Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2018 16:45:03 GMT -5
Bob, especially I have to ask you this being that you an Objectivist and that the brain and part of it that control ourselves, do you believe that evil exists if nothing but because of some lack of conscience in part of the brain in some people?
|
|
|
Post by faskew on Jul 9, 2018 7:49:16 GMT -5
Lily - we’ve been round this bush before. Like many things, evil doesn’t have a good definition and is used in so many different ways by so many different people that it can mean anything. And what’s evil on one side of the street may be a virtue on the other. The men who dropped the atomic bombs on Japan considered themselves patriots as they killed hundreds of thousands of women and children. The Nazis believed that they, too, were merely patriots protecting Western Europe from evil people (Jews and communists). Soldiers who torture prisoners for information do so to save their friends.
In other words, it’s not WHAT people do that we call evil, it’s WHY they do it. But the people who do “evil” things always have good reasons for their acts. Even serial killers and such blame their victims – “They made me do it!”. The most common excuse for cruelty and such is self-defense. We must protect our children, our values, our way of life.
Sometimes evil, like slavery, is not clear self-defense, but the people who do it always have good reasons for their actions (It's in the Bible.). So basically this is the way the world runs - whatever I do is good and whatever other people do may be evil (if I don’t like it). Evil is a social construct. It varies from culture to culture and evolves over time.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jul 9, 2018 11:15:41 GMT -5
Bob, especially I have to ask you this being that you an Objectivist and that the brain and part of it that control ourselves, do you believe that evil exists if nothing but because of some lack of conscience in part of the brain in some people?
Yes Lily, evil exists.
In the case of sociopaths (also called psychopaths), their brains are literally different from normal people.
But that is only part of the problem. There are also evil philosophies. How can that be a factor? After all, isn't philosophy just some ivory tower stuff discussed only by professors? No it isn't.
Philosophy is the general principles by which people live their lives. We don't have a choice as to whether or not we have a philosophy. Our only choice is should we consciously choose the principles we live by, or do we just accept whatever ideas happen to be drifting around in our society.
Look at history. How many millions have been killed by religious wars? Believe what we believe, or you are dead. Communist philosophy is also like a religion. Rich people are evil and must be killed. What happens when there are no more rich people? In that case, everyone who disagrees with the leadership is an "enemy of the revolution" and must be killed.
What's more important, the life of an individual or the life of a nation? Some philosophies (Communism among them) say that a person is no more important than an individual cell in the body. Therefore individuals can be sacrificed at any time for the "good of the nation." People who follow that philosophy think nothing of killing millions to achieve their ends.
Evil philosophies have killed more people throughout history than all the psychopaths who ever lived.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2018 13:32:39 GMT -5
Lily - we’ve been round this bush before. Like many things, evil doesn’t have a good definition and is used in so many different ways by so many different people that it can mean anything. And what’s evil on one side of the street may be a virtue on the other. The men who dropped the atomic bombs on Japan considered themselves patriots as they killed hundreds of thousands of women and children. The Nazis believed that they, too, were merely patriots protecting Western Europe from evil people (Jews and communists). Soldiers who torture prisoners for information do so to save their friends. In other words, it’s not WHAT people do that we call evil, it’s WHY they do it. But the people who do “evil” things always have good reasons for their acts. Even serial killers and such blame their victims – “They made me do it!”. The most common excuse for cruelty and such is self-defense. We must protect our children, our values, our way of life. Sometimes evil, like slavery, is not clear self-defense, but the people who do it always have good reasons for their actions (It's in the Bible.). So basically this is the way the world runs - whatever I do is good and whatever other people do may be evil (if I don’t like it). Evil is a social construct. It varies from culture to culture and evolves over time. But that was exactly what I was getting at, wanting to see what definitions the question of does evil exist, would be used, to start with.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2018 13:34:23 GMT -5
Bob, especially I have to ask you this being that you an Objectivist and that the brain and part of it that control ourselves, do you believe that evil exists if nothing but because of some lack of conscience in part of the brain in some people?
Yes Lily, evil exists.
In the case of sociopaths (also called psychopaths), their brains are literally different from normal people.
But that is only part of the problem. There are also evil philosophies. How can that be a factor? After all, isn't philosophy just some ivory tower stuff discussed only by professors? No it isn't.
Philosophy is the general principles by which people live their lives. We don't have a choice as to whether or not we have a philosophy. Our only choice is should we consciously choose the principles we live by, or do we just accept whatever ideas happen to be drifting around in our society.
