Are people born evil?

[La Xinga]

The passage says yes.

[Phoenicaea]

if behaviour is deeds, we can tell ‘predispositions’ in people. then, they can either cultivate theirs or they don t.

[Ifreann]

I don't think it's particularly useful to describe people as either good or evil.

[Ethel mermania]

There's no answer to this that's not incredibly reductionist.

But what the hell. Short version: People are a kind of ape. They're capable of a lot of things, but consistency and emotional stability aren't among them.

^ this. Biology counts in a lot of ways.

[Andsed]

I don't think it's particularly useful to describe people as either good or evil.

Pretty much. People are far to nuanced to simply put in some black and white categories.

[Trollzyn the Infinite]

I don't think it's particularly useful to describe people as either good or evil.

Pretty much. People are far to nuanced to simply put in some black and white categories.

Heinrich Himmler was evil.
Fred Rogers was good.

Not all people are nuanced. Some people fit perfectly into the confines of "good" and "evil". The idea that everyone is somehow morally gray is absurd and unrealistic.

[Major-Tom]

It's not common, but there are strictly genetic causes for psychopathy out there, which one could theoretically classify as "being born evil." Generally, people deemed evil are the way there are because of a combination of biological and life factors, often leaning more heavily on the latter (IE shitty parents, shitty upbringing, trauma, environment-induced sociopathy etc etc).

Whichever angle you view this from, it's worth nothing that evil is subjective. I might call a large swathe of people evil, but at the end of the day,
there's always going to be one person who thinks differently.

[Jerzylvania]

There's no answer to this that's not incredibly reductionist.

But what the hell. Short version: People are a kind of ape. They're capable of a lot of things, but consistency and emotional stability aren't among them.

Good answer. People do monkey around a lot with others just for cheap thrills. It gets out of control. They react badly which escalates the situation. Story of the world.

[Ifreann]

Pretty much. People are far to nuanced to simply put in some black and white categories.

Heinrich Himmler was evil.
Fred Rogers was good.

Not all people are nuanced. Some people fit perfectly into the confines of "good" and "evil". The idea that everyone is somehow morally gray is absurd and unrealistic.

When you write Himmler off as just evil then you give up any opportunity to achieve a real understanding of why he behaved the way he did. If you think you have the answer, "He was evil", then you stop looking. Likewise Fred Rogers. And if we have no real understanding of whence goodness, then how are we to ever encourage goodness, to bring it out, to create it where previously it did not exist?

[Andsed]

Pretty much. People are far to nuanced to simply put in some black and white categories.

Heinrich Himmler was evil.
Fred Rogers was good.

Not all people are nuanced. Some people fit perfectly into the confines of "good" and "evil". The idea that everyone is somehow morally gray is absurd and unrealistic.

Let me rephrase most people are to nuanced to effectivly put into black and white categories. There are those such as Rogers and Himmler who can be classified in such a manner but in general trying to put people in black and white categories is not exactly a realistic idea.

[Trollzyn the Infinite]

Heinrich Himmler was evil.
Fred Rogers was good.

Not all people are nuanced. Some people fit perfectly into the confines of "good" and "evil". The idea that everyone is somehow morally gray is absurd and unrealistic.

Let me rephrase most people are to nuanced to effectivly put into black and white categories. There are those such as Rogers and Himmler who can be classified in such a manner but in general trying to put people in black and white categories is not exactly a realistic idea.

See, now that's something I can agree with. Still even if you can't apply these labels to all people you can still apply them to concepts and actions created/undertaken by people.

[Andsed]

Let me rephrase most people are to nuanced to effectivly put into black and white categories. There are those such as Rogers and Himmler who can be classified in such a manner but in general trying to put people in black and white categories is not exactly a realistic idea.

See, now that's something I can agree with. Still even if you can't apply these labels to all people you can still apply them to concepts and actions created/undertaken by people.

Of course. Action tend to lack all the other factors that make humans so nuanced. They can be looked at objectively and say whether or not they are evil or not. For example rape is never okay while giving to charity, while it can be used for selfish purposes(aka those who use it to for attention) tends to be a good act.

[Catsfern]

IN my opinion people are born as just that people. Everyone is human which means everyone is inherently flawed. Thus everyone is capable of good or evil, and even then whats "good" and whats "evil" is highly subjective. We all take actions that benefit us to the detriment of others, and we all make decisions that benefit others to our own detriment. Which of these decisions are "Good" or not varies highly from person to person. Call the actions of others whatever you want, but also accept that humanity is a flawed and inconsistent species, and almost anyone could be convinced into doing the same given the right scenario.

