No evil

"There is no evil. Do an inventory of this planet and you will find no living, breathing, menacing evil. There is just human behavior, in all its self-serving short-sightedness."

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

Very intellectual article, at least from my perspective.

I'll have to chew on this for a while and re-read a few times to process it, but I think it's a sound perspective. I don't know if I agree that there is no evil or not...I have to think on it. I believe that energy is neutral and it is a persons behaviors that can manipulate that energy into positive and negative. I guess it's my personal good vs. evil theory.

This Dr. brings up a perspective that their is NO evil, just motive to do the best they can. It sounds like he comes from the perspective that humans are inherently good. I have a difficult time feeling that. Growing up in the environment I did, I learned to see the opposite, that people were inherently bad and that it was in the nature of man to destroy and self-destruct. It's a sad way to see the world, but I'm working with T to turn that around.

I also wonder if one person's evil is merely another person's bad behavior and/or yet another persons motivation to do their best. Like comparing apples to apples; some may be tart 'n tangy, while others may be sweet. Either one you eat though, it's still an apple and it is what it is.

Lots to think about on this one. I love a good intellect to chew on. It gives me something to do with my mind.

I don't think humans are inherently anything, in the "good" or "bad" realm. Those words just express how we feel about them, how we react to them. That's not the same as how they "are".

Feelings are natural. I think when our feelings are suppressed, censored, that is when we cannot assess clearly how people "are" in reality. Calling people "evil" just means we are in conflict about how we feel towards them -- we cannot clearly recognize how we do feel. They upset us, but we don't know how to handle that. So we call them "bad".

As I look into the future, I see people who speak of evil being fined for talking about a "psychologically toxic concept with no explanation value."

Those who make the world unsafe will be required to take a class in remedial empathy. The most talented at making the world unsafe must display a sign that alerts others to beware, the person is empathy-challenged.

People with some degree of empathy will acknowledge the humanity of the empathy-challenged with appropriate gestures and greetings. Despite this compassionate display, the empathetics will maintain their distance and be ever vigilant to ensure their safety.

The evil of evil is being extirpated.

Well, I have to think on this, but we do know that there are people that are born with a lack of remose and it is shown within the brain. If the brain of a person is incapable of feeling any empathy, than wether it is called evil or not they do consider others as just mere objects and some take pleasure in engaging in terrible acts where they merely are compelled to do it more and more and often even take trophies.

And it is known that these indivduals are extremely intelligent and do learn how to deceive and manipulate possible victims.

So, if one doesn't want to call it evil, find something else to call it, the end result is disturbing and often incomprehensible.

Open Eyes

I get the point of the article but it still doesn't convince me, there aren't evil people in this world. I think some take pleasure in causing others pain.

Trigger warning: talks about child abuse.





I watched a young man on Oprah who was abused by his father and step mother. He was locked in rolled up chicken wire, kept like that in a small closet for months - he slept standing up in this chicken wire prison and was beaten for going to the bathroom, even though they wouldn't let him out to go. His father poured urine on his son's body and the step mother forced him to eat his own excrement sometimes. When he was finally rescued and in court, the father stood up and said "look what you made them do...it's all your fault". What label would you give this couple??

Have we become so prim and proper that we can't call a deed for what it really is - evil people are now the 'emaphatically challenged' lol. I'm sure there are some people who've looked evil in the face.

I am not sure that "we" know that. I read lots of claims, but I have big reservations about what "we know".

Unlike the author, I believe there is evil in the world... there have been evil people through the history.

While it is not good to label things evil left and right... too much of moral relativism will make us incapable stoping the evil when it really occurs.

My mother took pleasure in causing us children pain. It is frightening when I remember it. BUT -- I think now I understand more about it -- I think in her mind she was revenging herself against those who had caused her pain when she was a child -- only she did not see that we were not those people.

Extreme cases of borderline disorder. I have been reading again Understanding the Borderline Mother, by Christine Ann Lawson, and they fit into her categories -- she describes other cases like that. As hard as it is to consider it, these people also are filled with hate towards themselves...

To try not to mistake what is happening in reality for what feelings you have towards them is not being "prim" or "proper" -- it is trying to comprehend things so you can deal with them, improve the situation, rather than calling names. Calling names may satisfy one for a time, but it has no curative effect on the situation.

It is when your feelings are not freely available to you that you mix "feelings" and "things" and are thus not able to see "things" clearly enough to deal with them on the level of reality.

My words of the day...

I wonder if we adopt this viewpoint..what are people supposed to do with these people who are blankety, blank, blank........oops can't use the E word lol. If a person has zero empathy and takes pleasure is killing or tourturing a person...how does understanding them better help me. For some reason we're always analyzing and delving into the persons past to explain their behavior. True in some cases there might be a reasonable explanation for why a person behaves badly, but sometimes it doesn't have to be so complicated.

