Evil
POSTED BY: Geezer
UPDATED: Sunday, October 29, 2006 14:39
VIEWED: 8182
PAGE 10 of 14
Quote:Cases can be made for the evils I have personally done in this world, and to some I would plead guilty.
Originally posted by Eloisa:
most "evil" people - and I agree that only people can be "evil" - don't describe themselves that way, and most people who would call other people "evil" would have their label challenged by those same people.
True, enduring evil cannot make this claim.
To claim complete purity of vision and spirit is a sign that you're on the Dark Side.
Excellent post, BTW Eloisa.
Yours in the Force, Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:So in "political" threads you accuse people with words that you don't understand, and in "discussion" threads you don't discuss them? HAHAHAHA! Cool!
Well, I tried to leave the political discussion in the other thread, but you just can't let it go.
Quote:Except for "the pretty obvious fact" that I didn't use the word at all except to wonder out loud what YOU meant. I didn't say that Bush was evil or not evil, I didn't call Hitler and Stalin evil, and I didn't say that anyone else was sayin' it. But you did.
I have used the word "evil" in many discussions with you and Rue, to refer to the pretty obvious fact that "evil" is what you both consider Bush
Quote:I'm not trying to ram ANYTHING down your throat! If you look back at my posts you'll see that I just want you to explain what you mean. What's the problem with defining your words? Isn't that how people discuss things?
You reach your conclusions, and I reach mine. Sometimes they differ. You apparently cannot accept that anyone can differ from your opinion (this is a criticism, BTW), especially relating to things about which you feel strongly (Bush's "Evil" for example. Or else why the persistent need to have everyone bow to your belief?). I don't particularly care if you think Bush is "evil". I just get tired of you trying to ram it down my throat.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
To get back to my concept of evil -
I'd like to take 'good' and 'evil' out of the philospophical realm and into the biological.
Organisms have signals that induce them to behaviors that lead to species survival. Those signals are what put the value on anything. Pain, hunger, thirst, isolation, threat - without internal input they are just some events. It's the internal response that puts value on them in that they feel 'bad'. Oppositely, there are internal rewards for positive species survival behaviors. (I presume I don't need to list them out.)
As primates, people have evolved internal senses that make fairness, trust, and cooperation 'feel good'. Oxytocin is the hormone that creates those rewarding feelings.
There are some people born without much of that reward. Strife, stress, tension, fear can destroy it. So if you mess with people enough, over time you can destroy that sensation of reward.
So, in general, I'd say that actions that create an oxytocin boost in 80% of people are 'good'. People who prefer engender oxytocin-inducing interactions are 'good'. And, the opposite as well.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:So, are there 20% roughly that produce oxytocin when they torture other peeps, or when they shoot old friends in the heart and neck while hunting danquayles?
Originally posted by rue:
So, in general, I'd say that actions that create an oxytocin boost in 80% of people are 'good'. People who prefer engender oxytocin-inducing interactions are 'good'. And, the opposite as well.
Most evil Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hey there ChrisIsAll,
They don't get oxytocin out of it. 
It may be that since that reward system is blocked they look for other rewards - sado-maso sex, alcohol, drugs, gambling (or other addictive behavior that goes through the dopamine system of physical rather than social reward) for example.
Just my speculation, but it's how I am putting the current information together.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Okay, I'll bite. I said earlier that the concept of "good" and "evil" is a SOCIAL tool for behavior control. But it would be impossible to get anyone to buy into the system w/o offering them some sort of reward- I'll sacrifice my kid if the rains come. I'll give up being rich today because I might be rich tomorrow. I'll put up with crap because I'll get a place in heaven. IMHO, MOST of the time the specifics of "good" and "evil" are manipulated to benefit the powerful. But the BASIS is that in order to get people to give something up, you have to offer them something in return. But when you said
Quote:I think there are other mechanisms at work. You can get species "cooperation" by simply having one individual dominate the entire nest/ colony/ tribe, appropriating all the resources first and putting all others to work benefitting one individual, but there is nothing in there of "fairness" or "trust".
that make fairness, trust, and cooperation 'feel good'. Oxytocin is the hormone that creates those rewarding feelings
It's possible that the release of oxytocin IN HUMANS needs ALL of those things together... elements of cooperation (w/o complete domination), fairness and trust... in order to occur, but "cooperation" alone doesn't explain the basis of "good" and "evil". Actually, now that I think about it... oxytocin release has to do with individual skin to skin contact and interaction. "Good" and "evil" seem to be much more generic concepts. Can you get an oxytocin release from being "good"?
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Skipping all the political stuff...
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
If you look back at my posts you'll see that I just want you to explain what you mean. What's the problem with defining your words? Isn't that how people discuss things?
And if you'll read may posts again you'll note that I have been saying that I don't believe that evil, even what one person considers evil, is objectively and unambiguiously definable. It's like defining "Beauty". I know what I consider beautiful, but I can't fully describe the process or internal emotional dialogue by which I determine "This is beautiful to me, and this isn't."
I cannot write a definition of what I consider evil which will allow someone else to always be able to tell, without further input from me, if I will consider a certain action or person evil. I doubt you can either. I can say I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt. I can say I try to look at both sides of the evidence, not just choose what fits my biases. I can say that a person's motivations for an action, or level of concern for those affected by that action, play a part in my decision. And sometimes my decision will be "I don't know. I don't have enough information."
So sorry, I can't define how I determine what I consider evil. I mentioned above (see the "I can say..." sentences) some of the criteria I apply, but I can't say how the final decision rises, except to say it is in part an emotional decision, based on my unique makeup as an individual.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
For example, fMRI imaging during cooperative games shows activity in areas where oxytocin is released. There do seem to be indications that primates (not just humans) have an internal scale by which they judge the fairness (cooperativeness, trust-worthiness) of others of their species.
This reward for social bonding seems to be separate from other rewards and seems to involve oxytocin.
I'm not saying that all species have this internal reward for cooperation. But that as cooperative primates, humans do and therefore have an evolutionary in-built scale for it.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:But Geezer, you have not even fractionally described your use of the word even in a specific sentence. "Evil is what I think it is." Well... DUH! That goes for all of us. So let's stipulate that evil is individually perceived and likely to change from context to context. Take a stab at it, and let's remove Bush form the discussion. When you said that you thought Hitler was "evil", what did you mean?
And if you'll read may posts again you'll note that I have been saying that I don't believe that evil, even what one person considers evil, is objectively and unambiguiously definable. It's like defining "Beauty". I know what I consider beautiful, but I can't fully describe the process or internal emotional dialogue by which I determine "This is beautiful to me, and this isn't." I cannot write a definition of what I consider evil which will allow someone else to always be able to tell, without further input from me, if I will consider a certain action or person evil. .
Quote:But that doesn't keep us from exploring the idea, does it?
I doubt you can either
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I just wanted to put my PS down here so it wouldn't get lost.
I'm not saying that social cooperation in necessary for all survival. Bacteria manage with mutations and fast generation cycles. But primates, for whatever reason, survived in part by voluntary mutual cooperation. Given that, there are brain systems to sense and prefer it.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME