Evil

[vagantes]

What is evil?

It is the innocent Jews who were murdered in the Holocaust.
It is the massacre at Pajong in 2002,
Where mothers were forced to destroy their babies,
Battering them against the wall until their brains fell out.

So, ultimately it is a lack of concern for others,
Which we can measure with a machine.
It scans the brain and shows the difference in empathy circuits,
And means of course, we can decide that such people are not needed.

Is not this also evil?

[Delta40]

Since 'what is evil?' is a deep bottomless discussion you would do better to at least change the statements in S1 to questions otherwise the definition of evil is a foregone conclusion on your part and not the readers especially given that you yourself end the poem asking the reader whether S2 is not also evil.

[vagantes]

The examples supplied in the first verse are reasonably definitive of actions which display a lack of concern for others by carrying out acts such as murder, torture, rape, genocide etc,.

By using a MRI scanner on those who commit such acts, neuroscience can map "the neural basis of empathy and its absence".

The bizarre paradox, which is the point of the poem, is that we are using a machine to look at acts that are unempathetic. This is in itself unempathetic, and could be determined as an evil act.

[Hawkman]

This seems to have been inspired by a recent documentary, but you have left out half of the information in your conclusion. The opening question is also worded very badly as what you have asked is whether the Murdered jews were evil.

Besides, The MRI does not reveal the presence of evil. It, together with gene analysis and psychological profiling, merely indicates a measure of propensity to psychopthy. It does not quantify evil or confirm its presence. The same program also revealed that an amazingly high proportion of successful CEOs in companies posess this trait. They don't all go out and commit genocide. Nurture, apparently, has a significant bearing on whether a psychopath becomes actively dangerous towards other people.

Besides, evil is an emotive word which defines an idea and seems more suited to definition by religion than science. Good and bad are relative concepts and good people can do bad things and vice versa. Perhaps this would have been a more appropriate subject for discussion in your poem.

[vagantes]

There appears to be an urgent need in these comments to close down and be negative. It speaks more about your viewpoint than your view.

The discussion was not inspired by any particular programme, but rather by a theory being advanced about empathy, which makes claims about using scanners to make connections between brain and behaviour, which I submit is dangerous nonsense.

It also undermines in its advocacy the connection between unempathetic behaviour and evil, which it is trying to establish.

I find that rather piquant.

You might also wish to reflect on these comments about internet trolls:

"If you read a review, an opinion, a description or a fact and you don't know who wrote it then it's no more reliable than if it were sprayed on a railway bridge. We should always assume the worst so that all those who wish to convince have an incentive to identify themselves".

[Delta40]

Well back to the poem itself. It lacks poetic flow and is more like a handful of in your face statements with a question at the end. It isn't framed creatively and would need to be re-written. Hawk is right when you ask:

What is evil? It is the innocent Jews who were murdered in the Holocaust.

It simply doesn't make sense.

[vagantes]

Poetic flow sounds like a generalised species of indiscriminate abuse to me or perhaps you would prefer some lines from The Baviad:

"Lo, Della Crusca! in his closet pent,
He toils to give the crude conception vent.
Abortive thoughts that right and wrong confound
Truth sacrificed to letters, sense to sound
False glare, incongrous imagines combine;
And noise, and nonsense, clatter through the line".

One of the reasons your quote doesn't make sense, is that you are misquoting.

Apart from that sloppiness in reading it is perfectly clear that images of evil are being provided.

As an amplification on the matter addressed by the poem, which amusingly is being overlooked, can I ask what scientific finding allows us to conclude that human decision-making is a mechanical process wholly determined by previous mechanical processses? If we are mechanised in this way then influence by rationality is intellectually incoherent.

[hallaig]

can't stick something up and not expect it to be criticised. Not sure that evil is such a cosily defined concept.

[Buh4Bee]

The bizarre paradox, which is the point of the poem, is that we are using a machine to look at acts that are unempathetic. This is in itself unempathetic, and could be determined as an evil act.

I've read this poem many times, myself. There is something off about it- any number of reasons as listed by the other posters. BUT, I understood the point you are trying to convey at the end of the poem. Yes, trying to quantify "evil" in terms of a MRI scan is very limited. It is rather bogus. I had a bit of a conversation about this idea in my head- just didn't post.

Anyway, it seems that this is such a big topic being covered by such a small poem. And then again, is a poem the best form to express these ideas?

[Delta40]

Vagantes, I do know that putting some lines together doesn't automatically produce a poem. If you believe the problem lies with the reader rather than with anything you have written, you're welcome to your view. Unless you concede the way you have written Evil needs work to improve your poetry skills, so be it.

As to the content? Well it would do much better in the serious discussion forum in it's current format.

[vagantes]

A poem is constructed however you want it to be.

The NHS in the UK is a great poem for instance. Think about Shelley and his remarks about poets as the unacknowledged legislators of mankind.

Think about the contrast between swing and be-bop.

The lines are meant to jar - to be non-flowing.