You're viewing a single thread.
Yeah, some people are genuinely natural born killers. I was watching a documentary by Morgan Freeman (yes, god himself) on religion and the problem of evil. He interviewed a murderer who is sentenced to lifelong imprisonment. And the killer knows he did wrong but just doesn't feel bad about it at all. CT scan of his brain showed that part of the brain linked to empathy is not active on him. So yes, unfortunately some people are just evil.
Not having empathy isn't enough to be evil. Just like having empathy isn't enough to be good. You need ideology.
For example, the guy who lacks empathy could use basic libertarian or anarchist ideology for why we shouldn't hurt people using logic instead of empathy.
Another example would be if you use fascist ideology you can turn empathy into a weapon for evil. The us vs them ideology requires empathy. The idea is that they are going to hurt the people you love just by existing is what dehumanizes them enough for a normal person to attack them.
Exactly, I have a loved one who struggles with empathy, but she believes in justice and she has logic and so she winds up with extremely pro social beliefs and behavior. She just can be a bit rough around the edges sometimes when she thinks you’re not making sense
You need ideology
No; compassion and naive morality is usually sufficient. A well-developed ethical system is good, and typically out-performs the former, but avoiding being outright evil without outside influence is easy.
I might have a broader definition of ideology than you because morality and ethical systems are ideology. Look how many different moral and ethical systems we have. Just choosing between what exists requires ideology first.
Ideology is one of those words that has become almost useless due to how many different (and contradictory) definitions people have for it. If you have to define a word for someone (and they already knew that word beforehand) then the word isn’t conveying enough meaning!
I agree with you, I wish there was a word that only meant "ideas and beliefs not based in objective truth that affect our choices and actions". It would definitely be useful.
"Naive" in the context of philosophy means a position or notation that is not deeply thought about or is otherwise not developed. I am comparing well-developed ethics (ideology) with compassion (bare emotional functions that people possess without intervention). Any definition of "ideology" that includes basic cognitive functions is not one that I regard as useful.
I prefer "things which aren't objectively true that we act as if they are true". The first line of the Wikipedia article on ideology uses the same definition more beautiful phrased "An ideology is a set of beliefs or philosophies attributed to a person or group of persons, especially those held for reasons that are not purely epistemic, in which "practical elements are as prominent as theoretical ones""
A good example of an almost universal ideological belief is that "killing is wrong/bad". It's not objectively true, we kill animals, we kill in wars, we euthanize people in medicine. But we act as if it's true none the less in our day to day lives because no one wants to live in a society where killing is generally acceptable, for obvious reasons.
That being said, I don't see anything wrong with what you're saying in a vacuum. I just feel like as soon as you place a naive person in society they begin to interact with and adopt aspects of various ideologies without "deep thought", sometimes even subconsciously.
The beauty culture is a good example of where people will adopt definitions of beauty that are ideological (beautiful people are good, ugly people are bad/dangerous) without conscious effort or deep thought. Then they will act everyday as if they believe in it.
The people who watch Fox news hold complex ideological beliefs, mostly subconsciously. It becomes apparent when you ask them to explain their beliefs that they didn't adopt these ideologies based on deep thought, but will fight fiercely to defend them.
I think that these people's behaviours are driven by ideology even though they themselves weren't the one that did the deep thinking.
Honestly there are good arguments that in complex systems even basic cognitive functions can and will create ideology. An example is birds in a cage with a button that when pressed gives them food. If you disconnect the button then give them food randomly, they're likely to start creating complex dances and rituals based on what they think was responsible for activating the food dispenser. This in a lot of ways mirrors primitive religious behaviour which are certainly ideology.
Perhaps you have another word you prefer to use for deeply held beliefs that affect our behavior but are attained through means other than deep thought?
Good and Evil do not exist in any sensible way.
If we have a utility function, we are capable of assigning any arbitrary physically possible sequence of local world states to a unique real number. We can then designate a discriminant (if the utility function is capable of producing negative outputs, this would typically be 0). We can designate inputs that give outputs higher than the discriminant as "good" and lower as "evil".
This example has flaws, but demonstrates that the terms good and evil can be well-defined in a useful way that reasonably conforms to platonic ideals of the terms.
It's too early for math
The best part of waking up is immediately using math to dismiss a naive philosophical statement.
We "can define" anything to mean anything else. That's the nature of language.
That is also NOT the definition of good and evil.
If everyone cannot agree on the definition of a word, the word is meaningless. It does not describe a real thing, but rather a mental construct.
Hume’s account of definition uses a simple series of tests to determine cognitive content. Begin with a term. Ask what idea is annexed to it. If there is no such idea, then the term has no cognitive content, however prominently it figures in philosophy or theology. If there is an idea annexed to the term, and it is complex, break it down into the simple ideas that compose it, and trace them back to their original impressions. If the process fails at any point, the idea in question lacks cognitive content.
That's the nature of language.
Correct.
That is also NOT the definition
So your previous statement was that a specific (unstated) way of defining Good and Evil, while paired with our typical modern worldview implied that Good and Evil didn't exist? I suppose you're almost certainly correct if that's the case, but I don't find that to be a very interesting statement. The only other way I can interpret this is as a claim that there is exactly one definition of Good and Evil, and anyone who uses a different definition is wrong, but that strikes me as an utterly foolish position.
I wasn't aware of Hume’s account of definition, but it strikes me as extremely straightforward.
Good and evil is ideology. Matter has no ideology, no good, no evil.
Excellent point.
Great, now I don't know if I can feel empathy. Better take a 2 min facebook quiz to find out.
Does us vs them really require empathy? I always saw it as a lack of empathy - the empathy in tribalism seems to end at the tribe
Tribal connections require empathy. You're thinking of company executives lol
That's one way to see it. Another is that empathy is all that's needed for good, but ideology can be used to manipulate people such that their empathy for a certain group is suppressed.
i think religious indoctrination plays a part too,I find it quite revealing when someone asks an atheist: "well if hell doesnt exist why dont you just go around killing and raping whoever you want?"
Like bruh, because I am not a monster.
These people are called "sociopaths". Most sociopaths aren't killers, though. They will often go into a field where their lack of empathy is rewarded, such as business management.
Beware the (only) highly empathetic too, while you're at it.
Get the right (wrong) combination and you have:
Someone who can understand and read the changes they are engendering in others, adjust manipulation in real time, feel terrible about it, but be able to justify it to themselves as improving the lot of others if they genuinely lack the intelligence to comprehend the whole "you can lead a horse to water but not make it drink" adage.
Self-awareness is tragically never a guarantee; much less using it to take responsibility for shortcomings.
Was it Why Does Evil Exist??
Pseudoscience bullshit. Might as well talk phrenology or body language science.
Found the evil one.
Why do you believe that?
:Not OP:
I think our brain is more complex than just if a particular area lights up in a scan but to call it all bullshit at the same level of phrenology is just ignoring the hard work of really smart people.
I agree. Unfortunately, I keep seeing people trying to argue that people are never born in a particular way, which is just such an ableist way of viewing the world. Like, how can anyone argue that someone's psychology isn't genetically influenced? Do they think everyone with congenital cognitive disabilities is just pretending?
Sure genetics exist but let's not pretend that we can predict someone's behavior with it. All you have is correlations.
You can, infact, use certain facts about someone's genome to inform predictions about their behavior. If you mean to say that you can't perfectly predict someone's behavior, then of course you can't; I don't recall ever meeting someone who argued otherwise.
I have yet to see evidence of brain activity predicting a lack of "empathy"
predicting
Empathy isn't a behavior, it's a basic cognitive function.
I have yet to see evidence of
Have you taken any psychology or neurology classes? I have. It's not my field of specialty, but I got As in each where applicable. If you're going to hold such a strong opinion on this, you should at least put in the effort to do some basic research, or better yet, get some education on the subject.
Yes, I too, followed university courses on this topic, gatekeeping pretentious smug. And no, I don't have the burden of proof, mr "do your own research"
The way you've argued thus far has made me believe you are likely young and ignorant. In this thread, you keep making statements that fail to address previous points. You replied to a statement about my position I made to a different user. I was talking about the role of genetics in psychology, and you brought up making predictions about behavior (which no one had mentioned) and then when I addressed your previous point hoping it might lead somewhere you started talking about empathy instead. How was I supposed to interpret that?
Cat scans aren't used for measuring brain activity.
There's something in rhetoric that we call the principal of charity. When arguing with someone, we try to figure out what was meant based on what was said, and arguing against our best guess at what someone's best argument is instead of assuming that everyone always means what they say and never makes a mistake in communication.
It is possible that the person you replied to does not understand the difference between Cat, Pet, and fMRI. This is in fact a very easy mistake to make for anyone who doesn't work in medicine. So reconsider their comment with that in mind. If we substitute CT scan for fMRI, does that change your response?
No
Alright, same question as before: why do you believe that?