Look at history. How many millions have been killed by religious wars? Believe what we believe, or you are dead. Communist philosophy is also like a religion. Rich people are evil and must be killed. What happens when there are no more rich people? In that case, everyone who disagrees with the leadership is an "enemy of the revolution" and must be killed.
What's more important, the life of an individual or the life of a nation? Some philosophies (Communism among them) say that a person is no more important than an individual cell in the body. Therefore individuals can be sacrificed at any time for the "good of the nation." People who follow that philosophy think nothing of killing millions to achieve their ends.
Evil philosophies have killed more people throughout history than all the psychopaths who ever lived.
Bob
Do you think that people living in Western cultures (the U.S. for one) actually, actively have chosen their philosophy of life?
|
|
|
Post by faskew on Jul 9, 2018 14:29:12 GMT -5
Just my opinion, but I think that most people in the world simply accept whatever beliefs their family and/or culture give them and don't really think about it much. Some do, but not many.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jul 9, 2018 16:41:45 GMT -5
Yes Lily, evil exists.
In the case of sociopaths (also called psychopaths), their brains are literally different from normal people.
But that is only part of the problem. There are also evil philosophies. How can that be a factor? After all, isn't philosophy just some ivory tower stuff discussed only by professors? No it isn't.
Philosophy is the general principles by which people live their lives. We don't have a choice as to whether or not we have a philosophy. Our only choice is should we consciously choose the principles we live by, or do we just accept whatever ideas happen to be drifting around in our society.
Look at history. How many millions have been killed by religious wars? Believe what we believe, or you are dead. Communist philosophy is also like a religion. Rich people are evil and must be killed. What happens when there are no more rich people? In that case, everyone who disagrees with the leadership is an "enemy of the revolution" and must be killed.
What's more important, the life of an individual or the life of a nation? Some philosophies (Communism among them) say that a person is no more important than an individual cell in the body. Therefore individuals can be sacrificed at any time for the "good of the nation." People who follow that philosophy think nothing of killing millions to achieve their ends.
Evil philosophies have killed more people throughout history than all the psychopaths who ever lived.
Bob
Do you think that people living in Western cultures (the U.S. for one) actually, actively have chosen their philosophy of life?
I agree with Fred on this one. Most people don't consciously choose the principles they need to live a happy life. They just accept whatever whatever happens to be drifting around in their family and neighborhood. That's one reason the world is in such bad shape today. I mean look who they are voting for.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2018 23:32:42 GMT -5
And if they do think about it, many people will, after long and thorough deliberation, surprisingly come to the conclusion that not only did whatever values their social environment upholds turn out to be good, but how most people and organizations act is in fact easily justifiable through said values.
|
|
|
Post by faskew on Jul 10, 2018 8:05:09 GMT -5
It's very difficult for people to change their beliefs, especially after they have committed so much time, effort and money in support of those beliefs. If you've stuck with the same thing for 40 years, why change now? Plus, there's the social factor. If you no longer believe the same things that your family and peers believe, you are cut off from them. This is very stressful, even if you have a new group to go with your new beliefs. That's what happened to me, in my teens. I envy those who have the sort of tight support group that I gave up. There's a real truth to the old phrase, "ignorance is bliss.". Yes, "the truth shall make you free," but the truth can also make you lonely. 8-<
|
|
|
Post by debutante on Jul 10, 2018 8:57:42 GMT -5
Lily,
Did you mean evil acts?
Or evil in the sense of the devil?
Because if it's the latter I don't think customs of a society would make a difference.
--Debutante
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2018 11:18:46 GMT -5
Different religions and cultures have different ideas about the Devil or personified Evil, don't they?
So customs absolutely do make a difference there.
|
|
|
Post by debutante on Jul 10, 2018 11:53:29 GMT -5
McCans:
If the personification of evil was defined as being contrary to whatever a given culture considers "good" -- That's universal in terms of the quality of opposition.
So the devil would be a universal concept in the sense that it is opposed to "good."
For purposes of the original question Lily posed (assuming that is what she meant) without going into details, one could still postulate a devil.
I think most cultures have some kind of devil figure.
I hope I have explained what I mean adequately -- I'm a little out of it today and might not be making much sense. I know what I mean. I'm just not sure I explained it properly.
--Debutante
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2018 12:50:58 GMT -5
My thread is the result of my current reading of "People of the Lie - The Hope for Healing Human Evil", by M. Scott Peck, M.D. It's from the early 80's. Maybe some of you have read it or at least heard of it as well as his other well-known book "The Road Less Traveled". I never did get around to reading either book, but now I do also want to read "The Road Less Traveled". My first thought with "People of the Lie" was that "Evil" was just another term for sociopathic or psychopathic, but Peck distinguished those terms from "Evil".
|
|
|
Post by faskew on Jul 10, 2018 14:08:39 GMT -5
There are many, many ways to classify evil. Sometimes it's actions by an individual, sometimes actions by a group, sometimes actions done by a nation. But like I say, most of the time the people doing "evil" think that they are doing "good" and it's people who disagree with them who are bad.
And that's valid, if you accept their core beliefs. If it's 1650 and you know for a fact that witches exist and are leading people to worship the devil, it is "good" to kill those witches. You are protecting the souls of their potential victims who might otherwise burn in hell forever. All you have to do is to kill the witches before they can lure the innocent astray. If you sincerely believe all of that, then killing witches is both good and necessary. If you don't believe all that, then killing witches is evil.
Which is why I say there isn't a good definition of evil. When I was a nurse in the state hospital for the mentally ill, I worked with psychopaths and sociopaths who had killed people. None of them thought that they had done anything wrong. In fact, they believed that they were the good guys and we who kept them locked up were dupes of Satan (or whoever). Are those people evil? Well, yes, to us. But not to themselves. And some of them even had followers who believed their stories. Evil depends on who you are, where you live, and when. 8-<
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2018 15:25:44 GMT -5
Forget about the definition of evil. Would you recognize right or wrong if you saw it? Or would you say to yourself, well, who am I to make a judgment? In such and such a society such and such an act would be fine, so therefore evil is simply what anyone thinks it is, no more, no less.
|
|
|
Post by faskew on Jul 11, 2018 8:50:34 GMT -5
Pick 10 different people from 10 different times and cultures, and you get 10 different views on what's right and what's wrong. Humans are herd animals, so there's sort of a common thread that what's bad for the herd is "wrong", but the "herd" may be a very small group. So maybe it's "bad" to steal from anyone my village, but it's maybe OK to steal from the village across the river.
Some people have a large view of "herd" and so think in terms of what's good for the human species. Some people are narrowly focused on "herd" and only consider what's good for their extended family.
This is a constant problem with human interactions. Whether it's wars or politics or local feuds or whatever, different "herds" are in constant conflict because they have different values. Yes, I have my own personal beliefs of right and wrong, but I understand that those are not universal. Part of being herd animals is that, for the benefit of the herd, there have to be rules. Which was easy back when most people never traveled further than 50 miles from their homes and everyone in the village, more or less, shared the same values. But what do we do when we encounter people from all over the world daily? Do we set up a dictatorship of the majority (if you want to live with us, you have to follow our rules)? Or do we allow minorities the freedom to violate the rules of our herd? (If they don't have to follow the rules, why should I?)
No easy answers. 8-<
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jul 11, 2018 12:32:30 GMT -5
Pick 10 different people from 10 different times and cultures, and you get 10 different views on what's right and what's wrong. Humans are herd animals, so there's sort of a common thread that what's bad for the herd is "wrong", but the "herd" may be a very small group. So maybe it's "bad" to steal from anyone my village, but it's maybe OK to steal from the village across the river. Some people have a large view of "herd" and so think in terms of what's good for the human species. Some people are narrowly focused on "herd" and only consider what's good for their extended family. This is a constant problem with human interactions. Whether it's wars or politics or local feuds or whatever, different "herds" are in constant conflict because they have different values. Yes, I have my own personal beliefs of right and wrong, but I understand that those are not universal. Part of being herd animals is that, for the benefit of the herd, there have to be rules. Which was easy back when most people never traveled further than 50 miles from their homes and everyone in the village, more or less, shared the same values. But what do we do when we encounter people from all over the world daily? Do we set up a dictatorship of the majority (if you want to live with us, you have to follow our rules)? Or do we allow minorities the freedom to violate the rules of our herd? (If they don't have to follow the rules, why should I?) No easy answers. 8-<
Fred, are you saying that any set of values is as good as any other set? If so, than the Nazis "morality" (it's good to kill the Jews and the enemies of the Fuehrer) is just as good as a rule to be nice to people of different ethnic backgrounds.
That belief has a name: Ethical relativism. It should also have another name: Moral Nihilism.
From the fact that people have different values, it does not follow that all value systems are equally valid.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2018 12:48:41 GMT -5
Forget about the definition of evil. Would you recognize right or wrong if you saw it? Or would you say to yourself, well, who am I to make a judgment? In such and such a society such and such an act would be fine, so therefore evil is simply what anyone thinks it is, no more, no less. I recognize what I personally consider right or wrong, but I'm often in the minority there.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2018 12:49:36 GMT -5
From the fact that people have different values, it does not follow that all value systems are equally valid. Of course not. My value system is more valid than any other.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jul 11, 2018 16:28:17 GMT -5
From the fact that people have different values, it does not follow that all value systems are equally valid. Of course not. My value system is more valid than any other.
