The root of evil

[WiredBrain]

Hi, I'm new on the forum, and I wanted to inagurate my first post with a new thread.

First of all, I'm developing and thinking about a paradigm of my own about humankind, and there is a point in it I'm afraid it isn't solid enough to be a reasonable premise to base on. But, thinking about it, instead of exposing my idea directly in this thread risking it to be misunderstood on some point (beacause I forgot to tell you about some other premises, or I may be using a word badly because to I'm not English native speaker, etc) , I decided to ask for the thoughts of you people and reaching indirectly to the conclusion once many of your ideas have been exposed.

Well, the topic itself it's about the following:

If you agree that the moral codes of each person on a certain level vary from one to another, and also that you agree there are some points between each one that are common despite of the individual beliefs or education (for example that killing is bad or the rejection of anything considered cruelty), basing on the idea that those common points exists due to a kind of emotional response that determine what is good or evil, then what do you consider it would be the specific factor on another person that allows you to react emotionally and determine if that individual is evil?

(BTW, yeah... I know the title of this thread is similiar to the name of a Dream Theater song. If you were looking for that, then sorry for disappointing you.)

[qwerty]

As you said, each person has their own beliefs.
In order to determine another individual is 'evil', I would assume that there would be a mental check list, where each concept is weighted. For Example:

1) Constantly Smiles = +10
2) Tortures animals = -1000
3) Says only negative things = -20
4) Says negative things frequently = -10
5) Says negative things once in a while = +5 (shows a human side)
6) Attractive personality = +500
7) Clever person = +200

So if they are my beliefs, then I tally up your score. Then if you reach a certain threshold then you become a beacon of light or a dark hearted psycho.

i.e.
A person who just tortures animals is 'Evil'
but
A person who smiles, has an attractive personality, shows their human side and is smart that also tortures animals may appear to be misunderstood.

I guess it's like a mother fostering a son that is a serial killer. Or a girl that dates a biker. All the positives and negatives align.

You can take this concept one step further and introduce new constraints as well...
So if a person crys when the torture animals then they may be ranked -500 rather than -1000.

Anyway. I hope this is what you meant? If not, maybe you could share an example.

[erm]

Well, to me good and evil were unreachable archetypes. Defined by emotion, thus both based around emotions. So evidence good has been done would usually be:-

Lots of voluntary pleasure
Lots of happiness.
Lots of meaning
Lots of purposes fufilled
Lots of satisfaction

Evidence evil has been done would usually be:-

Lots of involuntary pain
Lots of sadness
Lots of doubt and destroyed meaning
Lots of purposes denied or directly reversed
Lots of dissatisfaction

Add up how much these things follow a person, and you get my good/evil rating. You have to take into account these qualities in the deductively and accurately inductively forseeable future, based on their actions. Anything unpredictable, to the person being rated, does not count towards their rating.

[WiredBrain]

In order to determine another individual is 'evil', I would assume that there would be a mental check list, where each concept is weighted.

I was pointing on a different direction, but still it's interesting to see what are what you consider parameters to weigh how good or how evil is someone, although the only problem with your statement, I think, is that it works only if you suppose you are on periodical contact with that particular individual you are weighing against your concepts. It's only my opinion, but what you stated in your comment maybe it should go better for weighing how much you like someone or not, assuming that "evil people" belong to your dislikes.

Anyway. I hope this is what you meant? If not, maybe you could share an example.

What I meant is that there may be something that ticks inside of you that let's you distinguish wheter something or someone is evil or not. Taking one of the examples you used, if you consider that torturing animals is bad and makes someone in some degree more evil, then WHY would you personally consider that torturing animals is bad? (This is where this thread points toward to, the factors that allows you to discriminate why something is bad or evil, like in this case for example)





WiredBrain added to this post, 9 minutes and 49 seconds later...

Add up how much these things follow a person, and you get my good/evil rating. You have to take into account these qualities in the deductively and accurately inductively forseeable future, based on their actions. Anything unpredictable, to the person being rated, does not count towards their rating.

Same as qwerty, What does make you say that those parameters you use to weigh somebody will measure how evil is somebody? Why those parameters are considered on the evil side?

