in short, are human beings inherently selfish, or even potentially evil?
Please do not be as pessimistic as that. That would be indeed a grim picture of human species if true. I do not think an individual is "potentially evil." We may be inherently self-centered, but we do not always act selfishly. A lot of people fight off selfishness, as they do other vices, to engage truly in charitable efforts. Otherwise, all humanitarian efforts would count for nothing. Gandhi and Mother Teresa come to my mind with my sincere respect for them both. Alexander Fleming worked tirelessly to discover penicillin after seeing many deaths in WWI, a more important person for humanity. I bet there are plenty of souls who would wrestle God to save humanity like Jacob did.

[JuniperWoolf]

I asked my psychology professor the same thing. He told me that true altruism exists. He told me about a fifty year old man who was on a life boat with a bunch of other people after their ship sank. A helicoptor showed up and dropped a rope, but there was a storm and no one could catch it. Finally, the fifty year old man grabbed it. Instead of climbing up himself (which would obviously be beneficial to him, since there was a huge storm and he was very likely to be killed), he passed the rope on and let someone else be hauled up into the chopper. He did so ever time they dropped the rope until he was the last one left. When they finally went back for him, he was dead.

This is a bit of an over-the-top "there's hope for humanity" story, but really, according to hedonistic theory what advantage did he gain from his actions? Kin selection and reciprocity theory don't hold up in this example. I was told about many other case studies that prove the same. I've come across a lot of psychological studies that prove that people aren't just self-serving jerks. I can list a few if you want me to (to perk you up a bit), I'll just dig through my textbooks and find them.

[billl]

Well, not that I'm suggesting it was the case, but the guy in the lifeboat might've been gambling that he would make it in the end, and look like a hero. Even if he was, it was a brave and generous gamble, and it certainly helped that someone was willing to take it.

I remember Bill Clinton speaking at some church (on my TV) during his presidency, and he quoted some preacher that had told him that "'character' is doing the right thing when no one is looking." That quote really impressed me.

One thing I like to do is do something generous or helpful that no one will ever know about. Like pick up a sign that's blown over in the wind, or whatever. I don't want to go into it, actually :).

[Mr Endon]

If “evil” is too strong a word (which it probably is) then read “selfish” or “self-centred” but the question remains.

Yes, I think that's a better way to express it. But a synonym for 'selfish' with a neutral connotation would be even better.


Personally I am pessimistic in my belief that individuals are entirely motivated by self-interest and that there is no such thing as a real act of charity.

I agree.


So in short, are human beings inherently selfish, or even potentially evil?

Yes for the 'selfish'. As for 'potentially evil', we're as much 'potentially evil' as we are 'potentially good'.

There's something to be said about altruism. For even if you are doing something good anonymously you feel well when you do it, and you might even feel bad if you don't - thus even 'charity' and 'altruism' is motivated by pleasure and appeasement of one's consciousness.

However, we must be pragmatic. The 'goal' of the human being, if there is one, is to be happy. Society ought to encourage an attitude that is not only indirectly concerned with the self but also very much concerned with the welfare of others, and so enables the self and the others to be happier.

So. Yes, we are always ultimately selfish, and I think it's silly to ignore this, but that doesn't mean we can't be altruistic on top of that, thus 'good'. Does this make sense? I can only hope it does.

[virginiawang]

I don't think all human beings are selfish or self-centered. Some people are just like infants and they don't care the value in the practical, materiallized world. They do what is noble. Ralph Waldo Emerson lauded such people in his small book, Nature, and he held that these infant adults were blended into nature. They've become a part of the grand nature. They have beautiful hearts.

[billl]

There's something to be said about altruism. For even if you are doing something good anonymously you feel well when you do it, and you might even feel bad if you don't - thus even 'charity' and 'altruism' is motivated by pleasure and appeasement of one's consciousness.


Personally, I usually feel just a little bit guilty when I'm being altruistic, but I do it anyway--if that makes it any more meaningful.

[amarna]

i guess it is quite common to overrate the own altruism and to underrate the altruism of others. so i think other people are a little better and we ourselves are little worse than we reckon. :D

[PeterL]

If “evil” is too strong a word (which it probably is) then read “selfish” or “self-centred” but the question remains.

Personally I am pessimistic in my belief that individuals are entirely motivated by self-interest and that there is no such thing as a real act of charity. That on the surface the individual may appear to be kind, but as Shakespeare said in Lear “beneath is all the fiend’s” under that mask of civility lies something much darker, something done entirely for the benefit of the self.

So in short, are human beings inherently selfish, or even potentially evil?

I believe that you tried to refine your question, but you simply left it more uncertain. As stated you imply that there is a similarity between evil and selfish. In effect, you have suggested that what each individual wants is somehow evil. I would contend that what each individual wants is fundamentally good. Those things that are called evil arise when there are conflicts among the individual desires.

So what do you think is evil about the personal desires of individuals?

[LitNetIsGreat]

Please do not be as pessimistic as that. That would be indeed a grim picture of human species if true.


. I can list a few if you want me to (to perk you up a bit), I'll just dig through my textbooks and find them.

Oh, I'm not being down about it. I just think that people do act within their own self-interest and that you could read each act of kindness as motivated by such interest.


Yes, I think that's a better way to express it. But a synonym for 'selfish' with a neutral connotation would be even better.



I agree.



Yes for the 'selfish'. As for 'potentially evil', we're as much 'potentially evil' as we are 'potentially good'.

There's something to be said about altruism. For even if you are doing something good anonymously you feel well when you do it, and you might even feel bad if you don't - thus even 'charity' and 'altruism' is motivated by pleasure and appeasement of one's consciousness.

However, we must be pragmatic. The 'goal' of the human being, if there is one, is to be happy. Society ought to encourage an attitude that is not only indirectly concerned with the self but also very much concerned with the welfare of others, and so enables the self and the others to be happier.

So. Yes, we are always ultimately selfish, and I think it's silly to ignore this, but that doesn't mean we can't be altruistic on top of that, thus 'good'. Does this make sense? I can only hope it does.

Yes some good points there, and it does make sense.


I believe that you tried to refine your question, but you simply left it more uncertain. As stated you imply that there is a similarity between evil and selfish. In effect, you have suggested that what each individual wants is somehow evil. I would contend that what each individual wants is fundamentally good. Those things that are called evil arise when there are conflicts among the individual desires.

So what do you think is evil about the personal desires of individuals?

Yes I suppose it is two questions bunched up into one, so it is probably best to address each one, though in a way one could be seen as an extension of the other. Here is a verse from Baudelaire which probably motivated this thread it part:

If slaughter, or if arson, poison, rape
Have not as yet adorned our fine designs,
the banal canvas of our woeful fates,
It's only that our spirit lacks the nerve

(from To the Reader, trans by James McGowan).

In other words, would the an individual commit such acts of wrong (evil) if they could get away with it or if they didn't lack the nerve?

If we take it as given that humans are motivated by greed and self-interest (though some people don't) then are such thoughts that far behind?

Don't get [me wrong] I'm not saying that they are or aren't, I am merely raising the subject and possibility as an interesting speculation.