If a person wants to kill and eat me for dinner, I just want to get out alive. If it's not okay to call a person evil, then I guess we can't call anyone good either. Look at the Casey Anthony trial - everyone is speculating why she may have killed her child and why. They're all trying to blame it on abuse and no one seems to realize there are some people who kill beause they can, without remorse.

I do know that research has been done and for the life of me I cannot remember the specific name for that part of the brain located near the base that carries the sense of empathy and remose for others. This is shown and described as a small pea in shape and it has been found that in people who have no remorse or feelings of empathy this is very under developed, however they are extremely intelligent.

I believe the special was either on the discovery channel or the history channel and they did show scans of the brain and the different sections and showed how the brains of these people do have a very small underdeveloped area where that sense of guilt, remose and empathy originates in the brain.

These people are extremely narcissistic and only show any remorse for their own preservation. And some of these people did not have abuse in their childhood. But it has been noted that the process of experimentation and feelings of a desire for harming others can start in childhood. It often starts by killing animals and grows from there. But there is a fantacy and drive to kill other humans.

Not trying to pick but if we are not sure about what we do not know, or what we do know, than how can we know or not that evil does not exist?

If we examine history and even consider the way people watched the suffering and torture of other human beings for entertainment, well, to be honest it blows my mind.

No we can use a lot of new interesting long words but not Evil as it is described in the dictionary because it may have some biblical meaning or we cannot use wicked either because that is evil by nature and in practice, or we could just remove that from the first definition of wicked.

Open Eyes

I am in total agreement with the article. There is no evil. There only "is". It is what it is.

Does this mean that those who harm others get a free pass? Absolutely not. Should we look at them with empathy and seek to understand - absolutely - but we have every right to protect ourselves.

These people were not created in a vacuum, in most instances there are pivotal moments in lives where the course could have been radically changed - and for the better.

Is still have hard time feeling empathy for Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot or Milosevic.

You restrain them, put them in jail, whatever. Understanding of how people develop does not mean you give them free rein to do whatever they want.

Do you know this as a fact, or is it just something you feel?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/14/sc...ibks.html?_r=1 http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evil/#The

Dr. Somov does not talk about evil in a religious sense - where good and evil confront each other. Rather, for him, the "concept of evil offers no explanatory value and runs a great risk of toxic moralizing." Somov, instead, views the perception of evil as an impediment to rehabilitation opportunities. http://blogs.psychcentral.com/mindfu...l/#comment-863 http://www.eatingthemoment.com/360-d...cceptable.html

Empathy is the key for Dr. Somov. http://cultureofempathy.com/References/Definitions.htm

Dr. Somov informs us "empathy training is an established clinical modality." Dr. Baron-Cohen states:

Genetic predisposition is contained within what Baron-Cohen calls the “empathy circuit,” or the detailed route the brain takes to liken one object to another (for example, another person’s feelings to your own). While someone’s ability to empathize does have a genetic component, Baron-Cohen warns, “I hope this book will not be misunderstood as arguing that empathy is wholly genetic.” http://www.suite101.com/content/curing-evil-a375780

Dr. Somov also does not understand his thesis to be a form of moral relativism:

The term ‘moral relativism’ is understood in a variety of ways. Most often it is associated with an empirical thesis that there are deep and widespread moral disagreements and a metaethical thesis that the truth or justification of moral judgments is not absolute, but relative to some group of persons. Sometimes ‘moral relativism’ is connected with a normative position about how we ought to think about or act towards those with whom we morally disagree, most commonly that we should tolerate them. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-relativism/

I do not understand Dr. Somov to advocate tolerance of those without empathy:

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

Are we are better served by fostering empathy, compassion and even forgiveness? Will not doing so reduce opportunities to rehabilitate those who make the world unsafe? What do we lose by giving empathy a chance?

How do we stack up in the empathy department: http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/...rdo-evil_N.htm

Who says you have to have empathy for them?

However... I have read some on Hitler's childhood and Stalin's too. No bed of roses for either. Do you think it might have had some effects? I know it is hard to think about, but what if they really were victims of child abuse too? How do you deal with that (assuming it is true)? Maybe you would try to end conditions that lead to abuse, rather than assigning condemning terms to people. The latter has been done for centuries, and it has not cured anything that I can see.

I've had some time to think and although I still feel the same, I have a few doubts. I'm willing to consider this notion but I'm confused. We live in a world that labels everything. What do we call it, if it's not evil? In the case of psychopaths, we shouldn't blame them if they don't have the capability in their brains to make wise choices. I'm also struggling with the label 'good' which is the opposite of evil - if you get rid of one, then what do we call 'good' and do we need to get rid of this concept too? IDK. I also wonder if hypothetically we cast the evil notion aside, would this somehow make the world a better place with less misfortune? I'm also struggling with the idea of having endless patience with people who have and probably will never have patience for others. Interesting topic.

**Add on - just for the record my post isn't a response to anyone elses post. When I clicked submit, about 5 new posts were up lol. Although I do agree the way a person is raised can affect bad behavior, I also think a person can be this way without a bad upbringing. In regards to psychopaths and sociopaths - I don't think you can instill empathy, because the part of the brain that houses these emotions doesn't exist or is very small - not functioning. At this point I like to think I'm very open minded and feel confused - which probably comes from being an overly emphatic person lol

It is confusing, isn't it? Hard to square feelings about people who have frightened you, and trying to see them clearly. I say that setting aside the term "evil" is useful if you want to better understand the processes that made them that way. And I am willing to set aside the term "good" too -- unless you define that better. Why is something "good"? What does something "good" do for you? If it makes your life truly better, makes the life of living things (or even the whole universe) truly better, then you might define that as "good".

I ask this sincerely - if a despicable act is committed what are we supposed to call or describe it? If there's no obvious reason to explain the actions...like an abusive childhood etc, what do we think or say if there's no logical explanation for the act?

You describe what happened in any act. You describe the details. You tell what happened. Do you need to characterize it? Tell how you feel about it.

No logical explanation, or no explanation that you know of?

Without evil, how would you define anything non-evil, such as love and kindness?

If there's no "evil" from what you need to protect yourself?

It's a pleasant thought, just remove the concept of evil and everyone is...um neutral and fine. I want what they're drinking!

Where did the notion that everyone is neutral and fine come from?

I think there is a difference between evil as a descriptor and evil as an active force driving behaviour.

Hmmm...and all this time I thought early man had taken a look around and said...hey, if we keep killing each other we'll all be dead soon so let's cooperate with and help each other so we'll all be safe and warm, and well-fed ...so mankind has developed over time what we now know as "morals" as a way to insure the survival of the species.
I must be crazy

Did early man do this? If so, did it work?

Evil adj. 1. Morally bad or wrong; wiked: an evil tyrant. See Synonyms as bad. 2. Causing ruin, injury, or pain: harmful: the evil effects of poor diet. 3. Characterized by or indicating future misforturne; ominous: evil omens. 4. Bad or blameworthy by report; infamous: an evil reputation. 5. Characterized by anger or spite; malicious: an evil temper - evil n. 1. The quality of being morally bad or wrong; wickedness. 2. That which causes harm, misfortune or destruction : a leader's power to do both good and evil. 3. And evil force, power, or personification. 4. Something that is a cause or source of suffering, injury, or destruction: The social evils of poverty and injustice.

Now, we are not talking about demons here or a devil as described by people of certain faiths. Here is the meaning of the word evil.
And to say that it doesn't exist is proposturous.

When we talk about leaders that committed attrosities upon other humans and we attach the word evil as a noun we can easily say that these men caused harm, misfortune or destruction and there was suffering and injury.

And there does exist social evils of poverty and injustice. All throughout history.

To merely suggest that there is a psycological defect involved or even someone who has not been taught morals or even empathy well then we have to think about the the very first definition as an adjective, Morally bad or wrong. Though we can say there is no such thing as Morals and ask who is to decide then we try to convolute meanings as described within language itself. We are then debating the language itself.

Are we trying to change Language? Are we trying to convolute it?
But we do have many different words that provide a dressing within language that try to convey a more intellectual meaning to a simple word or meaning. We use these words to express intelligence and perhaps even a more educated thought process. We try to enrich a meaning, perhaps even put more emphasis on a simple word to make it so that either one stops and looks the word up, or is one who has put more emphasis on intellectually mastering the language. None the less, it is the same, what it boils down to within the simplist terms.

Just because a man experiences poor circumstances within his life and never considers it to be evil does not mean that the word evil does not exist. The word within language that has meanings as described above. Perhaps it is the misuse or misunderstanding of the word itself that caused it to not be used. Perhaps it was not used because somehow one thought that for it to exist there had to be some entity (Like a demonic power or one known as the devil)that forced it upon humanity and took pleasure in over ruling good.

Just because one experiences a source of suffering, injury or even destruction and considers it just a living condition, that doesn't mean that there is not a word that describes these conditions.

When we debate words or language do we try to then delete these words from language itself? It is not unusual for words to be used for something not intended. Perhaps the word Evil is being used as not intended and thus that itself is what needs to be corrected.

There is more to this word than empathy, in fact that word is not even used within the definition itself.

Wether one enacts evil upon other by not learning empathy or respect for other humans is not the point. Rehabilitation is not the point. The act, the result of the act is the evil.

Open Eyes