[erm]

Same as qwerty, What does make you say that those parameters you use to weigh somebody will measure how evil is somebody? Why those parameters are considered on the evil side?

Basically it's what feels bad, after consideration (when reaction instincts have died down), in myself and others. Common ground is normally found, to know what feels the most bad, if not, then it's the majority who wins.

If something didn't make me feel bad, then there'd be nothing wrong with it in my mind. I normally feel bad when others do, hence why I include their feelings in the evil calculation. I can't really explain why things make me feel bad. Perhaps evolution could cover it.

What feels bad is generally just pain, in its many forms. Similar to negative utilitarianism.

[sriv]

Lots of...


Too much of anything hurts. I find that painfully obvious in the world today.

I hypothetically isolate the specimen I am studying and put him (let's just go with a male) in a controlled scenario. I give the person different situations and make educated assumptions on what the person would do in a certain scenario.

Male with a female -
Good: They help each other survive and eventually reproduce.
Evil: Man rapes woman.
Extreme example. Self-explainatory.

Male walking down a street with an apple in his pocket where there are beggars around him about to die of starvation -
Good: Thinks about the decision and comes to the conclusion that the apple should be given.
Neutral: Gives the apple to the beggar without hesitation OR thinks about the decision at length and comes to the conclusion that the apple should not be given based off good reason.
Evil: Walks away without hesitation.
A determination of selflessness. The independent variable here is the man's health.

I can come up with hundreds of scenario's depending on how well I know the person. I do not use the point system as I prefer to use my intuition to jumble up a valid judgement.

I then compare them to values and good traits formerly established by others and myself. I agree that negative utilitarianism is one of my biggest evils as their existence will not benefit society in any way. If the person accepts being a part of society and reaps all its benefits, then they should obey its statures and attempt to contribute.

[qwerty]

What does make you say that those parameters you use to weigh somebody will measure how evil is somebody? Why those parameters are considered on the evil side?

Sriv and erm are trying to get at the answer here. What you're asking is essentially asking how we form thoughts.

Consider
* Cultural Factors
* Gender Factors
* Environmental Factors
* Personality Factors
* Intelligence Factors
etc...

Over the span of our lives we observe the world and learn, we observe patterns and are taught ideas and concepts. In a way we are a product of society and we are taught what is evil. Or we use our experiences to judge it.

If you start refering to feelings if evil that shoot up the back of your neck when you meet particular people we can begin to search for physilogical factors, what part of your life style is triggering these adjunct hormonal release that shoots to make the hairs on your head crawl. Because like most emotions you have triggered some memory / some function within your brain.

So in essence I suggest if you want to form a cognative theory you should start working now, because after research into AI and behavioural theory I would image there are plenty of smart people who would say answering your question is hard and that it will take you time to prove.

Now you've heard my ideas, what are yours?

[onlyparallel]

I think that there is generally one parameter you can use to determine how evil someone is. Basically if they cause harm to a person or animal for no good reason they are evil, how evil they are determined by how much pain they would inflict. (Pain being physical emotional spirtual and psychological) Good reason to cause pain is when not doing so would cause more pain to something. Also if a person is raised to beileve that casuing this pain is in someway correct and is unable to make this decision for themselves, or if they are unable to see that their actions cause said pain, they are not evil. I'm sure that there are other situations where my logic does not apply, but that's a starting point.

[sriv]

I think that there is generally one parameter you can use to determine how evil someone is. Basically if they cause harm to a person or animal for no good reason they are evil, how evil they are determined by how much pain they would inflict. (Pain being physical emotional spirtual and psychological) Good reason to cause pain is when not doing so would cause more pain to something. Also if a person is raised to beileve that casuing this pain is in someway correct and is unable to make this decision for themselves, or if they are unable to see that their actions cause said pain, they are not evil. I'm sure that there are other situations where my logic does not apply, but that's a starting point.

Please explain why pain is a bad thing. I often see pain as a good thing in many situations. I agree that killing is a bad thing, but pain (with the exception of torture) is not necessarily a bad thing.