[PeterL]

Yes I suppose it is two questions bunched up into one, so it is probably best to address each one, though in a way one could be seen as an extension of the other. Here is a verse from Baudelaire which probably motivated this thread it part:

If slaughter, or if arson, poison, rape
Have not as yet adorned our fine designs,
the banal canvas of our woeful fates,
It's only that our spirit lacks the nerve

(from To the Reader, trans by James McGowan).

In other words, would the an individual commit such acts of wrong (evil) if they could get away with it or if they didn't lack the nerve?

If we take it as given that humans are motivated by greed and self-interest (though some people don't) then are such thoughts that far behind?

Don't get I'm not saying that they are or aren't, I am merely raising the subject and possibility as an interesting speculation.

This attempt to clarify only further muddles. Arson, rape, and bloody murder might be good or evil acts, depending on the situation. It isn't a matter of whether one can get away with an act that might be criminal; it is a matter of whether it is advantageous. If I have to kill someone to stay alive, then it is a good thing, even though the legal system might look askance on it.

[LitNetIsGreat]

This attempt to clarify only further muddles. Arson, rape, and bloody murder might be good or evil acts, depending on the situation. It isn't a matter of whether one can get away with an act that might be criminal; it is a matter of whether it is advantageous. If I have to kill someone to stay alive, then it is a good thing, even though the legal system might look askance on it.

:santasmil I'd find it hard to see arson, rape and poison as "good acts". Good rape?

[PeterL]

:santasmil I'd find it hard to see arson, rape and poison as "good acts". Good rape?

Yes, it is all a matter of definition, which you neglected. Good is that which leads to the extension of alleles through time and in a larger part of a population. Using that definition, anything that destroys anything that would not advance the good would be good. Therefore, arson and murder would be good, if they killed people who did not possess that allele. Rape would be good in any case where either person involved possessed that allele.

[Scheherazade]

Good is that which leads to the extension of alleles through time and in a larger part of a population.This is, wherever you have taken it from, a very disturbing definition.

By that definition, would it be OK to murder or rape someone not intellectually or physically up to a certain "standard"? Should we pull the plug on the educational and training programmes helping them? Or maybe we should not offer medical treatments to such people if they are not well?

[billl]

Wow, PeterL, is that your preferred definition of goodness, or are you just throwing it out there to make the point about how there can be flexibility/variation in how we might define goodness?

I would consider it bad if someone who's ready to accept rape as a valid method for spreading genes were able to spread them by that method. Same for one who prefers to define goodness in terms of the interests of a particular gene over those of a particular individual person.

[PeterL]

This is, wherever you have taken it from, a very disturbing definition.

That is a paraphrase of the ordinary evolutionary advantage definition. It is not at all disturbing. Most people live according to that code most of the time, but it is usually buffered by the fact that there are other people who also want their DNA to survive.


By that definition, would it be OK to murder or rape someone not intellectually or physically up to a certain "standard"?

Perhaps, what do you think?


Should we pull the plug on the educational and training programmes helping them?

Would that be an advantage to you? Such programs make little, or no, difference to me, so I don't especially care.


Or maybe we should not offer medical treatments to such people if they are not well?

Perhaps, if you see them as a challenge to you, then maybe you should do something about them.


Wow, PeterL, is that your preferred definition of goodness, or are you just throwing it out there to make the point about how there can be flexibility/variation in how we might define goodness?

That is a valid definition for goodness, and no one had suggested any other.


I would consider it bad if someone who's ready to accept rape as a valid method for spreading genes were able to spread them by that method. Same for one who prefers to define goodness in terms of the interests of a particular gene over those of a particular individual person.

I see that you are trying to advance yourself by making it appear that you are ready to help other people in their fights for survival. That is a very good way to gain allies.

[billl]

Were you trying to make allies with the alleles or something?

Because, you can suggest I was trying to make allies, but I was actually wondering if you forgot to include a bit at the beginning of your post, or if you had argued yourself into a tough spot, or if you'd had a bad day, or something.

I think it would maybe be advantageous to the alleles to get spread via rape, but to use the word "good" in your definition (which would be your definition, not that of the alleles exclusively) seemed like it might have been a hasty wording or something like that.

No, that's a stretch to say I was "trying to make allies."

[The Atheist]

So in short, are human beings inherently selfish, or even potentially evil?

We are inherently selfish, which is why our species exists. Unselfish species die out.

PeterL has given an excellent description of the uses of good and evil from an evolutionary standard, which may not necessarily be the same meaning as they have in our socially-constructed discourses.

[jinjang]

Oh, I'm not being down about it. I just think that people do act within their own self-interest and that you could read each act of kindness as motivated by such interest.
I knew you were putting this topic with an objective point of view. I am not good at expressing what I wanted to say. I wrote that sentence “Please do not be as pessimistic as that” to comfort myself because I tend to get subjective on anything discussed in the forum.

I skipped the part when I was deciding which side to choose “are we potentially evil?” or “are we potentially good?” I decided to lean toward that we are potentially more “good” than “evil” and I concluded subjectively that people tend to choose to do a good deed than evil ones, sometimes even when conflicting with self-interests. Such a choice is made to avoid a life-long regret and remorse, which some could obviously call a choice motivated by self-interest.

I am not religious in case you are wondering. But, I sympathize with all religions.

I thought of Mother Teresa. She happens to be a good example to think about. Did she choose to live in poverty for her self-interests? What are her self-interests? Except a few saints like her, possibly most of us are more selfish than self-sacrificing.

Even then and even with doubts, I so wanted to think the following lines of Baudelaire do not apply to most of us.

If slaughter, or if arson, poison, rape
Have not as yet adorned our fine designs,
the banal canvas of our woeful fates,
It's only that our spirit lacks the nerve.
I am rereading Lolita and a doubt from the quote below started to arise in me creepily whether we humans have a gross tendency:

A quote made in Lolita
The moral sense in mortals is the duty
We have to pay on mortal sense of beauty.
And so, I would like to read more positive sides to stick to my conviction that we are mostly good than bad.

[The Atheist]

I thought of Mother Teresa. She happens to be a good example to think about. Did she choose to live in poverty for her self-interests? What are her self-interests? Except a few saints like her, possibly most of us are more selfish than self-sacrificing.

Excellent example!

Mother Teresa's self-interest was a passage to heaven. Given her near-death appraisal of her faith having been misplaced, I wonder whether she'd do it again.

[jinjang]

Ha ha, you are very funny! This is not a sarcasm. I was laughing amused. You are trying to be self-deprecating as a humanitarian yourself?

[The Atheist]

Ha ha, you are very funny! This is not a sarcasm. I was laughing amused. You are trying to be self-deprecating as a humanitarian yourself?

It's probably more correct to describe it as humanist rather than humanitarian, although the motives are the same.

[blazeofglory]

If “evil” is too strong a word (which it probably is) then read “selfish” or “self-centred” but the question remains.

Personally I am pessimistic in my belief that individuals are entirely motivated by self-interest and that there is no such thing as a real act of charity. That on the surface the individual may appear to be kind, but as Shakespeare said in Lear “beneath is all the fiend’s” under that mask of civility lies something much darker, something done entirely for the benefit of the self.