Then you should have no trouble demonstrating that using facts and logic.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2018 21:24:57 GMT -5
Well, boys will be boys, won't they?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2018 21:35:06 GMT -5
Okay, here's a scenario, and tell me what you think:
There are two people who live in the same society with the same laws and values. Each of them does something that is judged frankly rather depraved by that same society.
One of those persons has a guilty feeling about what he/she did. The other person feels nothing and has no conscience to speak of. So, what is your opinion and judgment about reach of these people? Do you find them different in any way, or do you feel there is no difference between the two?
|
|
|
Post by faskew on Jul 12, 2018 8:35:05 GMT -5
Bob wrote: >Fred, are you saying that any set of values is as good as any other set? ---Nope, I'm saying that whatever people do, they think it's a good thing. Yes, there are a few mentally ill types who do "bad" things because they want to be "bad", but most people - Nazis, Trump, whoever - believe that they are good and moral and it's people who disagree with them who are "bad".
Lily - People who don't have a conscience are sociopaths. Their brains are literally not like other humans. So, yes, there is a difference.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jul 12, 2018 10:09:45 GMT -5
Bob wrote: >Fred, are you saying that any set of values is as good as any other set? ---Nope, I'm saying that whatever people do, they think it's a good thing. Yes, there are a few mentally ill types who do "bad" things because they want to be "bad", but most people - Nazis, Trump, whoever - believe that they are good and moral and it's people who disagree with them who are "bad".
Yes, of course almost everyone believes that their actions and their values are good. My point is that their actions and values cannot always be logically demonstrated to be good. Ethical Relativism, by contrast, insists that there is no Universal standard. The result of that is Nazi actions are neither good nor bad. These are just actions like any other. That is moral Nihilism.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2018 11:21:19 GMT -5
Okay, here's a scenario, and tell me what you think: There are two people who live in the same society with the same laws and values. Each of them does something that is judged frankly rather depraved by that same society. One of those persons has a guilty feeling about what he/she did. The other person feels nothing and has no conscience to speak of. So, what is your opinion and judgment about reach of these people? Do you find them different in any way, or do you feel there is no difference between the two? Having guilty feelings seems to point to a stronger moral code, but honestly I'd be more interested in whether these people stopped doing those depraved acts, and whether they are actively trying to make up for it in other ways.
Or to put it this way: I think that emotional guilt is an important first step on the way to moral action, but it's not a "good" moral act in and of itself. So I would not judge a person to be morally "better" simply for feeling guilty about the bad things they did. What's important is how they act on it.
|
|
|
Post by faskew on Jul 12, 2018 12:28:22 GMT -5
Bob - the question, as always, what do you base morality on? There's no single source that everyone agrees to. Yes, I've read philosophers who claim to be able to winkle out ethics by logic or some such, but they don't agree with each other any more than religions do.
Interesting factoid - back in pre-Christian Roman times, religion did not provide moral guidance. So long as you performed the rituals required by your deities, you were good. Ethics did not come from religion. Only after Christianity took over were people expected to perform the rituals AND behave a certain way. Although that, too, varied. There may have been as many as 100 early Christian sects in the first 1-200 years, and they often had widely different ethics. And the constant battles against "heresy" have continued on to this day. Often being literal battles. 8-<
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2018 12:48:36 GMT -5
Of the two people, one who had guilt feelings and the other who had no conscience, which one would you label as evil if you were forced to do that? And why?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jul 12, 2018 18:57:11 GMT -5
Bob - the question, as always, what do you base morality on? There's no single source that everyone agrees to. Yes, I've read philosophers who claim to be able to winkle out ethics by logic or some such, but they don't agree with each other any more than religions do. If you had some disease or ailment, wouldn't you do a Google search? What if that search turned up several different sources that contradicted each other? Would you just give up and suffer? Or would did deeper and try to find out if one cure was better than the others? Ethical codes can affect your entire life. They can make you happy or miserable. The fact that many of them contradict each other should be no more of a problem than having a bunch of contradictory cures for a sickness. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2018 23:05:39 GMT -5
Of the two people, one who had guilt feelings and the other who had no conscience, which one would you label as evil if you were forced to do that? And why? Thank you so much for not taking me seriously. Just one less thing I won't have to spend my time on.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2018 17:32:13 GMT -5
I've already said my piece. Sorry if you don't like it.
|
|