[erm]

Too much of anything hurts. I find that painfully obvious in the world today.

I agree that pleasure and such can lead to pain rapidly in large amounts, as well as anything totally physical, but some abstract things are good in essence (freedom, power, satisfaction etc.) and can't cause harm unless combined with something that can (hatred, love etc.). Essentially I'm trying to say you can define some things as truly good, it's whether they actually exist on their own or not, that says whether they can come in large amounts without causing harm.

Selflessness seems to be an amplifier of good and evil as well. For example, I think needless pain caused with no benefit to the self in mind, would be seen as more evil than any selfish act of pain (random torture compared to interrogation torture). Same with pleasure, if you could actually be selfless (debatable), and help others through no benefit to the self, most people would see it as a greater act of good than a selfish deed that benefits others.

[Serket]

As dark is not a thing in itself, but rather an absence of light,
so too evil is not a thing, but an absence of good.

Since I belive in Plato's Theory of Forms, good is anything which contains a shadow of true goodness. The degree of good or bad is usually a bit subjective though.

[erm]

As dark is not a thing in itself, but rather an absence of light,
so too evil is not a thing, but an absence of good.

Since I belive in Plato's Theory of Forms, good is anything which contains a shadow of true goodness. The degree of good or bad is usually a bit subjective though.

So what's to stop someone saying "good is the absence of evil"? Afterall, a functioning theory of the universe could be made assuming cold is energy, heat lack of, and dark energy, light lack of.

A neutral act is that which contains no good or evil. By evil being the absence of good, that would mean the act of a ball rolling is either good or evil.

I see a lot of truth to Plato's forms, but I disagree with his form of the good. I could equally see a form of the bad, which blocks our sight of the forms, the less of the bad there is, the clearer the forms are. I think it's human's innate optimism that assumes good is the thing, evil the lack of.

[Serket]

But you cant say light is the absence of dark, because light is particles/waves.
Dark is the absnce of particles/waves.

So this arguement does not apply

[sriv]

But you cant say light is the absence of dark, because light is particles/waves.
Dark is the absnce of particles/waves.

So this arguement does not apply

Light and dark are irrelevant to good and evil. False connections.

Good and evil are subjective conceptions.
Light and dark are scientific facts.

[WiredBrain]

Sriv and erm are trying to get at the answer here. What you're asking is essentially asking how we form thoughts.

Consider
* Cultural Factors
* Gender Factors
* Environmental Factors
* Personality Factors
* Intelligence Factors
etc...

Over the span of our lives we observe the world and learn, we observe patterns and are taught ideas and concepts. In a way we are a product of society and we are taught what is evil. Or we use our experiences to judge it.

If you start refering to feelings if evil that shoot up the back of your neck when you meet particular people we can begin to search for physilogical factors, what part of your life style is triggering these adjunct hormonal release that shoots to make the hairs on your head crawl. Because like most emotions you have triggered some memory / some function within your brain.

Excellent. Now you are getting closer to the core of the question, and so sriv did . On your comment you recognised those factors which I already mentioned in my statement by the name of "moral" on your considering list. I assumed that if I mentioned the moral of each individual, many of those well known factors would have come up to your head immediately. Then, you pointed about feelings that would appear in response to a certain situation when meeting some kind of individual, situation which would trigger some function inside your brain, relating to some degree to the subject's own moral code, and this is where I want to stop.

The next question will guide a bit more:

Have you ever wondered why many different countries, cultures, etc. have similar or equal moral codes, considering that many of them have never had a strong communication between each other, directly or indirectly? (essentially, this makes me think that there may be some factors inside the moral of each people, which despite of not being learned at all because of our environment, are definetely common, not only in many cultures, but also in every person in general).

[erm]

But you cant say light is the absence of dark, because light is particles/waves.
Dark is the absnce of particles/waves.

So this arguement does not apply

My suggestion is we see particles as the "things" and the ether as the lack of, out of our own bias. Like I said, a mathmatical and physical model could be built assuming particles are the "nothingness", although it would involve a lot more complex calculations. The more intense the waves, the less intense the nothingness. The more intense the nothingness, the less intense the waves.