So in short, are human beings inherently selfish, or even potentially evil?

In point of fact this is sadly true, and our sense of charity is only superficial conditioned by moral ideas. Beneath all these superfluousness lies evils.

In the wilderness survival is not possible without being cruel. Nature knows kindness at all.

[LitNetIsGreat]

In point of fact this is sadly true, and our sense of charity is only superficial conditioned by moral ideas. Beneath all these superfluousness lies evils.

In the wilderness survival is not possible without being cruel. Nature knows kindness at all.

Hmm, yes I think so, well put.

[PeterL]

Nature knows kindness at all.

Yes, Nature knows that kindness is a painless death.

[MarkBastable]

Mother Teresa is a very apt subject of the philosophical question of motive and outcome, in terms of good and evil.

Teresa herself rejected any idea that she was particularly kind or selfless - she said that she was simply doing what God told her to do. If God had told her to open a lap-dancing club, that's what she'd have done. She didn't take any credit or responsibility for the life that she led, because she didn't feel that she chose it. She was just following orders.

(As an aside, it's interesting that her justification for her actions was exactly the same as Goering's.)

So - if we can't demonstrate that her motive for her actions was Good (or, indeed, Evil), perhaps we can look at the outcome of those actions. I think we can only judge whether she Did Good Things or not, in terms of other Things she might have Done.

What she did, in effect, was say to the poor and uneducated young women of an overpopulated and disease-ridden city, "God wants you to have lots and lots of babies, and I'll look after them..." The outcome was that many many babies were born into poverty and hopelessness, of whom an unknown proportion actually made it to healthy adulthood, at the expense of all those who didn't - not to mention the perils of labour and motherhood for the women involved, and the general deleterious effect of adding to overpopulation and the stretching of thin supplies of food, water and shelter.

You don't achieve what MT achieved without terrific organisational skills, a lot of determination and a healthy propensity for cutting through crap. So Mother Teresa was one tough cookie of a streetfighting nun. But what she might have done was put all that effort and ability in to distributing condoms and dispensing family-planning advice.

Or she might have campaigned for the introduction of free vasectomies.

Or she might have done absolutely nothing but spend her life in contemplative prayer.

We all make our own call on this, of course, but I'd say that of the courses of action I suggest, the one she actually took resulted in the worst outcome, taking the thing in terms of the greatest good for the greatest number. I think that she was the instrument of a particularly insensitive and condescending form of repression.

[laurahws]

I would argue that all of mankind is inherently selfish as all human actions can be broken down into two self-serving motives: either acquiring pleasure or avoiding pain, and in most cases it is a complex compromise between the two, that is, how to gain as much pleasure as possible without causing a level of pain that would outweigh the pleasure gained. What is viewed as a pleasure or a pain, and the extent to which they are such, varies from person to person and is the result of a combination of experience and a person's ability to process the information received in that experience (therefore two people might have as close as possible to identical experiences yet, due to the way they deal with and evaluate the experiences, may emerge with a completely different set of values.) I will give 3 examples to try to demonstrate this way of thinking:

1) Someone walks up to you on the street and hands you £1000, absolutely NO strings attached. In this situation, almost everyone would accept the money, as most people would view the pleasure that could be gained from that money (spending etc) very compelling. Even if they had some feelings of guilt or doubt (generally considered negative or painful emotions), the potential pleasure to be gained from the money would outweigh this pain, and so they would take the money. It would take a fairly extreme, but still possible, past experience or way of thinking to influence someone not to take the money, for example, the person may have been a victim of money laundering before, and so the pain of that memory, and the fear of it happening again may be stronger than the pleasure to be gained from taking the money, so they may refuse. Similarly, if they had been brought up in a family in which pride and not accepting any form of charity or money was very firmly enforced, the guilt they might feel on accepting the money could outweigh the pleasure of accepting it.

2) A more realistic example: You are given a delicious looking and smelling piece of cake (or something else that you enjoy to eat). Your decision to eat may depend on a number of things: aspects of eating the cake that would generally be considered positive: the delicious taste, the subsequent sugar rush and feel-good feeling, the satisfaction of feeling full, not wishing to offend the person who gave you the cake. However, there are also more specific reasons for not eating the cake: you may be weight conscious, you may have just had a large meal and not want to feel even fuller than you are at that moment, you may be diabetic and realise the potential health risks to yourself that eating the cake would pose etc. In a very rapid evaluation (as eating is a decision you regularly make, and is generally does not have very severe consequences it is possible to make this decision very fast. More important decisions or ones that you rarely face generally require more time and careful evaluation) you weigh up all of the pleasure-gaining factors, wanting the satisfaction of eating the cake etc, against the pain causing factors, if you do eat it you might not be able to fit into the outfit you're trying to slim into etc. If the pleasure factors are greater, in your opinion, than the pain factors, then you decide to eat the cake. If not, you abstain.

3)A complex example, in response to this quote:

according to hedonistic theory what advantage did he gain from his actions? Kin selection and reciprocity theory don't hold up in this example.

This situation is very rare and exposes characteristics that most people do not have, but can still be explained in the same way. Generally, the instinct to survive is so deeply engrained as a source of pleasure (which is essential to species preservation) that most people do not have, or do not experience a situation that tests, the moral strength to have a situation in which the gain of not living outweighs the gain of staying alive. However, it is possible. The man may have experienced the death of someone close to him, or some other situation in which he keenly felt the pain of loosing a loved one. Perhaps he himself has not got any family, or is actually lonely or depressed for some reason and so he may place less value on his own life. Maybe he is also a lot older than the other passengers in the boat Therefore, for any combination of these factors, or any other, he may be aware that the feeling of guilt that he would feel had he escaped from the boat and left others to die would be stronger than the joy he could feel from life should he live. To avoid this pain, which would, for him, more than negate the pleasure of his life, he is prepared to risk sacrificing his life to let the other passengers go first to avoid this. He may also be aware that if he were to help save the other passengers, he would be praised as a hero. If the idea of this provided sufficient pleasure to be an incentive, he may be prepared to risk his life in pursuit of it.
(This is a much more extreme, but similar situation to that of giving to charity-in that case, while loosing some money may cause you some small discomfort, you may give because you have been conditioned by your upbringing to feel good about being generous and giving to those that need it. Moreover, people are far more likely to give to charity, or give more generously, if they know they are being watched by someone else because the potential gain of being seen as kind and generous is very likely to make what would have been too large a donation before (ie. too painful to merit the good feeling of giving) seem worthwhile. Of course, some people do give anonymously to charity, but only a fraction of the total number of people who give. This can be for perhaps two reasons, each of them fairly rare, which explains why giving anonymously is a rarer action. Firstly, the donation may be exceptionally large and they may not want to attention and subsequent appeals by other charities for a repeat donation (one donation to a cause a person believes in may be one thing, donating, or the hassle of being asked to donate, to scores more is another!) Secondly, the person may have been successfully taught to value anonymous giving so much that the feeling of satisfaction, and perhaps superiority that they feel over others that do not have such “virtuous” standards, that they get from it personally makes up for the public appreciation.)

