People are Inherently Evil?

[ethics]

Copz wrote something in another thread that piqued my interest. As a cop, I am sure he sees a lot of evil, but my question is a bit more general.

Are people inherently evil? Is pure evil taught/conditional or something that someone is born with?

[IamZed]

I think people are inherently selfish. Evil is a judgment call, so no. There sure are a lot of evil people out there but in my judgment they don’t yet outnumber the non-evil. As for being inherently evil, do you mean born evil? As in a force we must fight to repress within ourselves? I can’t say. It is possible for me to have an evil thought, but I don’t act on it.

[ethics]

Yes, born evil.

Being selfish is natural, though, at least that's what I got from reading Dawkins.

[IamZed]

Me as well.

[Copzilla]

I think there are some who are born that way, but they are an anomaly. Those people are genetically predisposed toward violence, and regardless of their environment, will still become predators.

But I think for the majority, it's a learned behavior, and once learned and into adulthood, it's almost impossible to unlearn it, hence the prison recidivism. You cannot educate empathy, because that is simply looked upon by the sociopathic mind as a weakness and an opportunity.

[Domh]

Originally posted by ethics
Are people inherently evil? Is pure evil taught/conditional or something that someone is born with?

Maybe take a step at a time here, and address what Evil is, and whether or not it really exists or not.

 

[Fiona]

I would disagree with the notion that humans are born (inherently) evil. On the contrary, while I believe we have a barbaric nature, survival instinct, and what have you... I also believe that humans (and perhaps onlyhumans) have not only the ability, but the consciousness to do good, to be kind and compassionate. (my thoughts) working or i'd give ya more... (lucky you!)

[Copzilla]

Originally posted by Domhain
Maybe take a step at a time here, and address what Evil is, and whether or not it really exists or not.
Probably simply as YOU would define it, Domh.

[ethics]

Evil to me is anything that is morally wrong, and especially injurious to others, be it physically or mentally.

As one encyclopdia describes it: evil, antithesis of good. The philosophical problem of evil is most simply stated in the question, why does evil exist in the world? Death, disease, and sin are often included in the problem. Traditional Christian belief ascribes evil to the misdeeds of humans, to whom God has granted free will. The Christian systems that believe in predestination and justification by faith claim, like their Christian opponents, that God is still not the author of the evil men do. One explanation of evil is dualism, as in Zoroastrianism and Manichaeism. In optimism evil is treated often as more apparent than real. The book of Job is a literary treatment of the problem.

Copz, you mentions violent and evil interchangeably, is that what it is to you? How about an evil person that doesn't do violence, but slowly eats away, psychologically?

[ShinyTop]

I think evil is the extension of the selfishness that has been described as innate in humans. When a person is not taught the value of human interaction but taught the only thing that matters is self, either by teacher's intent or by example, their selfishness can become the evil we see. At that point any action is justified if it benefits self.

[Fiona]

Originally posted by Copzilla
genetically predisposed toward violence, and regardless of their environment, will still become predators. Put it THAT way and I'd have to agree... :thumbsup:

[Fiona]

I had to check and make sure we were in the right forum before i begin to go on... (it will be short again - sorry )
I believe Evil is an entity... a consciousness... A Force to be reckoned with... I believe more often in Evil using people than in evil people. Seen it! Been there, done that! It would take longer than i have to explain why i believe these things.. and yes i also believe there are exceptions...
but to me evil is not simply immoral or going against God's desire for us... nothing quite so simple.

[IamZed]

Originally posted by ethics
How about an evil person that doesn't do violence, but slowly eats away, psychologically?

<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt">Oh, that evil. <SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp;</SPAN>Her name is <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" /><st1:place>Erin</st1:place>. I was married to her for 10 years.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>

[jfcjrus]

Originally posted by ethics
Are people inherently evil?
Yes.

Because we are part of 'nature'.
Born into nature, we know nothing about what's expected of us in the <i>human</i> culture we've created.
We're born with almost no instincts.
We know to breathe.
We know to suckle for nourishment.
I can't think of anything else.
We require that everything else be taught us, by those already here.

Usually, we're trained to think we are way above the other species of 'nature' on this planet.
But, I believe we think way too much of ourselves.
We have formed a <i>society</i>.
And, we have created <i>laws</i> in order to enforce this <i>society</i> of humans.

Sometimes, these <i>laws</i> really do go against the natural order of nature.
They go against 'survival of the fittest'.
We care about the weaker of our species, where nature does not.
We create our own expectations of 'civilized' behavior, where nature does not.

