[kenberg]

It could be that they have no choice in the matter, it could be that they do. Of course one can take the view that none of us have any choice in anything, it's all predetermined. A blind alley, that. There are people who kill, and who give every sign of choosing to kill. They think about it, they plan it, they intend to do it without getting caught, they seem perfectly rational.

One can say, as a matter of faith, that they must have had no choice because if they did then surely they would have chosen otherwise. I criticize no one's faith, but I think it is fair to ask that the faithful see it as a matter of personal faith. A faith I don't share.

[Winstonm]

Quote

It could be that they have no choice in the matter, it could be that they do.

Yes, and I should have qualified my post as talking about the pure sociopath, the one painted as consumately evil.

However, there is one element of truth that applies equally. I know I have the choice to murder or not to murder; however, I have no idea if you have that same choice. There is a simple reason for my ignorance - I am not you.

[luke warm]

Winstonm, on Feb 22 2008, 09:23 PM, said:

Quote

do you believe in good and evil?

This question in itself displays the black and white thinking against which I have ranted myself many times.
First, to plant someone in either camp requires a judgement. How can one judge another without literally being that other person?

We are all familiar with the saying that "first you must walk a mile in a man's shoes." This is simple but doesn't quite grasp the totality of understanding necessary to make a judgement.

It is not enough to walk in someone's footsteps with your physiology, your psyche, your pain level toleration, your genetics, etc. Because from your viewpoint there will always be choices that could have been made - but you are making this judgement based on your life experiences inside your physiology and psyche.

No, to understand the circumstances of someone else's actions requires being that person in his totality - literally living every second of his life with his cells, his genetics, his psyche....making choices based on HIS limitations.

Where you may look on the Ted Bundy's of the world as mad dogs worthy of nothing but disdain and death, I look on them with pity - they are flawed, too weak to be able to compensate for whatever life brought them.

In other words, they are sick, with about as much choice in the matter as you or I have in developing cancer. No one choses to be a sociopath.

How can someone be good or be evil when the very concepts have no meaning whatsoever to them? Taking a life has no meaning becasue life itself has no meaning.

No, what makes them good or evil is the judgement we place on them.

So to answer the question do I believe in good or evil, the answer is yes, because I see people making these judgements on a daily basis - and those judgements are real - but that doesn't make them valid.

maybe it's been unclear in this and all other threads i've posted in, but i judge myself harsher than i judge ted bundy... my question had nothing to do with personalities or individuals, but concepts... mike777 is right, if there is no evil there is no good (i think he said that, if he didn't i'm sure he meant to)

[kenberg]

Winstonm, on Feb 22 2008, 10:50 PM, said:

Quote

It could be that they have no choice in the matter, it could be that they do.

Yes, and I should have qualified my post as talking about the pure sociopath, the one painted as consumately evil.

However, there is one element of truth that applies equally. I know I have the choice to murder or not to murder; however, I have no idea if you have that same choice. There is a simple reason for my ignorance - I am not you.

I am not a psychiatrist, but my lay understanding of a sociopath is that he is capable of killing without remorse. He is not compelled to kill either with remorse or without remorse. The importance of this is that there are people, or so I have been told, who truly cannot help themselves. They need to be separated from society, clearly, but it is reasonable to feel pity. I think this happens, but I don't think it is the usual explanation. We should not lump the sociopath and the compulsive killer together.


I think the role of faith, of various stripes, is worth reflecting on. Several responders have said that they oppose capital punishment because they hold life sacred. This isn't my view, at least not exactly, but I can work with it. I see it more a matter of deciding who we are as a people. We can, as a people, decide that we will not take someone's life in this manner. It's not so much that I say life is sacred (that requires more of a religious bent than I have), more that I favor treating it as if it is. I can easily hold this view while acknowledging (or claiming, since many disagree) the existence of evil.


Some other responders have, in various ways, asserted that everyone is redeemable or somehow can be put on the right path. This also seems to be a matter of faith, at least I see little evidence for the truth of it. Of course there are famous examples. Saul on the road to Damascus. One of Leopold/Loeb, I forget which one. But usually such change doesn't happen. Maybe we just didn't try hard enough, but I would describe such a view as faith based. I am not knocking faith, but it's important to know when views are evidence based and when they are faith based.

An amusement along these lines of faith/purpose. Some years back a contrast between the Declaration of Independence and the Gettysburg Address was pointed out to me.
D of I: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.
GA: Dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

The D of I states an article of faith. The GA asserts that we will run the country on this basis, but doesn't get into whether the statement is self-evident or even true. It was suggested that this may reflect the changing philosophical views between 1776 and 1863, but I see it more as just an interesting difference between Jefferson and Lincoln.