Clearly there are almost an infinite number of minute factors affecting any decision, I have gone into them in slightly greater detail in the first example because it's a fairly simple situation (and as such it's almost completely unrealistic!) but any number of influences can be imagined for the other two and indeed any situation. If the emotions of pain and pleasure are equally balanced, it may come down to a person's view of impulse decisions that helps them finally decide but this will itself be evaluated in a similar way-for example, if they generally like and have had good experiences with impulse decisions (this could even be from just having a "good day" leading to a buoyed optimism), they may then decide to take the money, of the reverse was true they might refuse it. However, the fact remains that it is the balance of the sum of what the person views as the positive outcomes of a possible event when compared to the sum of the painful events that determines whether or not they attempt to take that path. It is purely a matter of self satisfaction.

However, if this "selfish" way of thinking is inescapable in all mankind, then it cannot be described as being evil itself, for evil implies that there is the possible opposite of being good, whereas the instinct to to be self serving (in attaining these two goals, no matter how selfless working towards them may appear to be) is inescapable and is therefore a "universal norm". Instead, it is the various importances each individual places on various situations, emotions and aspirations, coming together to make a set of morals and so determining what the individual views as most important, that is, best able to help them achieve the acquiring of pleasure and the avoiding of pleasure according to their own internal system of judgement. In fact, it could be argued that this "selfish" way of thinking is the mechanism that allows us to process, and therefore act on, our own individual morals.

Therefore, in conclusion, I would argue that all human beings are inherently selfish, but that this does not necessarily make them evil. Instead, it is the moral standards that we have that determine what, and to what extent, we view as pleasure or pain giving that can be judged my our culture as being either "good" or "bad", and so leading us to behave in a way that can be deemed "good" or "evil".

[laurahws]

Sorry for the VERY long post there, I got quite into it...:P

[PeterL]

Sorry for the VERY long post there, I got quite into it...:P

Yes, but what is evil?

[LitNetIsGreat]

Sorry for the VERY long post there, I got quite into it...:P

No, a very interesting and comprehensive post. :santasmil

[The Atheist]

We all make our own call on this, of course, but I'd say that of the courses of action I suggest, the one she actually took resulted in the worst outcome, taking the thing in terms of the greatest good for the greatest number. I think that she was the instrument of a particularly insensitive and condescending form of repression.

Couldn't agree more.

I conducted an internet trial of MT, where I charged her with mass murder by denying medical care and medicine to TB victims, instead, allowing them to die in clean surroundings.

Alas, I could only get her convicted of manslaughter.


I would argue that all of mankind is inherently selfish as all human actions can be broken down into two self-serving motives: either acquiring pleasure or avoiding pain, ...

I agree with a lot of what you've written, but I think you miss out on the biggest motivator of all - simply our DNA. The inherent selfishness of all animals through their DNA is a survival mechanism, and most human desires can be broken down into human and learned constructs based on those traits.

[laurahws]

Yes, but what is evil?

I couldn't claim to know the answer to that! I simply analysed the question from the definition given in the first post, that of being either "selfish" or "self-centred".
Perhaps I would be inclined to think of being evil as deliberately acting against what you know or believe to be for the greater good.


I agree with a lot of what you've written, but I think you miss out on the biggest motivator of all - simply our DNA. The inherent selfishness of all animals through their DNA is a survival mechanism, and most human desires can be broken down into human and learned constructs based on those traits.

I quite agree that DNA is a very important motivator, but I would still be inclined to put it in the context of being one of the factors causing you to view something as pleasurable or painful. I only gave a brief allusion to it in my examples because I don't know enough about the specific genes that affect one's decisions and I was aware that my post was already becoming too long to embark on a nature/nurture debate!

[MarkBastable]

Incidentally, I think the question is pretty nonsensical.

To demonstrate why, let's try this, and see where it takes us....


Are women inherently evil?

[amarna]

Are women inherently evil?

you bet.

:goof:

[MarkBastable]

you bet.


That's not where I was expecting the conversation to go but, frankly, I'll settle for it.

[PeterL]

I couldn't claim to know the answer to that! I simply analysed the question from the definition given in the first post, that of being either "selfish" or "self-centred".
Perhaps I would be inclined to think of being evil as deliberately acting against what you know or believe to be for the greater good.

That is a reasonable definition.


I quite agree that DNA is a very important motivator, but I would still be inclined to put it in the context of being one of the factors causing you to view something as pleasurable or painful. I only gave a brief allusion to it in my examples because I don't know enough about the specific genes that affect one's decisions and I was aware that my post was already becoming too long to embark on a nature/nurture debate!

Genes determine whether something would be pleasurable, so DNA is more fundamental than pleasure and pain. The same is true of both nature and nurture.


Incidentally, I think the question is pretty nonsensical.

To demonstrate why, let's try this, and see where it takes us....


I believe that any discussion that leads to a greater understanding of Earthlings is not nonsensical.


Are women inherently evil?

Women are not evil by any definition of evil that I know, but there may be ways to define evil that would make women evil. If you know such a definition, then please post it.

[The Atheist]

Are women inherently evil?

Hardly worth asking.


Women are not evil by any definition of evil that I know, but there may be ways to define evil that would make women evil. If you know such a definition, then please post it.

Coercing man to act in a manner desirable to the woman but against his innate needs and nature.

That covers most women, and I'm sure I can net the rest easily enough.

I think the problem isn't so much the definition of evil as a word, but as an action. Which action is evil and why? Then all you need is universal approval of it.

Piece of cake.

[PeterL]

Hardly worth asking.



Coercing man to act in a manner desirable to the woman but against his innate needs and nature.

That covers most women, and I'm sure I can net the rest easily enough.

Maybe you think so, but it is a man's best course to agree with women in all matters. I realize that may seem rather extreme and contrary to what many people have been taught; but the fundamental way that women control the world is to try to give men the impression that man rule the world.

[MarkBastable]

Women are not evil by any definition of evil that I know, but there may be ways to define evil that would make women evil. If you know such a definition, then please post it.


Reducing the question to the evilness of women gives us a comparison by which to judge. It comes down to, are women more or less evil than men? Obviously any answer to that would have to be so general that it would be useless, unless the definition of evil was predicated on the idea that it applied only to women.

Similarly, any question of the evilness of all humans requires either an external yardstick by which to measure the human propensity for evil - as opposed to the evilness of lions, Martians, the spirits of our dead ancestors - or it needs a definition of evil that is specific to humans. And if it's specific to humans, then by definition humans are evil - but that tells us nothing because by definition of what evil is, we'd have to be.

[PeterL]

Reducing the question to the evilness of women gives us a comparison by which to judge. It comes down to, are women more or less evil than men? Obviously any answer to that would have to be so general that it would be useless, unless the definition of evil was predicated on the idea that it applied only to women.

Similarly, any question of the evilness of all humans requires either an external yardstick by which to measure the human propensity for evil - as opposed to the evilness of lions, Martians, the spirits of our dead ancestors - or it needs a definition of evil that is specific to humans. And if it's specific to humans, then by definition humans are evil - but that tells us nothing because by definition of what evil is, we'd have to be.

Then what do you think? Are women more evil than men?

[MarkBastable]

Then what do you think? Are women more evil than men?

Er. Let's go back to the top.....

[PeterL]

Chicken

[blazeofglory]

This is really a hard question to answer in point of fact. Man evolutionarily speaking seems a very self centered person and all he does even acts of charity is not out of benevolence or altruism or philanthropy for that matter.

Every act of religious duty is motivated or instigated by a desire of securing a place in heaven, another world of luxury or sumptuousness or anything we do in the name of social welfare or philanthropy is out of the motive to earn popularity.

Then why is not man’s act is selfish

[Aelita]

The battle between good and evil is in the human heart. There are no black and white. Some decisions on what to do may need to be made in seconds and often they are based on basic instincts.
People had to be selfish in order to survive from the beginning of times. I believe, that mother will sacrifice her life to save the child-- also the matter of survival.
I would understand why Russian solgiers were raping German women, after 4 year of war, seeing crematories and such in concentration camps in 1945. Raping is evil. But when US government sending young boys to kill innocent people and making them criminals...this is a coldhearted evil for someones personal gaines.

[Paulclem]

Mother Teresa is a very apt subject of the philosophical question of motive and outcome, in terms of good and evil.

Teresa herself rejected any idea that she was particularly kind or selfless - she said that she was simply doing what God told her to do. If God had told her to open a lap-dancing club, that's what she'd have done. She didn't take any credit or responsibility for the life that she led, because she didn't feel that she chose it. She was just following orders.

(As an aside, it's interesting that her justification for her actions was exactly the same as Goering's.)

So - if we can't demonstrate that her motive for her actions was Good (or, indeed, Evil), perhaps we can look at the outcome of those actions. I think we can only judge whether she Did Good Things or not, in terms of other Things she might have Done.

What she did, in effect, was say to the poor and uneducated young women of an overpopulated and disease-ridden city, "God wants you to have lots and lots of babies, and I'll look after them..." The outcome was that many many babies were born into poverty and hopelessness, of whom an unknown proportion actually made it to healthy adulthood, at the expense of all those who didn't - not to mention the perils of labour and motherhood for the women involved, and the general deleterious effect of adding to overpopulation and the stretching of thin supplies of food, water and shelter.

You don't achieve what MT achieved without terrific organisational skills, a lot of determination and a healthy propensity for cutting through crap. So Mother Teresa was one tough cookie of a streetfighting nun. But what she might have done was put all that effort and ability in to distributing condoms and dispensing family-planning advice.

Or she might have campaigned for the introduction of free vasectomies.

Or she might have done absolutely nothing but spend her life in contemplative prayer.

We all make our own call on this, of course, but I'd say that of the courses of action I suggest, the one she actually took resulted in the worst outcome, taking the thing in terms of the greatest good for the greatest number. I think that she was the instrument of a particularly insensitive and condescending form of repression.

This is a very unfair and academic appraisal of Mother Theresa. You neglect to consider that she was working in India with a Hindu and Muslim population over which she had - especially at first - no influence.

Family planning? I know the catholic stance on this - which I do not agree with - but what is the stance of people in poverty in Hindu slums? To have more children to provide income. This on top of the fact that she began her work in 1950 - when family planning wasn't very advanced in the West, let alone a third world Indian slum.

As a catholic nun dedicated to helping the poor there is no payout, and the point The Atheist made about working for sainthood is at best speculation. No-one can really know her motivations, and is to become heavenly or heaven sent selfish in this case? The struggle she faced is rather flippantly portrayed in my view. She made a difference to people who would have suffered and died horrible deaths.

I visited one of her missions in Mumbai which housed orphan Indian children who most often had some disability or learning difficulty. Hindu families dropped off their newly born children who had serious genetic defects and left them in the care of the Nuns there. Upsetting doesn't come close.

If she was being selfish - I think it an irrelevance thrown up by the trendy attitude to Mother Theresa that grew after her death by people - Germaine Greer was one - who merely concerned themselves with their own prejudice against Catholics and Catholic ethics.

Mother Theresa worked within the constraints of her experience and faith. What she did really goes beyond religion, but is an example to everyone what of self-less altruism can achieve. That's why she is revered across cultures and religions.

[BienvenuJDC]

This is a very unfair and academic appraisal of Mother Theresa. You neglect to consider that she was working in India with a Hindu and Muslim population over which she had - especially at first - no influence.

Family planning? I know the catholic stance on this - which I do not agree with - but what is the stance of people in poverty in Hindu slums? To have more children to provide income. This on top of the fact that she began her work in 1950 - when family planning wasn't very advanced in the West, let alone a third world Indian slum.

As a catholic nun dedicated to helping the poor there is no payout, and the point The Atheist made about working for sainthood is at best speculation. No-one can really know her motivations, and is to become heavenly or heaven sent selfish in this case? The struggle she faced is rather flippantly portrayed in my view. She made a difference to people who would have suffered and died horrible deaths.

I visited one of her missions in Mumbai which housed orphan Indian children who most often had some disability or learning difficulty. Hindu families dropped off their newly born children who had serious genetic defects and left them in the care of the Nuns there. Upsetting doesn't come close.

If she was being selfish - I think it an irrelevance thrown up by the trendy attitude to Mother Theresa that grew after her death by people - Germaine Greer was one - who merely concerned themselves with their own prejudice against Catholics and Catholic ethics.

Mother Theresa worked within the constraints of her experience and faith. What she did really goes beyond religion, but is an example to everyone what of self-less altruism can achieve. That's why she is revered across cultures and religions.

Well thought response, Paul!

[Gladys]

What she did, in effect, was say to the poor and uneducated young women of an overpopulated and disease-ridden city, "God wants you to have lots and lots of babies, and I'll look after them..." The outcome was that many many babies were born into poverty and hopelessness...

Is this outcome indisputable? Or was the birthrate unaffected by Mother Teresa, with poor Indians always having 'more children to provide income'. Is there evidence?

[Paulclem]

Is this outcome indisputable? Or was the birthrate unaffected by Mother Teresa, with poor Indians always having 'more children to provide income'. Is there evidence?

I've just looked up the population of calcutta in the 1950's - 4 million plus, with many of those in poverty and living in slums.

Slums and begging were and are still rife in large Indian cities. This is combined with the caste system and little welfare provided for the poor. The caste system allows no social mobility, though it begins to break down in anonymous urban environments.

Hindu culture promotes a large family, though there is no specific ban on contraception.

Anyone who has ever been to a large Indian city will understand that the poverty there seems endless - children - pregnant Mothers - the elderly - the diseased - the disabled. Anyone who tries to do anything there is to be admired.

So you have a large slum population of large families, and all the rest, living in poverty ministered to by a small catholic mission that relied upon volunteers and donations. It would take a lot to affect the birthrate.

[virginiawang]

Hi Neely, I believe in the beautiful nature of a human being. I believe in love. I love evilness, because it is necessary in our world, which is more complicated than we know of.
However I do agree with you in a superficial friendliness. When my parents smiled to me as mush as they could, I knew something wrong took place.
I believe in power.

[Paulclem]

If “evil” is too strong a word (which it probably is) then read “selfish” or “self-centred” but the question remains.

Personally I am pessimistic in my belief that individuals are entirely motivated by self-interest and that there is no such thing as a real act of charity. That on the surface the individual may appear to be kind, but as Shakespeare said in Lear “beneath is all the fiend’s” under that mask of civility lies something much darker, something done entirely for the benefit of the self.

So in short, are human beings inherently selfish, or even potentially evil?

Is it the case that sellessness, by it's very nature - quietly doing good deeds, etc. is much less visible than evil or selfishness?

We are bombarded by negative reresentatives of the human race in the newspapers, TV and internet, yet we often aren't subject to the good deeds of others in the same way. Think of the many people who give up large portions of their lives to be a carer. You won't see that on the TV much, or read it in a book or have films made about it.

Consider the studies, films and programmes made about serial killers and the same made about someone like Ghandi. (I hesitate to mention the Nazis due that law that The Atheist mentioned about bringing in the Nazis to an argument in another thread). Which portion of The Divine Comedy do we like the best? Evil - the flaws of evilness ans selfishness are interesting.

I don't think that because we are subjected to this media bombard means that we are inherently selfish or evil, though it may well be harder to be good or unselfish.

[Nietzsche]

It's a mix. Evil and Good were concepts developed later on centered around whether things were beneficial or not. Sometimes people harm us, sometimes they don't. It's not fair to say that humans are ONLY naturally good, or ONLY naturally evil. One of the problems with most philosophical arguments or concepts is they take extremes, like altruism vs egoism, good vs. evil, etc. the middle ground is usually the best place to be.

[Paulclem]

It's a mix. Evil and Good were concepts developed later on centered around whether things were beneficial or not. Sometimes people harm us, sometimes they don't. It's not fair to say that humans are ONLY naturally good, or ONLY naturally evil. One of the problems with most philosophical arguments or concepts is they take extremes, like altruism vs egoism, good vs. evil, etc. the middle ground is usually the best place to be.

I'd agree with that. Clearly there are cases of both.

People are capable of both, but to say inherent implies that there can be no change. I think humans can change either way according to circumstance.

Is the original question about Nature or Nurture?

Inherent implies nature.

[BienvenuJDC]

People learn how to excel at evil things...

[Paulclem]

I agree. I think it is harder to be "good".

[LitNetIsGreat]

Is the original question about Nature or Nurture?

Inherent implies nature.

Yes, I meant in terms of nature not nurture when I opened this thread. You must understand that I must have had a bad day at work or been in one of those melancholic moods with this one in mind. I sometimes think in black like this, (we all do I suppose) but most of the time I am not as bleak - though Mrs Neely would say that I am always grumpy... We could equally turn the question around I suppose, and ask is if mankind is inherently good? I dunno, I suspect that either one is not a simple, maybe it is better to see it as a varying continuum, but alas thoughts like this are too much for me at this time of night and I’ve personally somewhat lost interest in OP at this time. :)

[IceM]

There will always be outliers. There will always be situations in which Man portrays the harrowing depths of his soul, and instances where they show the graciousness in one's heart. But Man is selfish, not from a loss of virtue but from a desire to survive. Man is born to survive. So I'd consider selfishness more of a self-interest in one's health more than a genuine, inherent contempt for others.

[BienvenuJDC]

There will always be outliers. There will always be situations in which Man portrays the harrowing depths of his soul, and instances where they show the graciousness in one's heart. But Man is selfish, not from a loss of virtue but from a desire to survive. Man is born to survive. So I'd consider selfishness more of a self-interest in one's health more than a genuine, inherent contempt for others.

I can agree with that...

[Paulclem]

There will always be outliers. There will always be situations in which Man portrays the harrowing depths of his soul, and instances where they show the graciousness in one's heart. But Man is selfish, not from a loss of virtue but from a desire to survive. Man is born to survive. So I'd consider selfishness more of a self-interest in one's health more than a genuine, inherent contempt for others.

Does survival come up in a modern western society? There are crises, such as fires and accidents, but even here there have been notably unselfish acts in the panic and confusion. In reality, in our societies, we are rarely faced with survival situations which is better for us but it is easier to be unselfish.

I just wonder whether we can assume this position, or is it that our communal survival is the stronger instinct seeing as we are a social speces.

[IceM]

Does survival come up in a modern western society? There are crises, such as fires and accidents, but even here there have been notably unselfish acts in the panic and confusion. In reality, in our societies, we are rarely faced with survival situations which is better for us but it is easier to be unselfish.

I just wonder whether we can assume this position, or is it that our communal survival is the stronger instinct seeing as we are a social speces.


As I said, there will be outliers.

I typically refer to the primordial humans. While Man began to organize into civilizations as we evolved, we did so because it best increased our chances of survival. While perhaps the human is the most advanced creature on Earth (perhaps, mind you), we're still animals. We still have instincts that drive us towards furthering our life span. Not all individuals act selfishly* in times of crisis as you pointed out, but I'd be willing to bet the majority act out of self-interest to better their health and survival.

It's easier to cite the primordial humans because (and this upcoming statement is purely an assumption) morality and public sentiment was less relevant as it is now. I'd wonder how often people would act generously in times of crises if morality was less developed as it is today.

[Paulclem]

As I said, there will be outliers.

I typically refer to the primordial humans. While Man began to organize into civilizations as we evolved, we did so because it best increased our chances of survival. While perhaps the human is the most advanced creature on Earth (perhaps, mind you), we're still animals. We still have instincts that drive us towards furthering our life span. Not all individuals act selfishly* in times of crisis as you pointed out, but I'd be willing to bet the majority act out of self-interest to better their health and survival.

It's easier to cite the primordial humans because (and this upcoming statement is purely an assumption) morality and public sentiment was less relevant as it is now. I'd wonder how often people would act generously in times of crises if morality was less developed as it is today.

But if the changes in society invoke changes in behaviour, then that suggests that ther isn't an inherency in the nature of humans.

I can see why you invoke primordial man as an example, but really that's ducking the issues. We can't really make assumptions about that, as we know little of their mindset and what drives them.

I'm also not sure of the self interest and health idea either. People definately panic, and in that situation, then no rational decision is possible. Is that self interest or instinct? Can you make a moral judgement about it? Morality must involve intent.

[IceM]

Isn't instinct just an innate self-interest? We instinctively breathe because it helps us survive. We instinctually feel hunger when we're hungry in order to nourish our bodies to continue survival. In a "fight or flight" esque moment our heart instinctually beats faster so that blood can be transported to the muscles faster.

Self-interest can be controlled consciously, I realize. But instinct helps to unconsciously serve self-interest.

I feel like I'm losing my point. I've had trouble explaining my ideas recently, but I think self-interest is what makes Man selfish; not a lack of virtue.

[Paulclem]

I take your point, I don't think you're losing it - but I think there's a difference between instinctand self interest. In terms of the OP - inherent evil -I think that instinct is not a choice but a reaction. Evil itself requires a choice, though the animalistic instinct is self serving.

Perhaps what we're doing is refining the terms, because we both seem to be making sense.

:D

[Scheherazade]

OP:
If “evil” is too strong a word (which it probably is) then read “selfish” or “self-centred” but the question remains.

Personally I am pessimistic in my belief that individuals are entirely motivated by self-interest and that there is no such thing as a real act of charity. That on the surface the individual may appear to be kind, but as Shakespeare said in Lear “beneath is all the fiend’s” under that mask of civility lies something much darker, something done entirely for the benefit of the self.

So in short, are human beings inherently selfish, or even potentially evil?What do you think?

[virginiawang]

I don't think all human beings are selfish or self-centered. Some people are just like infants and they don't care the value in the practical, materiallized world. They do what is noble. Ralph Waldo Emerson lauded such people in his small book, Nature, and he held that these infant adults were blended into nature. They've become a part of the grand nature. They have beautiful hearts.

I was wrong when I wrote it so many years ago. What I wrote seems like a joke.

[Alexander III]

I think William Blake answers this perfectly in a two cycle poem:


A Divine Image

To Mercy, Pity, Peace, and Love
All pray in their distress;
And to these virtues of delight
Return their thankfulness.

For Mercy, Pity, Peace, and Love
Is God our Father dear,
And Mercy, Pity, Peace, and Love
Is man, His child and care.

For Mercy has a human heart,
Pity, a human face,
And Love, the human form divine,
And Peace, the human dress.

Then every man, of every clime,
That prays in his distress,
Prays to the human form divine,
Love, Mercy, Pity, Peace.

And all must love the human form,
In heathen, Turk, or Jew;
Where Mercy, Love, and Pity dwell
There God is dwelling too.


The Human Abstract

Pity would be no more,
If we did not make somebody Poor;
And Mercy no more could be,
If all were as happy as we;
And mutual fear brings peace,
Till the selfish loves increase;
Then Cruelty knits a snare,
And spreads his baits with care.

He sits down with holy fears,
And waters the ground with tears;
Then Humility takes its root
Underneath his foot.

Soon spreads the dismal shade
Of Mystery over his head;
And the Caterpillar and Fly
Feed on the Mystery.

And it bears the fruit of Deceit,
Ruddy and sweet to eat;
And the Raven his nest has made
In its thickest shade.

The Gods of the earth and sea,
Sought through Nature to find this Tree,
But their search was all in vain;
There grows one in the Human Brain.

[tonywalt]

OP:What do you think?

We are inherently selfish and inherently have the potential for evil. But, we also have the inherent potential for doing selfless acts.

We also, inherently have the ability to say inherent three time in three sentences!!!

[Calidore]

Some are also inherently poor at math. :-)

[Paulclem]

Inherent says that the state is unchanging, which can't be right. There are plenty of people who have committed, if not evil, then criminal acts, but who become reformed. This would not be possible if inherency were true.

Evil is quite difficult to define as well.

[NikolaiI]

Inherent says that the state is unchanging, which can't be right. There are plenty of people who have committed, if not evil, then criminal acts, but who become reformed. This would not be possible if inherency were true.

I was planning to post on this thread, to answer the OP in the negative, and give some reasons why, but I saw this and wanted to reply. I'll leave for another day my belief or understanding that all beings have a Buddha-nature.

I want to point out a logical flaw in your post. Now I will have to ask you to bear with me, for I always look for the exact meaning of combinations of words. To begin with, to be clear, I too, firmly believe in the inherent good in humans. However, what you've stated doesn't logically follow. You say "There are plenty of people who have committed, if not evil, then criminal acts, but who become reformed. This would not be possible if inherency were true." To see the flaw in this, reverse the values of good and evil. You would then be stating, "There are people who have committed good acts, but who became reformed (remember, in reverse). This would not be possible if they were inherently good."

In other words, or perhaps to state it more clearly, you can't logically state that people are inherently good or bad, based on their first being good, and then being bad, or their first being bad, then being good.

[Scheherazade]

Some are also inherently poor at math. :-)Any admissible evidence to support this claim of yours?

I love Lord of the Flies.

[osho]

I do not think humans are inherently evil and in fact nobody is inherently evil. Evil or good does not come with birth and in the course of our involvement or alliance with the world we live in we have been acquiring these attributes, maybe in our endeavor at adjusting or in our struggle for survival we are changing our behavioral patterns. Certain external conditions necessitate certain types of behavior. Think that you are living in a world of business and if you are too good you cannot make money. Even in your ordinary course of life or in your everyday life when it comes to dealing with your family members or with contemporaries or with rivals your saintliness will push you behind and you have to be a bit of evil as the circumstance demands

[Paulclem]

I was planning to post on this thread, to answer the OP in the negative, and give some reasons why, but I saw this and wanted to reply. I'll leave for another day my belief or understanding that all beings have a Buddha-nature.

I want to point out a logical flaw in your post. Now I will have to ask you to bear with me, for I always look for the exact meaning of combinations of words. To begin with, to be clear, I too, firmly believe in the inherent good in humans. However, what you've stated doesn't logically follow. You say "There are plenty of people who have committed, if not evil, then criminal acts, but who become reformed. This would not be possible if inherency were true." To see the flaw in this, reverse the values of good and evil. You would then be stating, "There are people who have committed good acts, but who became reformed (remember, in reverse). This would not be possible if they were inherently good."

In other words, or perhaps to state it more clearly, you can't logically state that people are inherently good or bad, based on their first being good, and then being bad, or their first being bad, then being good.

existing as an inseparable part; intrinsic

Definition from an online dictionary.

You'd be right if I said that humans were inherently good, but I didn't. My take on Buddha nature is that it is a potential within living beings, and not a part as such - which would suggest a soul and eternalism which is denied by the teachings.

If humans were inherently good then they would be unable to do evil or change. The same goes for inherently evil. I think that the potential for good and evil exists in humans, but that these are not permanent qualities, hence the changeabiliy that can be seen from people.

No doubt there are different interpretations though.

[NikolaiI]

existing as an inseparable part; intrinsic

Definition from an online dictionary.

You'd be right if I said that humans were inherently good, but I didn't. My take on Buddha nature is that it is a potential within living beings, and not a part as such - which would suggest a soul and eternalism which is denied by the teachings.

If humans were inherently good then they would be unable to do evil or change. The same goes for inherently evil. I think that the potential for good and evil exists in humans, but that these are not permanent qualities, hence the changeabiliy that can be seen from people.

Hm... I see your point. I misunderstood, and thought your stance was that humans are inherently good. Since you're not, then I don't see a logical inconsistency in your previous post.

[Paulclem]

No worries. I didn't put it very well.