In our society, many acts of simple, natural survival are evil.
If we haven't been properly educated in how to properly behave in our self-created <i>society</i>, then our acts may indeed be deemed evil.

We all consider it absolute evil for folks in China to throw girl babies in the street to die, as they're deemed of no value.
Our <i>society</i> has set this standard, not nature.

As evil, and horrifying, as it might sound, nature might prevail here.
IF this planet has a finite number of inhabitants that it can support, perhaps this practice is not a bad thing.
Ya, I know, I can't swallow that either!
But, my point is that WE (society) has deemed this act evil, not nature.

So, via nature, perhaps we are indeed born evil, according to our existing laws of society?
We must then be trained to overcome this natural evil?

I'm sure I've not expressed my thoughts well.
This is a subject that requires deep thought.
I think I'll go fishing, now.

Regards,

[Fiona]

Good idea, jfc-
I want to ponder this more also, (good topic Ethics) but right off I'd have to say... nature does not = evil
:)

[ethics]

Some great replies, folks!!!

[joseftu]

I'll quote from the excellent <a href="http://www.jewfaq.org">Judaism 101</a> site.

according to Tracey Rich at <a href="http://www.jewfaq.org">Judaism 101</a>
...humanity was formed with two impulses: a good impulse (the yetzer tov) and an evil impulse (the yetzer ra).

The yetzer tov is the moral conscience, the inner voice that reminds you of G-d's law when you consider doing something that is forbidden. According to some views, it does not enter a person until his 13th birthday, when he becomes responsible for following the commandments. See Bar Mitzvah.

The yetzer ra is more difficult to define, because there are many different ideas about it. It is not a desire to do evil in the way we normally think of it in Western society: a desire to cause senseless harm. Rather, it is usually conceived as the selfish nature, the desire to satisfy personal needs (food, shelter, sex, etc.) without regard for the moral consequences of fulfilling those desires.

The yetzer ra is not a bad thing. It was created by G-d, and all things created by G-d are good. The Talmud notes that without the yetzer ra (the desire to satisfy personal needs), man would not build a house, marry a wife, beget children or conduct business affairs. But the yetzer ra can lead to wrongdoing when it is not controlled by the yetzer tov. There is nothing inherently wrong with hunger, but it can lead you to steal food. There is nothing inherently wrong with sexual desire, but it can lead you to commit rape, adultery, incest or other sexual perversion.

The yetzer ra is generally seen as something internal to a person, not as an external force acting on a person. The idea that "the devil made me do it" is not in line with the majority of thought in Judaism. Although it has been said that Satan and the yetzer ra are one and the same, this is more often understood as meaning that Satan is merely a personification of our own selfish desires, rather than that our selfish desires are caused by some external force.

People have the ability to choose which impulse to follow: the yetzer tov or the yetzer ra. That is the heart of the Jewish understanding of free will. The Talmud notes that all people are descended from Adam, so no one can blame his own wickedness on his ancestry. On the contrary, we all have the ability to make our own choices, and we will all be held responsible for the choices we make.

I certainly don't agree with all Jewish "doctrine" (not that there's really any such thing, except monotheism--there's an old saying about "two Jews, three opinions"), but this makes a lot of sense to me.

[Domh]

Originally posted by ethics
Are people inherently evil? Is pure evil taught/conditional or something that someone is born with?

Evil is a concept, not a thing. It is not a condition, but a perceived state of being. There is no more such a thing as 'pure evil' than there is 'pure heterosexuality', which brings up a cogent comparison.

Are people inherently homosexual? It can be argued quite&nbsp;well that both biological and environmental factors play significant roles in the development of sexual direction. Can the same be said for 'evil' behavior - that some folks are 'just born that way'? No. Evil is nothing more than a highly variable label for a set of perceived behaviors over a persistent timeline. Like 'good', the definition varies for all of us, whereas sexuality - more pertinent to an assessment of what comprises a being that exists in nature - is in most cases quite clear.

Whats even more interesting is that we wouldnt even be having this conversation were it not for the way religion&nbsp;has influenced the development of language and culture over time. The very idea of 'inherent behavior' makes little sense when removed from a context within which it can be judged! It wasnt until the 19th century that the word 'evil' was widely used to describe "extreme moral wickedness".

'Good' and 'Evil' are not as comparatively complex ideals of inherent emotional and behavioral states as, for example, 'Buddha Nature'.