At any rate, I think there is a lot to be said for the abolition of capital punishment.

[Al_U_Card]

A psychopath has no feelings for others or remorse for his actions as he cannot relate his responses to those of other individuals.

A sociopath has trouble maintaining social standards as he fails to comprehend or accept what is typically considered societal values as he feels above or unbound by those rules.

[Winstonm]

Quote

maybe it's been unclear in this and all other threads i've posted in, but i judge myself harsher than i judge ted bundy...

We can never change the fact that we are humans, therefore imperfect. What is the reason to judge yourself for being what you are?

Absolutism creates a standard against which you judge yourself and everyone else, and it is the basis of conflict, both inner conflict and outward conflict.

[Trinidad]

luke warm, on Feb 22 2008, 01:17 PM, said:

do you believe in good and evil?

Only evil people do...

Seriously, good and evil are religious terms. Most western, non-religious people believe in good and bad behavior and most of these people are well aware of the fact that what they themselves see as good or bad behavior, might not be viewed the same by someone else.

If you support that point of view, it is quite obvious that there is no universal good and evil. But if you are religious, then your spiritual leader will have told you that there is good and evil and that might settle it.

Rik

[mikeh]

finally17, on Feb 22 2008, 05:26 PM, said:

mikeh, on Feb 22 2008, 01:44 PM, said:

luke warm, on Feb 22 2008, 01:17 PM, said:

do you believe in good and evil?

No.

.....


I don't know any 'evil' people.

I think you're conflating two concepts.

I can see why you might think so, but you are mistaken.

The question was whether I believe in good and evil.

Evil is not some amorphous concpet that can exist outside of a human. No-one (at least no-one of whom I'd aware) would describe an inanimate object as 'evil'. Nor a dog, or a horse, or an insect etc.

We use 'evil' as an explanation for conduct that strikes us as abhorrent... conduct BY A HUMAN.

Using the concept in this manner strikes me as closely parallel to the use of the god notion to explain ultimate causes. It is a cop out. It is a way to avoid really thinking about WHY a person acts in this horrible manner. It may even be a way of denying that there may reside in each of us a capacity, in the wrong circumstances, to act in a similar way.

I am NOT suggesting that most people can readily become monstrous, but there is some compelling evidence that extraordinary circumsatnces can cause a breakdown in 'normal' morality. The threat of starvation can lead to cannibilism in ordinary people. The incitement of emotions can lead to genocide (Rwanda, anyone?). Mental illness, drug addiction and similar factors can lead to murderous behaviours.

And some people are simply wired differently. Someone born without the capacity for empathy can act in ways that horrify those of us with that trait. But my strong suspicion is that there will ultimately be a biochemical explanation for sociopathy, and other mental illnesses...akin to the knowledge that we have gained over the causes of such conditions as schizophrenia.

So when I describe the people I know or have known, including people who have committed acts that I suspect some here would describe as 'evil', and when I say that I know no evil people, I am saying hat I do not see 'evil' at work. I see flawed humans behaving in aberrant ways. I do not see evil people becaue I do not recognize the concepts of good and evil as anything more than moral constructs, no more capable of being an accurate or meaningful explanation than is the related god notion.

[mike777]

Relativist vs Objectivist

For those few posters who appear to believe in "Moral Non-Absolutism or Moral Relativisim or Moral Pluralism" it might help if they state their case.


An alternative argument is a view that there is a way things are that is independent of human opinion and that we are capable of arriving at belief about how things are that is objectively reasonable, binding on anyone capable of appreciating the relevant evidence regardless of their social or cultural perspective.

See Rorty, Boghossian, and others.

[mike777]

"I do not recognize the concepts of good and evil as anything more than moral constructs, no more capable of being an accurate or meaningful explanation than is the related god notion."


Fair enough but it is unclear whether you believe in goodness as part of your moral construct. I do.

It does seem you believe that goodness is not capable of being an accurate or meaningful explanation.
------------------
To rephrase do you believe that there are no absolute moral facts which can confirm absolute moral judgements?
Richard Rorty and many others word argue NO!
If I understand his view is that there are many alternative moral frameworks, but no facts by virtue of which one of them is more correct than any of the others for there is no way things are in and of themselves.
-----------------------

I might define following absolute moral facts is good and not following them evil.

[bid_em_up]

The_Hog, on Feb 22 2008, 08:31 PM, said:

Just curious. When is your membership of the John Birch Society up for renewal? How many white gowns with pointy hoods do you have in your wardrobe? Are you what Americans colloquially claim a typical "redneck"?

1) Don't have one, never have, never will.
2) None.
3) No.

So you think that anyone who believes in capital punishment has to be some dumb backwoods redneck? Or a racist? Or an ultra-right wing conservative?