[ftil]

I do not think humans are inherently evil and in fact nobody is inherently evil. Evil or good does not come with birth and in the course of our involvement or alliance with the world we live in we have been acquiring these attributes, maybe in our endeavor at adjusting or in our struggle for survival we are changing our behavioral patterns. Certain external conditions necessitate certain types of behavior. Think that you are living in a world of business and if you are too good you cannot make money. Even in your ordinary course of life or in your everyday life when it comes to dealing with your family members or with contemporaries or with rivals your saintliness will push you behind and you have to be a bit of evil as the circumstance demands

I would be very far from making an authoritative statement. In fact, there is still no fully understood the causal factors in psychopathy and antisocial personality. Contemporary research has variously stressed the causal roles of genetic factors, constitutional deficiency, deficiency in aversive emotional arousal, the influence of particular family and environmental patterns, We know separable dimension of psychopathy. The first dimension involves the affective and interpersonal core and reflects traits such as lack of remorse, callousness, selfishness, the exploitative use of others, inflated and arrogant self-appraisal, glib and superficial charm. The second dimension reflects psychopathy involving an antisocial, impulsive, and socially deviant lifestyle.
Traditional psychotherapeutic approaches have not been proven effective in altering psychopatchic and antisocial personalities.

Well, many questions.

[Paulclem]

Can illnesses be classified as evidence of evil?

[ftil]

Can illnesses be classified as evidence of evil?

It is a good question. Can we classify personality disorders such as psychopathy or antisocial as illness? Did Ted Bundy, a serial killer, suffer from a mental illness? He showed the classic psychopathic traits of good looks, charm, and intelligence. But he was also highly manipulative and showed a total lack of remorse for his victims all young women whom he sexually abused and then murdered.

[Paulclem]

There's absolutely no doubt that he, and others have perpetrated acts of terrible evil and were deadly individuals not fit to live in normal sodiety.

Given the totality of humans though, they are extremely unusual luckily. I suspect that they were ill - I don't know what the clinical conclusions were. The question of whether they could be reformed is not one anybody could seriously consider or test given the magnitude of their crimes and the manipulation you pointed out. It would be a huge risk to declare someone reformed or sane after what they had done.

For that reason, it would be impossible to base a conclusion about any kind of inherency upon them, I reckon.

As for the rest of us, it is fair to say that we all have the potential, given certain circumstances, to commit good or evil acts. Having the potential to is different to having an inherent quality though.

[ftil]

There's absolutely no doubt that he, and others have perpetrated acts of terrible evil and were deadly individuals not fit to live in normal sodiety.

Given the totality of humans though, they are extremely unusual luckily. I suspect that they were ill - I don't know what the clinical conclusions were. The question of whether they could be reformed is not one anybody could seriously consider or test given the magnitude of their crimes and the manipulation you pointed out. It would be a huge risk to declare someone reformed or sane after what they had done.

For that reason, it would be impossible to base a conclusion about any kind of inherency upon them, I reckon.

As for the rest of us, it is fair to say that we all have the potential, given certain circumstances, to commit good or evil acts. Having the potential to is different to having an inherent quality though.

Bundy underwent multiple psychiatric examinations and he wasn’t diagnosed with mental illness He was executed in 1989. If we would consider psychopaths and antisocial as having mental illness we would not have prisons at all but mental hospitals.

It is a serious issue that is in the center of attention of many scholars as the prevalence of antisocial personality is estimated to be about 3% for males and 1% for females. There are not epidemiological studies estimating the prevalence of psychopathy.

Well I would strongly argue that we all have the potential to commit murder. :yikes:

[Paulclem]

It might be that there was a state agenda for him to be executed, or that the psychiatry at the time was unable to find a label to describe him. I think he's unrepresentative of humans, and most people would call him a nutter.

If we would consider psychopaths and antisocial as having mental illness we would not have prisons at all but mental hospitals.

We have both don't we? Psychopaths don't make up a significant portion of society. The kind of people you find in prisons are those with poor education, moderate learning difficulties and drug addicts.

Well I would strongly argue that we all have the potential to commit murder.

I agree. As I said, we all have the potential to commit good and evil, but that doesn't make it inherent.

[ftil]

Paulclem wrote:

It might be that there was a state agenda for him to be executed, or that the psychiatry at the time was unable to find a label to describe him. I think he's unrepresentative of humans, and most people would call him a nutter.

Are you familiar with his case? Well, Bundy confessed to 30 homicides. Was that a state agenda I doubt it considering his crimes. Psychiatry knew at the time of his execution about psychopaths and antisocial personality. As I wrote, he had a multiple psychiatric evaluations.


We have both don't we? Psychopaths don't make up a significant portion of society. The kind of people you find in prisons are those with poor education, moderate learning difficulties and drug addicts.

We don’t have the prevalence for psychopaths. However, research done by Hare in prison setting has shown that 49% received antisocial personality diagnosis whereas 33% received a diagnosis as psychopaths. Secondly, antisocial personality and psychopaths include a mixed group of individuals; unprincipled biasness professionals, high-pressure evangelists, crook politicians, drug pushers, and assorted criminals. It is believed that a large number of psychopathic individuals manage to stay out of correctional institution, although that tend to be in constant conflict with authority.

I would be very far from minimizing the seriousness of the problem. Vast researches speak volume.

[Paulclem]

When I think of psychpath - in my ignorence - I'm thinking of the serial killer type like Bundy. Clearly the term has a wider definition.

— n
Also called: sociopath a person afflicted with a personality disorder characterized by a tendency to commit antisocial and sometimes violent acts and a failure to feel guilt for such acts

From the online dictionary.

So the people you are referring to in the study are somewhat differet from what I was referring to. I think that's ppsychiatry's problem to sort out in terms of labelling because it's clear that the 33% you refer to are not Ted Bundys.

it's interesting that they feel no remorse/ compassion,but what is unclear is whether this can be inculcated in a person with this disorder.

Anyway, it still does not mean that we can judge the human state by what is a minority of individuals with disorders or conditions.

[ftil]

So the people you are referring to in the study are somewhat differet from what I was referring to. I think that's ppsychiatry's problem to sort out in terms of labelling because it's clear that the 33% you refer to are not Ted Bundys.

Well, psychiatry has a list of specific traits based on which the diagnosis is made. They don’t need to be a serious killers to be diagnosed as a psychopath.


it's interesting that they feel no remorse/ compassion,but what is unclear is whether this can be inculcated in a person with this disorder.

It is the most puzzling piece and it is not fully understood. I am not satisfied with research regarding the causal roles of deficiency in aversive emotional arousal or constitutional deficiency. The researchers haven’t found the explanation for those deficiencies, yet. We only know that the psychotherapeutic approaches are not effective. According to Charney, factors inherent in the psychopaths personality- the inability to trust, to feel as others do, and to learn form experience- apparently make the progress for psychotherapy very poor.

I have been asking what went wrong with those people that they don’t feel as others do. I have explored alternative fields but I am not satisfied, either. Of course, there is no scientific confirmation of alterantive explanations and I don’t think scientists would ever be interested in looking there. :brow:





Anyway, it still does not mean that we can judge the human state by what is a minority of individuals with disorders or conditions.

I would be very far from comparing the majority of people to psychopaths or antisocial. But we can’t deny the seriousness of the problem, either.

[Paulclem]

Yes. Fascinating and disturbing.

[IceM]

I recant my previous statements. Yes, humans are naturally evil. The Bible teaches that all have sinned and all fall short of the glory of God. We are totally depraved. However, we can find freedom from sin and forgiveness of sin in Christ Jesus if we place our faith in Him as Lord and Savior and repent of our sins.