No evil

lynn P. · Jun 18, 2011, 12:31 PM

I want to clarify first, I've read some very good posts and they've stirred my thoughts. I agree what the article is trying to say is - we should take the evil off, the 'nasty pedestal'....not pedestal in a good sense, but an untouchable stance..it's 'us verses them'. The author wants us to look beyond the exterior shell of evil and ask questions, as to why the person made those choices, instead of just blurting out "they're EVIL". Making us look beyond the name in order to deal with the person rather than casting him/her away.

There's only one problem with the authors premise and that is - there are some people who can't be rehabilitated and even if we shower them with understanding and empathy they'll hurt you in a split second. If the empathy center isn't there, you can instill it or create it. If a person had the greatest parents and opportunities to foster a well behaving person, but this person does the opposite - what is society supposed to call this kind of person and what does the authors model do for them or us?

pachyderm · Jun 18, 2011, 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lynn P.

There's only one problem with the authors premise and that is - there are some people who can't be rehabilitated...

Do you know this? Do you think it is that they cannot be rehabilitated ever, or we just don't know how to do it now?

Quote:

and even if we shower them with understanding and empathy they'll hurt you in a split second. If the empathy center isn't there, you can instill it or create it. If a person had the greatest parents and opportunities to foster a well behaving person, but this person does the opposite - what is society supposed to call this kind of person and what does the authors model do for them or us?

We are not obligated to forego self-defense. It's just that looking at things differently may lead to different ways of dealing (while still being careful)...

lynn P. · Jun 18, 2011, 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pachyderm

Do you know this? Do you think it is that they cannot be rehabilitated ever, or we just don't know how to do it now?

We are not obligated to forego self-defense. It's just that looking at things differently may lead to different ways of dealing (while still being careful)...

Quote:

]Do you know this? Do you think it is that they cannot be rehabilitated ever, or we just don't know how to do it now?

Since I'm an honest person and haven't met every single one of these individuals, then I can't say with certainty. I don't know if they'll come up with a way to deal with this. I would imagine it's not just people who don't have the ability to feel empathy and I don't know why they do what they do. Maybe that's why it's easier to call it evil. I also want to note - I'm not branding all psychopaths or sociopaths evil - most of them are too smart to make mistakes. Even if we find a way to stop or prevent wrong doers...it's won't stop this dynamic pull that's existed as long as man.

I can understand the article and the premise to a point but then it gets confusing and frustrating for me. This is off topic but there's no cure for pedophelia - no successful treatment, which is scary and frustrating. If we don't use the term evil - then what are we supposed to call it? If someone can tell me an alternative term, then I'm willing to listen.

Jun 18, 2011, 01:08 PM

Quote:

So, we are motivationally innocent. And effort-wise we are all doing the best we can (even if it sucks and hurts someone in the process). No evil here either, just the reality of modern-day jungle. Does this mean that we have to open up the jails and let everyone out? Of course, not. As a society, we have to stay safe from those who are unsafe. As a society, we have to protect ourselves against those who – for reasons of nature, nurture, or both – are unable to pursue their wellbeing within the cultural-legal parameters. But as a civilization, we don’t have to demonize the less empathic of us as “evil.”

http://blogs.psychcentral.com/mindfu...l/#comment-863

Quote:

The US has the largest prison population in the world, both in numbers and as a percentage of population. As of June 2009, 2,297,400 people were incarcerated in the US, a rate of 748 inmates per 100,000 residents.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/ja...hrwr-j28.shtml

Quote:

April 13, 2011 — More than four in ten offenders nationwide return to state prison within three years of their release despite a massive increase in state spending on prisons, according to a Pew report.
States today spend more than $50 billion a year on corrections, yet recidivism rates remain stubbornly high. As the slumping economy forces states to do more with less, policy makers are looking for a better public safety return on their corrections dollars.

If remediation and rehabilitation reduced the prison population or the recidivism rate by by say twenty percent, would the effort be worthwhile?

Albeit, perhaps the most interesting part of this thread is the realization Somov's theory may never be implemented.

(JD) · Jun 19, 2011, 04:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Perna

I never quite understand why people try to do away with words/concepts? If there is no evil, there cannot be its opposite, "good"? What evil "is"/means to us and how whatever we deem evil manifests, etc. is a more interesting subject to study I think. Just as the Arab proverb states, "all sun makes a desert" (which isn't "evil" but will kill you just the same; but who thought "sun" was bad?) I think all words are helpful in some way or another, at least to whoever is using them? But just because a word exists doesn't mean I have to use it or agree with how you do. However, I will defend your right to use it! Trying to abolish other people's concepts because one doesn't agree with them, doesn't see/understand them the same way ain't the way to go at it?

So true. In actuality, while this discussion is quite considered the norm for many people, it is part of it's own world view, that of disbelief, or rather secularism. http://forums.psychcentral.com/showt...09#post1902609 This means that those of faith will not be able to support such a concept of no evil.

Menu

No evil

My Support Forums