;)

[Copzilla]

Originally posted by ethics
Copz, you mentions violent and evil interchangeably, is that what it is to you? How about an evil person that doesn't do violence, but slowly eats away, psychologically?
No, not specifically, my definition would be closer to yours. But I think one that is BORN evil will be prone to violence. See, some people are born with violent tendency that is genetic, and make them prone to violence. Those are not a product of their environment, but are certainly evil human beings.

An evil person who doesn't do violence, but does do something like, say, rip off thousands of stockholders enriching himself (Ken Lay) and has no concept of what he did to those people's lives, nor does he care, well, I believe that is an environmentally acquired behavior.

[ethics]

Originally posted by Domhain

Are people inherently homosexual? It can be argued quite&nbsp;well that both biological and environmental factors play significant roles in the development of sexual direction. Can the same be said for 'evil' behavior - that some folks are 'just born that way'?

Absolutely. I believe both Homosexuality, and the degrees of it, are inherent, as is evil. Although, I do not want to lump the two different things together.

There are people prone to violence, as Copz mentioned, but I also think that evil is born and then picks up pace when the person acquires the wanted result throughout his years--or gets more conditioned for it. The final product is a honed cancer on the society.

[ethics]

Originally posted by joseftu

I certainly don't agree with all Jewish "doctrine" (not that there's really any such thing, except monotheism--there's an old saying about "two Jews, three opinions"), but this makes a lot of sense to me.

Thanks for that, most wise, although I disagree with a few statements.

First of all, I don't believe that the entity that holds us back from doing bad, or encourages to do moral good, is directed, perpetuated, or even alluded by God. Let's get that out of the way. Many people who are religious have a tendency to think, nay, believe, that they are more moral than the unbelievers (see Christianity and Islam, and some degrees of Orthodoxy). I don't believe that's true.

Second of all, I tend to agree that SOME form of Toven ra (bad) is needed for motivation to do good, to lead a better life. I don't believe in pure evil as a necessary entity, however. Do you agree here? Would love to hear your take.

[IamZed]

I might consider limiting my personal definition an evil person to a sociopath. Some times they carry knives, some times they carry a ball point pen. An apathetic is half way there by not lifting a finger to help anyone. The sociopath goes that extra step by proactively lifting a finger to harm you, even if it would benefit them as little as a potato chip.

[ethics]

A sociopath would be an excellent example. Are they born or made? Or both?

Definition: Someone whose social behavior is extremely abnormal. Sociopaths are interested only in their personal needs and desires, without concern for the effects of their behavior on others.

[Fiona]

Originally posted by ethics
A sociopath would be an excellent example. Are they born or made? Or both?

Definition: Someone whose social behavior is extremely abnormal. Sociopaths are interested only in their personal needs and desires, without concern for the effects of their behavior on others.

In this case I'd have to say born.
Either they are sociopaths from birth and there is nothing y0ou can do with it... or they have the predisposition to become, where nurture plays a part... but does not cause... therfor, yep ... born!

[Fiona]

GONNA START A NEW THREAD WITH MY NEXT QUESTION...:)

[ethics]

Go for it, AllCapsilocks.

[Steve]

Let me offer a parent's perspective:

Children are animals.

Read that again before continuing.

Children do not know right from wrong; they don't know how to cooperate; they don't know how to share; they don't know the difference between fact and fiction; they don't care about anything but their own comfort; children will resort to violence every single time in order to obtain what they want.

I can't think of a better definition of "evil".

Children can be taught right from wrong; they can be taught to cooperate; they can learn to share; they can come to distinguish between the truth and a lie; they can develop an altruistic sense; they can learn to curb their impulses. But they need the guidance of adults, and of our larger society, to do all of these things.

Left on their own, they are animals and exhibit every symptom of "evil".

Having said all that, I love my children dearly and we're doing our best to drive the "evil" out of them.

[IamZed]

stevant, don't invite me over.

[ethics]

Good analogy, Stevent.

[joseftu]

Originally posted by ethics
First of all, I don't believe that the entity that holds us back from doing bad, or encourages to do moral good, is directed, perpetuated, or even alluded by God. Let's get that out of the way. Many people who are religious have a tendency to think, nay, believe, that they are more moral than the unbelievers (see Christianity and Islam, and some degrees of Orthodoxy). I don't believe that's true.

This is a tricky one. The way I see Judaism (and again, I'm not by any means a spokesman), belief in God is really not relevant to goodness or evil. It's all about human choice, and human action. Sure, the Jewish belief is that God created it all, but God doesn't have much of anything to do with what humans do on a day-to-day basis. He's got a lot of commandments (for Jews), but there's nowhere an element of Jewish belief that says atheists, Christians, Moslems, or Raelians can't be just as moral as anyone else. So I agree with you. The religious are no more or less moral than the unbelievers.

Second of all, I tend to agree that SOME form of Toven ra (bad) is needed for motivation to do good, to lead a better life. I don't believe in pure evil as a necessary entity, however. Do you agree here? Would love to hear your take.

This is even more tricky. Pure evil? That's something separate from the kind of animal nature that stevent describes all children as having (and as a parent, I say he's totally right...and I say that's exactly the <i>yetzer ra</i> described in the quote I posted). Do you know the saying "I am a human being; nothing human is alien to me" (attributed to Terence)? or the commonplace "to understand all is to forgive all?"

I wonder if there are some humans who really are just not people. Not <i>menschen</i>. It's a subject I have my Science Fiction students discuss each semester. Andrew Vachss, the mystery writer, has his character Burke refer to some people as people, and others as "humans." To him, the ones who are pure evil are biological "humans," but they're not people.

A fascinating subject. But depressing.

[ethics]

Actually, Stephen Donaldson would be my selection as far as presenting the perfect evil being.

[Steve]

Is he that scifi author where the protagonist has leprosy and goes into these "spells" of some sort? Involves a tree?

[ethics]

That's one of them (The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant), but the serious I was thinking was the one with "This Day All Gods Die", the gap series.

Not for the weak of stomach or mind.

[ditch]

Sigmund Freud's theories are not in vogue ATM but he still makes for interesting reading.
His Id, Ego and Superego would be his way of explaining the degree of socialisation of an individual which has a direct bearing on one's degree of "evilness" IF you can equate lack of evilness with an appropriate degree of socialisation.
When born we are psychologically 100% Id. It consists of everything inherited and that is present at birth including the instincts. It provides all the psychic energy for the creation of the other two constructs of ego and superego. The id cannot tolerate increases in energy levels which are experienced as tension. This tension needs to be released and it is this need that gives rise to the ego.

The ego forms as the individual has needs whose fulfillment require interactions with the real world. The ego operates through the reality principle meaning that the tension is released on an appropriate object. Another way of saying this is that the ego operates by realisitic thinking. The ego is said to be the commander of the personality as it conrtrols the gateways to action, selects the features of the environment to which it will respond and decides which instincts will be satisfied and in which way. The ego is the organised portion of the id and is never totally independant of it. It is there to satisfy the demands of the id.

The superego is the socialised part of the psyche. Its all we learn from our parents, friends and other significant others. It is enforced by a system of rewards and punishments imposed on the child. It is the moral arm of the personality and strives for perfection rather than pleasure. Its main concern is to decide whether something is right or wrong. As the superego develops, self contol is substituted for parental control. One of the main functions of the superego is to inhibit the impulses of the id particularly those of a sexual or aggressive nature as the expression of these is most condemned by society.

A personality dominated by id like instincts and therfore a lack of socialisation or superego influences results in an underdeveloped ego and an individual dominated by the pursuit of self pleasure. This may go someway toward explaining why there are extreme exceptions to the norm but doesn't explain why evil is necessarily the outcome of the "wrong mix" of id, ego and superego.

Ah. Takes me back to those wonderful lazy days when I called myself a student.

With thanks to Theories of Personality by Hall and Lindzey.

[ethics]

Nice post, Ditch, I am a student of Freud. Not all of his theories but the essence of ID still lives today. :)

[Domh]

Im fascinated by what Ive read here, and suspect that my post above went zooming right over like so much SR-71.

Ive learned that people may or may not be inherently evil, but that a great many of you are inherently Christian, without even knowing it!

Totally and utterly fascinating.

;)

[jfcjrus]

Originally posted by Domhain
Ive learned that people may or may not be inherently evil, but that a great many of you are inherently Christian, without even knowing it!
Really?
Perhaps I'm missing something, but I see folks discussing whether 'evil' is an inherited trait, or if it's due to environmental circumstances.

Would you care to elaborate on exactly how that makes 'many' Christian?

As I said, I'm sure I just didn't observe something obvious.
Just asking.