I think we define energy as the "thing" so we can word things easily. In terms of abstract logic, energy and lack of energy can both be "things", though neither need be for the sake of efficiency as needed in language.

Proof of a negative is the same situation. You can prove a negative, but it's a very inefficent way of dealing with the world (assuming everything exists until proven otherwise, as a pose to vice versa). We define positive and negative ourselves, just like in mechanics, and we define good (positive) and evil (negative) ourselves, they're both things. The minority is almost always the "thing" in these cases.

The more intense the evil, the less intense the good. The more intense the good, the less intense the evil. I'm still not seeing anything making one the lack of the other.

Have you ever wondered why many different countries, cultures, etc. have similar or equal moral codes, considering that many of them have never had a strong communication between each other, directly or indirectly? (essentially, this makes me think that there may be some factors inside the moral of each people, which despite of not being learned at all because of our environment, are definetely common, not only in many cultures, but also in every person in general).

This is probably evolution. After all it's a great help to survival for people to not murder, torture, or steal from each other. This then leads to the common ground all humans share. We likely wouldn't be here without it. Even compassion to animals would lead to taming animals on the planes of Africa, which then leads to farming. Farming being far superior to hunting for survival.

[sriv]

This is probably evolution. After all it's a great help to survival for people to not murder, torture, or steal from each other. This then leads to the common ground all humans share. We likely wouldn't be here without it. Even compassion to animals would lead to taming animals on the planes of Africa, which then leads to farming. Farming being far superior to hunting for survival.

I too presume it is convergent evolution.

The process whereby organisms not monophyletic (not closely related), independently evolve similar traits as a result of having to adapt to ecological niches or similar environments.
(wikipedia)
Evolution works differently with humans. My assumption is that general conceptions can be evolved.

[Monte314]

WiredBrain said:

"If you agree that the moral codes of each person on a certain level vary from one to another, and also that you agree there are some points between each one that are common despite of the individual beliefs or education (for example that killing is bad or the rejection of anything considered cruelty), basing on the idea that those common points exists due to a kind of emotional response that determine what is good or evil, then what do you consider it would be the specific factor on another person that allows you to react emotionally and determine if that individual is evil?"

Using "emotion", which is subjective and constantly changing, as the standard for assessing "evil" makes what is "evil" subjective and constantly changing. I think the discussion is over.

[WiredBrain]

Using "emotion", which is subjective and constantly changing, as the standard for assessing "evil" makes what is "evil" subjective and constantly changing.

Exactly. Although I also think of the concept of "evil" as subjective and not constant, it is curious, at least for me though, that many of the same moral codes are shared between many people which not necesarilly belong to the same or similar country, continent, or personal background. Why the personal concept of evil it isn't as diverse as it would be expected of something that is subjective?. That's why I was asking for opinions or different points of view of people who could tell me for example "No, you're wrong on this point, because it's a fact that the human brain works this way", or "Yes, it is emotion, I think these particular events causes someone to make an "emotional judgement" to determine what is evil, and many people seems to do it this way ", or "you rushed on assuming this because..." or whatever explanation or observation comes to your mind. It was to see if anybody else thinks that there is some kind of "pattern" that causes an emotional reaction, and therefore, a determined judgement which may be common in many people despite the external factors as culture for example.

I think now it's clearer to you what were my intention with that question.

[Serket]

I'm not yet convinced, keep talking though, I'm happy to be proven wrong :)

[Vortex]

This thread is in serious need of definitions.

Define "evil".

[vad1981]

Evil is what most people in a certain society would call evil...

For example we would call female circumcision or cutting of limbs from people accused of stealing "evil" but that might not be considered evil in certain musllim countries.

On the other hand capitalism and conspicuous consumption are considered evil in some place (communist countries, poor countries) while we would not call it evil in America.\

Generally speaking evilness is something that significantly negatively impacts others (emotionally, physically, financially) without enough justification of that action as defined by most people.

For example Hitler's attempt at extermination of the Jews in now considered almost universally evil, but in his own society (1930's-40's Germany) it was not.