Your questions have absolutely nothing to do with a belief in capital punishment.

[Winstonm]

Getting back to the original question, I have stated I am against capital punishment but for reasons of finality of sentence compard to the inadequacies of the judicial system - if one innocent is killed that is too many.

But I am re-thinking even that.

Laws and punishments are designed to allow the dysfunctional (humans) to function in a less dysfunctional system (societies). Societies would certainly have the ability - and perhaps the right - to eliminate the irreversibly dysfunctional elements for the good of the society.

Eliminating from society does not mean slain, though. Elimination from society is banishment - a loss of all interaction and benefits of the society.

Surely banishment is punishment enough and serves the goal of society.

[Winstonm]

Quote

I might define following absolute moral facts is good and not following them evil

But, Mike, how do you know what are these absolute moral facts? Are they passed down genetically? Who holds these moral truths - is it the sperm or the egg? If both sperm and egg hold complete sets of moral truths, does the offspring then have twice the morality of the parents?

If absolute moral facts are genetically transfered, what is the explanation for the sociopath? A belief in genetically transfered abosolute moral facts is a denial of the concept of the sociopath, as all are born with this inate understanding of morality and ability to chose right and wrong. This appears more arrogance of belief than fact.

If the assumption is made that they are not transfered genetically, how are they known?

[sceptic]

Quote

It doesn't seem like an emotional rant to me. It's a very valid question with a very valid example. But since we already have, at least in the US, life imprisonment with no possibility of parole," I don't understand why that's not an acceptable alternative when your problem is: "we must make sure this perpetrator doesn't do this again."

The reason I think it is not acceptable, is it does not seem to work, I can assure you if sending someone to jail worked, I would not feel a need to want the death penalty

[kenberg]

I use "evil" when "flawed" doesn't seem to quite cover the ground. I am flawed. If I am to make a list of my flaws it would be long. I have, however, never gone out with a rifle using people for target practice, or anything remotely like that. Saying such people are flawed somehow, to me, misstates the situation.


Obviously the word "evil" really sets a number of responders off. I use it, roughly speaking at least, for behavior that does great harm and is done for extremely selfish reasons. I guess I could try just saying " behavior that does great harm including death and great sorrow and is done for extremely selfish reasons" instead of "evil". Presumably shooting random people including kids walking to school, whether in the hopes of profit through a ransom or simply for the enjoyment it provides, would qualify as behavior that does great harm including death and great sorrow and is done for extremely selfish reasons. I assume (crossing my fingers) that everyone agrees with this characterization, and if adding in the word "evil" causes problems then I can drop it. I still don't understand, but I can drop the word if we agree with this alternative characterization. If the alternative characterization is still seen as too harsh then I really don't understand.

[Winstonm]

Ken,

I am with you on this. I believe what we are all trying to describe is that which we consider a heinous crime - defining heinous as something outside of our realm of relation.

For example, a spouse who finds a cheating partner plots for two weeks and then kills. We do not view this as particularly heinous as we have all felt anger, jealousy, rage, and held a grudge too long - we can relate to the feelings that ignited the murder, even if we believe the murder wrong. We may even see how we ourselves could be capable of that transgression under specific circustances.

However, when it is outside our realm of understanding the emotional motivations, it becomes aberant and heinous.

Thankfully most of us cannot relate to the crimes of Jeffrey Dahlmer, so we view those murders as most heinous; but I would bet that to Ted Bundy or another serial killer, there was nothing heinous about them.

Perhaps the discussion can be furthered with the concept that the person is flawed, but his crimes are heinous.

[kenberg]

"heinous" is a good word. I like it.

[TimG]

When I think of evil in the good and evil context, I think of some cosmic force (which I don't actually believe exists). I don't believe that those who perpetrate vile acts are possessed of an evil force that makes them do these acts (anymore than I think that those who do kind things are possessed by a good force).

I also think that today's usage of the adjective evil describes despicable things, but does not necessarily imply a cosmic force at work.

[TimG]

kenberg, on Feb 23 2008, 03:51 PM, said:

"heinous" is a good word. I like it.

MW online give "hatefully or shockingly evil " as the definition of heinous. It doesn't seem a good choice if the objective is to remove evil from the equation.

[jdonn]

TimG, on Feb 23 2008, 04:44 PM, said:

kenberg, on Feb 23 2008, 03:51 PM, said:

"heinous" is a good word. I like it.

MW online give "hatefully or shockingly evil " as the definition of heinous. It doesn't seem a good choice if the objective is to remove evil from the equation.

My impression is 'heinous' is being used to describe an act whereas the usage of 'evil' that we are trying to remove describes the nature of a person.