Regards,

[Fiona]

Originally posted by Domhain
but that a great many of you are inherently Christian, without even knowing it! I'd resemble that remark... but I KNOW I was born Christian...

I think I'm still offended though... my feelings will contact your feelings in the morning. :nut:

[Domh]

&nbsp;

Originally posted by Domhain
Evil is nothing more than a highly variable label for a set of perceived behaviors over a persistent timeline. Like 'good', the definition varies for all of us ... we wouldnt even be having this conversation were it not for the way religion&nbsp;has influenced the development of language and culture over time. The very idea of 'inherent behavior' makes little sense when removed from a context within which it can be judged!

The inquest is theolinguistically biased.

The question itself, and the responses to it - while very interesting - make massive assumptions born of the bias inherent in our cultures Christian heritage.

I meant no offense, but the point is suasive; it is a huge leap from 'what is evil' to 'is evil inherent'. I think that while the latter question is more than worthy of critical analysis, we must walk before we run. The answer to the former query is the only foundation upon which one may effectively explore the latter.

&nbsp;

[joseftu]

Originally posted by Domhain
Im fascinated by what Ive read here, and suspect that my post above went zooming right over like so much SR-71.

Ive learned that people may or may not be inherently evil, but that a great many of you are inherently Christian, without even knowing it!

Totally and utterly fascinating.

;)

Hey, what was thing up there? an SR-71? ;)

I really don't get it. Where's the inherent Christianity?

EDIT--you posted while I was writing!
So, because we're all defining the term "evil" pretty roughly, based on our common cultural assumptions as English speakers, we're inherently Christian? Doesn't follow.

The term certainly needs close definitions, but I took the conversation as holding those definitions at bay, and agreeing to accept the variability of the term, with a general acceptance of a generally shared, slightly vague, definition.

The language is influenced by years of religion? Sure, so is all of western civilization. At that level, none of us are free from of it. (But that's not the same as "inherently Christian.")

And no offense taken! ;)

[RRedline]

I think the term "evil" can be a bit subjective. Evil to me would entail having a disregard for other human beings(and to some extent animals, the environment, etc.). A broader definition would include other subjective terms such as "ethics" or "morality."

While I think it is innate for humans to be selfish and self-serving, I don't think that that alone is evil. I consider myself to be very selfish. Each year, I spend hundreds, even thousands of dollars on things for myself such as computer equipment, name-brand clothing, cologne and $20 Yankee candles to make my home spell pretty. I spend money on myself to purchase these things while knowing that there are other people, like my neighbors, who can barely afford to make their mortgage payments. It could easily be argued that I am selfish for not giving my money to more worthy causes than to buy my cat a $10 toy mouse that runs around the kitchen(which, by the way, she finds less entertaining than a $0.00 bottle cap), but does that make me evil? I don't think so. Selfish - perhaps. Evil - no.

The workings of the brain is a vast area of study which we know <i>relatively</i> little about. I am open to the idea that genetics influences people's behaviors, and one of those behaviors could very well be considered by society to be evil. Was Jeffrey Dahmer evil? Or was he just sick? Or maybe both? Are we wrong to hold people accountable for their actions after we discover that they are genetically programmed to behave in an evil manner? Maybe WE are the evil ones for incarcerating and executing these people? This certainly is an interesting topic!

I have to say that because I find it very plausible to suggest that human behavior is at least partly genetic, and because evil can be characterized in such a broad way, humans most certainly could be "born" evil.

[jfcjrus]

Originally posted by Domhain
The inquest is theolinguistically biased.

The question itself, and the responses to it - while very interesting - make massive assumptions born of the bias inherent in our cultures Christian heritage.

I meant no offense, but the point is suasive; it is a huge leap from 'what is evil' to 'is evil inherent'. I think that while the latter question is more than worthy of critical analysis, we must walk before we run. The answer to the former query is the only foundation upon which one may effectively explore the latter.

I'm not sure if this was in reply to my question.
If it was, I thank you for your response.

I think this discussion is a bit above my limited abilities.
So, I'll just listen.

Regards,

[Domh]

Originally posted by jfcjrus
I'm not sure if this was in reply to my question.If it was, I thank you for your response. I think this discussion is a bit above my limited abilities.

It was - your welcome - and I dont buy that last part for even a second, sir. You are more than capable.

Take a crack! Lets walk.

What is meant by the word 'evil'? Its important that we arrive at a definition that is as general as possible to afford for maximum latitude in how it might possibly be perceived.

:thumbsup: