Originally posted by inimalist
why would a sociopath be incapable of committing evil?
i think a truly evil ACT wud have evil intentions AND evil consequences. i also think evil intentions can only be present if you have empathy. because people who can not feel that other people are alive in the same way that they themselves are and feel the same way they do and can make sense of the golden rule at an intuitive/instinctual level, have no MOTIVATION {much less, knowledge of the emotional consequences and the ability to EMPATHISE with the victim} to veer away from evil acts. its like a a robot doing what they are programmed to do desireable or like a very small child killing a butterfly because of curiosity or a lion killing a deer. u wudnt call any of these actions EVIL wud u, atleast, not the perpetraters.
i think its only WITH the knowledge of the emotional consequences on the victim and having the ability to care for them and understanding the inherent connection between the action and the suffering that follows as "evil" can one be held responsible for being an EVIL being. becauase unlike the sociopath, this person KNEW BETTER.
basically, u cant have evil unless u have a conciounse to begin with.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
So, you believe that evil is something outside of the mind?I believe that good and evil are solely a product of the mind that humans manifest in the world around us.
no, I believe it is possible for people who don't believe they are evil to be evil. I believe it is possible for someone who cannot comprehend good and evil to do something evil.
Originally posted by inimalist
no, I believe it is possible for people who don't believe they are evil to be evil. I believe it is possible for someone who cannot comprehend good and evil to do something evil.
Most religions and laws would disagree with you. If you don't know that what you are doing is wrong (evil), then you are not held accountable. Example: insanity plea.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Most religions and laws would disagree with you. If you don't know that what you are doing is wrong (evil), then you are not held accountable. Example: insanity plea.
Thats fine, I see evil more as measurable harm to a person. Not being in control or understanding the consequences to ones actions certainly do not morally excuse the harm inflicted on the person, thus the act is evil.
EDIT: The law, also, does not concern itself with evil and good, but rather with personal accountability, which I said before that I don't think is tied to whether a person's actions are evil or not. And to religion, why would I want to allow a term like evil to be the sole possession of metaphysical abstractions? We can see how we affect eachother, we can see where we hurt eachother. Obviously there is grey, but certainly one doesn't need God to determine how we ought to treat eachother.
Originally posted by inimalist
Thats fine, I see evil more as measurable harm to a person. Not being in control or understanding the consequences to ones actions certainly do not morally excuse the harm inflicted on the person, thus the act is evil.EDIT: The law, also, does not concern itself with evil and good, but rather with personal accountability, which I said before that I don't think is tied to whether a person's actions are evil or not. And to religion, why would I want to allow a term like evil to be the sole possession of metaphysical abstractions? We can see how we affect eachother, we can see where we hurt eachother. Obviously there is grey, but certainly one doesn't need God to determine how we ought to treat eachother.
So, if a rock falls out of the sky, and hits you on the head, killing you, is that evil?
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
So, if a rock falls out of the sky, and hits you on the head, killing you, if that evil?
no, though I get where you are coming (lol, cumming was an actual choice on spell check for comming) from. It certainly meets the "harm" requirement.
But no, to me morals and that deal with interpersonal actions. I even hesitate at times to call some things "evil" that are done to nature or to animals, simply because, look at what animals do to eachother. I can't presume to say that nature is evil, or else the term is meaningless, as evil must be a negative aberration from the norm (re: evil is relative to good).
Morals are something people develop and apply to one another, for sure, and there isn't anything more absolute about them than that, so ya, in that way there is a connection between man and morality. Its more that volition, imho, is not a requirement for something to be evil.
Originally posted by inimalist
I couldn't disagree more, but cool
let me clarify and elaborate. in judging a situation, i consider two things. actions and intentions. taking shaky's example. a person can have cruel INTENTIONS towards a rock. but a rock lacking a conciosness wudnt suffer. thus whatever that person did wudnt translate to a CRUEL "ACTION", as it relates to the rock because the rock cant suffer. the very fact that the person thinks that the can be CRUEL to a rock points towards either faulty perception{which makes the person think the rock has a conciousness on which to inflict suffering} or delusion{the person knowing to themselves that the rock is dead but lying to themselves to convince themselves that it does}.
similarly both "cruelty" and "evil" are a by product of EMPATHY. because they both have an element of INTENTIONALLY INFLICTING SUFFERING on another object which you KNOW to be alive. a person can not understand the concept of suffering as it applies to people other than themselves without "empathy". a sociopath without empathy causing physical or emotional harm to another human from the point of view of the sociopath is similar to a human being destroying an ice sculpture or a robot which he or she does not feel to posess and conciousness. it may cause suffering to the victim but that was never part of the intention of the socipath. to the sociopath other people are merely inanimate machines to be toyed with for personal amusement.
therefore the "sociopath" is not evil in a similar way to a how a person who accidentally runs over another person is not evil. in both cases, the intentional impulse to cause suffering{in the former case, due to lack of empathy and inability to UNDERSTAND the concept of suffering as it applies to others and the later, a faulty understanding of the physical world around u} is lacking.
Originally posted by inimalist
so, if someone does something they think isn't evil, yet it ends up hurting thousands, though there was no way they could have known, you don't consider that evil?
seeing as only people can be evil, YES, i dont consider any actions to be evil. nor do i consider a completely unknowing perpetrater "evil".