[Rojava Free State]

Some would say you can't change a Leopard's spots while others claim you can teach an old dog new tricks. Tonight I wanna really debate the issues and get down to the nitty gritty of what turns a good man evil. So come all you fellow thinkers and romantics, because it's that time again. So without further ado, let's get it started.

That's complicated. My instinct is yes - some people are inherently evil but that makes me concerned and confused about everything because what does that mean if it's possible and not only possible but destined!? Does it mean a roll of the dice, Yin Yang or demiurge!? The first two I can wrap my mind around and comfort myself with well.. if it's a roll of the dice then there is always the possibility that after that souls death the evil contained can be switched out for not-evil(or extinguished). If it's Yin Yang and for there to be good there must be evil or for light to exist there must be dark, or for physical there must be metaphysical etc then it might not always be fair but at least you can be comforted in knowing good and light etc will always be present. But if it's a demiurge.. a ruler that causes evil. Now we have a problem.

I voted Maybe.

I think I found slayer's songwriter everybody

[Giovenith]

Let me rephrase most people are to nuanced to effectivly put into black and white categories. There are those such as Rogers and Himmler who can be classified in such a manner but in general trying to put people in black and white categories is not exactly a realistic idea.

See, now that's something I can agree with. Still even if you can't apply these labels to all people you can still apply them to concepts and actions created/undertaken by people.

I don't think anyone is arguing that you can't come to the conclusion that certain people are good or evil. The problem is more that when you declare it so matter-of-factually in a "that's just the way it is" tone, you imply (perhaps unintentionally) that good and evil are just these static things that spontaneously generate in a vacuum, which is far from the truth. Judgements of good and evil are not useless, but they need to be couples with explanations of their context.

These things have real world consequences too. With spousal and child abusers, for example, a lot of the trouble with dealing with them is because our culture has generated such a cartoonishly pure evil image of them, that when you meet one in real life -- someone who may usually seem like a gentle and caring person, who may have genuinely good morals in other areas of life, who may have a complex and sympathetic background -- that it throws people off, as their simplistic understanding of "good people do this, bad people do that, that's just how it is" causes them to get confused by this nuance. Unfortunately, many respond by jumping to the conclusion that this person couldn't possibly be an abuser because look at all the good things they do, an evil abusive person wouldn't do that because they're evil! It may seem counter-intuitive, but learning to acknowledge that evil people can have strong good traits is a necessary step in being able to not get distracted by those traits and focus on what's important.

[Rojava Free State]

See, now that's something I can agree with. Still even if you can't apply these labels to all people you can still apply them to concepts and actions created/undertaken by people.

I don't think anyone is arguing that you can't come to the conclusion that certain people are good or evil. The problem is more that when you declare it so matter-of-factually in a "that's just the way it is" tone, you imply (perhaps unintentionally) that good and evil are just these static things that spontaneously generate in a vacuum, which is far from the truth. Judgements of good and evil are not useless, but they need to be couples with explanations of their context.

These things have real world consequences too. With spousal and child abusers, for example, a lot of the trouble with dealing with them is because our culture has generated such a cartoonishly pure evil image of them, that when you meet one in real life -- someone who may usually seem like a gentle and caring person, who may have genuinely good morals in other areas of life, who may have a complex and sympathetic background -- that it throws people off, as their simplistic understanding of "good people do this, bad people do that, that's just how it is" causes them to get confused by this nuance. Unfortunately, many respond by jumping to the conclusion that this person couldn't possibly be an abuser because look at all the good things they do, an evil abusive person wouldn't do that because they're evil! It may seem counter-intuitive, but learning to acknowledge that evil people can have strong good traits is a necessary step in being able to not get distracted by those traits and focus on what's important.

Adolf hitler was anti smoking, liked dogs and was really fond of children. Seems nice in a vacuum till you consider that he was also a mass murderer and a dictator.

[Ayytaly]

No such thing as evil. "Evil" is just a way to negatively describe Mankind's inherent primal instincts, which They suppress out of peer pressure.

[Jerzylvania]

Heinrich Himmler was evil.
Fred Rogers was good.

Not all people are nuanced. Some people fit perfectly into the confines of "good" and "evil". The idea that everyone is somehow morally gray is absurd and unrealistic.

When you write Himmler off as just evil then you give up any opportunity to achieve a real understanding of why he behaved the way he did. If you think you have the answer, "He was evil", then you stop looking. Likewise Fred Rogers. And if we have no real understanding of whence goodness, then how are we to ever encourage goodness, to bring it out, to create it where previously it did not exist?

Oh please. You write off Mike Bloomberg as supporting evil on another thread a couple times. Maybe measure him by the same standards, huh?

[Rojava Free State]

No such thing as evil. "Evil" is just a way to negatively describe Mankind's inherent primal instincts, which They suppress out of peer pressure.

I mean its probably good we suppress them or many of us would be murder victims.

[Rojava Free State]

I myself personally think people go crazy/turn evil after being put under too much pressure. It's like the survival instinct kicks into overdrive.

Theres this hypothetical event that I often bring up as a thought experiment known as "the month of madness." Basically imagine that something pushed society so far that everyone just snapped and all social norms and morals broke down real quick. It's kinda scary that this has actually happened in real life and isn't just a thought experiment (I'm looking at you Liberia).

So basically wonton murder and rape and violence and an end to social order.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

Yes, see Anti-Social Personality Disorder.

Yep, and defective persons like that don't really change.

[Trollzyn the Infinite]

I don't think anyone is arguing that you can't come to the conclusion that certain people are good or evil. The problem is more that when you declare it so matter-of-factually in a "that's just the way it is" tone, you imply (perhaps unintentionally) that good and evil are just these static things that spontaneously generate in a vacuum, which is far from the truth. Judgements of good and evil are not useless, but they need to be couples with explanations of their context.

These things have real world consequences too. With spousal and child abusers, for example, a lot of the trouble with dealing with them is because our culture has generated such a cartoonishly pure evil image of them, that when you meet one in real life -- someone who may usually seem like a gentle and caring person, who may have genuinely good morals in other areas of life, who may have a complex and sympathetic background -- that it throws people off, as their simplistic understanding of "good people do this, bad people do that, that's just how it is" causes them to get confused by this nuance. Unfortunately, many respond by jumping to the conclusion that this person couldn't possibly be an abuser because look at all the good things they do, an evil abusive person wouldn't do that because they're evil! It may seem counter-intuitive, but learning to acknowledge that evil people can have strong good traits is a necessary step in being able to not get distracted by those traits and focus on what's important.

Adolf hitler was anti smoking, liked dogs and was really fond of children. Seems nice in a vacuum till you consider that he was also a mass murderer and a dictator.

He was also a vegetarian and environmentalist. Yet he ordered the death of 11 million people all the same, as well as started a global war that lead to the deaths of 70-85 million people total. All of which, in his mind, was acceptable. He tried to justify his evil actions by insisting to others and to himself that they were necessary.

Evil doesn't always wear a goatee.

[Giovenith]

Adolf hitler was anti smoking, liked dogs and was really fond of children. Seems nice in a vacuum till you consider that he was also a mass murderer and a dictator.

He was also a vegetarian and environmentalist. Yet he ordered the death of 11 million people all the same, as well as started a global war that lead to the deaths of 70-85 million people total. All of which, in his mind, was acceptable. He tried to justify his evil actions by insisting to others and to himself that they were necessary.

Evil doesn't always wear a goatee.

Nope.


Sometimes it has a stupid little mustache.

[Senkaku]

People are just born people, and then life makes them do things that may be good or may be evil, and the rest of us have to decide what the implications of those actions are for their characters.

[New Bremerton]

I have the kind of personality (INFJ) that predisposes one to seek out a grand, all-encompassing ideological narrative with the aim of bettering the world for everyone. Unfortunately, circumstances in my life and world events happening elsewhere have altered my worldview and my moral limits considerably, rendering me acutely aware of just how easily my views and personality could cause me to cross an unforgivable red line and turn irredeemably evil. I try very hard not to cross that line at all costs. Adolf Hitler may have had the exact same INFJ Myers-Briggs personality type. I find this deeply disturbing. I will not be evil. I refuse to be evil.

I consider evil people who would otherwise be perfectly normal, upstanding citizens to be even more evil than those who are born with a neurological and possibly genetic predisposition toward clinical psychopathy, because the former group of people could have easily chosen not to be evil. Therefore, their actions are even less forgivable than equivalent actions perpetrated by a true psychopath. The most evil people are the ones who regularly convince themselves that the crimes (serious crimes such as murder, rape and genocide, not petty crimes such as theft and dangerous driving) they are committing are morally justified. More so if they are wrapped in an ideological and oftentimes religious veneer of legitimacy. Committed fanatics and ideologues are the worst of the lot. They are the source of many a genocidal dictator or suicidal terrorist. They are by far the most evil people in the world IMO.