I think it was over $300 which he used to get high. I suppose it's possible he could have been thinking "I am doing this in pursuit of the Good" but I think that's extremely unlikely in view of other factors. — BitconnectCarlos

If, in that moment, he was not convinced his actions would be good for him, why would he have committed his crime?

I just don't find it helpful at all to be like "oh well if he only knew eudamonia or whatever or was aware of the existence of, I don't know, higher pleasures.... I'm sorry but it's just babble. — BitconnectCarlos

I think it is safe to assume the man's actions did not make him happy. Can we therefore not say the man was ignorant of what brings him happiness?

Read about Carl Panzram if you want serious psychological insight into a sadistic serial killer. He wrote a book detailing his thoughts. The man fundamentally hated humanity. He hated the universe and he had a deep-seeded rage. Understanding this misanthropy and rage will take you much further in terms of understanding evil than someone misunderstanding rationality. — BitconnectCarlos

Why couldn't a serial killer be guided by a flawed perception?

The person you describe doesn't seem like a happy person, nor does he seem to make decisions that would turn him into one. It seems to me he is hopelessly lost.

I also think it's very questionable to give any sort of universal prescription for what 'happiness' amounts to as if it were just the same for every human being. — BitconnectCarlos

I don't think I'm doing that.

I am, however, making an educated guess that the persons you describe are unhappy people. I also think I'm correct in that regard.

It seems like you interpreted the quote I shared earlier as 'every person desires to be a morally good person', but that is not what the quote says and not how I explained it.

It seems to me you are using a generalization about what are supposedly natural tendencies in humans to explain complicated problems like free will and the problem of evil. I think this is unsound.

I'll ask again, what about all the people who do not exhibited those tendencies? Are they not human? And if they are, then apparently the tendencies aren't as natural as you consider them to be.

You've missed/dodged the actual issue. If you're claiming we have free-will, then something within us must cause us to choose to act according to 'evil' desires or according to 'good' ones. That thing itself cannot be 'evil' because otherwise it would not sometimes choose to act according to 'good' desires. So that thing must either me amoral or outside of us, hence it is impossible that we are 'naturally inclined to evil'. Your suggestion was that we needed policing. That implies that some force outside of us is required to persuade us to act morally. If that's the case, then we don;t really have free-will do we? Put policing in place and the effect is that we act more morally. Our actions have been dictated by the environment. If we really had free-will, then policing would make no difference at all. So that rules out the 'choosing' mechanism being entirely within us.

So what we're left with is that humans sometimes act in a way which other humans think is 'good', sometimes they act in a way which other humans think is 'bad' and the balance of these actions is determined by the environment they're in. It therefore cannot be true that we're always prone to evil. It has to be the case that our environment causes such tendencies.

many if not all of the millennium development goals can be achieved by controlling and/or eliminating some of what may be described as our "negative" natural tendencies e.g greed in re environmental destruction, gender bias which is an age-old problem with respect to women empowerment — TheMadFool

You've just introduced the word 'natural' there without any warrant at all. Show me the evidence that the tendencies the millennium development goals are controlling are 'natural'. All you've got is your idle speculation on the matter. Other things that the countries affected by the millennium development goals have in common (other than being populated by humans);

They're all agricultural societies
They're all to some extent urbanised
They've all at one time been colonised
They're all part of a capitalist global economic system
They all have industrial economies
They're all settled communities (not nomadic)
They all have an institutional education system
They all have (or have had) a formal religion

I could go on.

Any one of these common factors could be the cause of any one of our common behaviours (good or bad). You have absolutely no justification for insisting that its 'in our nature' other than your own dogmatic refusal to entertain any other viewpoint.

Your suggestion was that we needed policing. — Isaac

That’s not what I said. This is what I said.

But for me it’s morals that act as the policing agent in societies, but we still have to chose to act on those morals. — Brett

If, in that moment, he was not convinced his actions would be good for him, why would he have committed his crime?

Glad you asked: I've seen plenty of interviews with murderers and these explanations a couple of the more recent ones were "my mind blanked" and "I just did it" or claiming to be scared or surprised... I believe it's rage in some them and for the very worse they derive enormous pleasure is causing people pain but I haven't too many interviews with these tier of killer. The explanations are varied. One of the last interviews I watched I'd guess the guy had an IQ of around 75 and at that level it just seems like they don't do very much thinking in general. Neither of us inhabit that worldview of having an IQ of like 70-75.

I've only heard a few say that their action was good. Of course an action could be beneficial for someone (say, if they rob and murder someone), but most murderers won't think that action is Good. If a criminal genuinely cannot tell the difference between right and wrong he could plead the insanity defense.

If you're interested there's an interview with Richard Kuklinski on youtube and plenty of material about Ted Bundy on netflix recently.

Why couldn't a serial killer be guided by a flawed perception?

Okay, lets be clear here:
-Everybody has flawed perceptions.
-By "guided" I'm taking that term to be motivated... some killers do seem to be guided by flawed perceptions, but this isn't the case for all of them. In the case of a more evil killer he might sexually get off to his action and he just doesn't care about his victim. That's his motivation - not a flawed perception.

The person you describe doesn't seem like a happy person, nor does he seem to make decisions that would turn him into one. It seems to me he is hopelessly lost.

It's okay to call him "lost" but I would also call him evil.

I am, however, making an educated guess that the persons you describe are unhappy people. I also think I'm correct in that regard.

This is fair to say in, I think the vast majority of cases. I sometimes wonder about Ted Bundy though who was just a severe narcisisst.

It seems like you interpreted the quote I shared earlier as 'every person desires to be a morally good person', but that is not what the quote says and not how I explained it.

Would you care to explain it again? Is it just every person does what they perceive to be good for themselves?

In sum, I'm just saying it's just not right to let rationality (or someone lack of) take center stage when other motivations or drives of action take a much bigger role. I feel like this is such a "philosophy" thing to do - to let rationality take center stage especially when it comes to motivation which is much broader. I feel like we should first and foremost be considering the evidence and then maybe consider the dead 2000+ year old philosopher. Not the other way around. America has a very, very comprehensive body of knowledge when it comes to killers and especially serial killers.

It seems to me you are using a generalization about what are supposedly natural tendencies in humans to explain complicated problems like free will and the problem of evil. I think this is unsound.

I'll ask again, what about all the people who do not exhibited those tendencies? Are they not human? And if they are, then apparently the tendencies aren't as natural as you consider them to be. — Tzeentch

I believe that we can't universalize i.e. say that all of something is a particular way but we can generalize in that we can say most/almost all/the majority of some particular class of objects are <insert predicate>.

I'm not saying everybody has a taste for immorality but most of us do. If that's true then giving free will to allow evil is meant for the few that have a good nature and that sounds more like an experiment, an evil one, where a handful of good folks are tempted with a choice to become evil and the rest of us, the majority, naturally evil-natured are like extras in a movie - just there to fill the scene and nothing else.

My question, really, was whether you were coming at this question believing in God. — Brett

I'm agnostic, almost atheistic.

Is it just every person does what they perceive to be good for themselves? — BitconnectCarlos

Yes.

In sum, I'm just saying it's just not right to let rationality (or someone lack of) take center stage when other motivations or drives of action take a much bigger role. — BitconnectCarlos

Such as?


As far as I am concerned your examples change little about my premise, except for the fact that some very mentally ill people may not fit the bill. Don't you find it telling that you need to go to the extremest of examples in order to find a fault in my argument?

Tell you what, if you agree that 99.9% of people are motivated by what they believe is good for them, I will agree with you that 0.01% may not, because they suffer from some brain malfunction.

... but we can generalize in that we can say most/almost all/the majority of some particular class of objects are <insert predicate>. — TheMadFool

I can see the practical merit in that, but not the philosophical one.

Once we agree that some people aren't naturally evil, aren't we drawn to the question why that is so?

I'm agnostic, almost atheistic. — TheMadFool

I’m trying to work out whether you’re looking at this as God having given us free will? Is that right?

I’m trying to work out whether you’re looking at this as God having given us free will? Is that right? — Brett

I'm in two minds about whether god exists or not but defending the existence of evil with god's desire to give us free will is untenable.

I can see the practical merit in that, but not the philosophical one.

Once we agree that some people aren't naturally evil, aren't we drawn to the question why that is so? — Tzeentch

So, the majority of us just around as backdrops in a theater where the main actors, the good folks who struggle with the option of doing evil because they have free will, play their part?

Not really.

I just don't consider evil to be a natural tendency, but a tendency born out of ignorance.

I just don't consider evil to be a natural tendency, but a tendency born out of ignorance. — Tzeentch

Would you agree that some primates commit evil acts?

I don't think animals have the capacity for evil nor good.

But lets say, for the sake of argument, that they do commit evil acts.

But lets say, for the sake of argument, that they do commit evil acts. — Tzeentch

Would you regard that, then, as a natural tendency and not one of ignorance?

I would regard it as a form of instinctive behavior, which for an animal may be considered 'natural'.

If it’s instinctive then I assume it’s natural. Therefore evil exists without the cause being ignorance. And why would murder be instinctive?

If it’s instinctive then I assume it’s natural. — Brett

For an animal, perhaps. I would not extend this line of reasoning to humans.

Therefore evil exists without the cause being ignorance. — Brett

Perhaps. Like I said before, I don't consider animals to be capable of evil or good.

And why would murder be instinctive? — Brett

Sustenance?

Such as?

Other motivations or drives would be jealousy, hate, a sexual motive, or just the implicit recognition that the life of the victim doesn't matter and that murder could be convenient. I honestly believe the choice to murder in some cases is essentially just someone saying "fuck it" to the universe and moral instruction. I honestly believe that to be the case. They are choosing to turn their back on that. I have had this thought process but obviously on a much smaller scale.

Don't you find it telling that you need to go to the extremest of examples in order to find a fault in my argument?

Most psychologically healthy people conduct their lives in a way that they pursue what they believe to be best for them. However, we are talk about evil here. Lately I have seen a number of interviews from convicted murderers so if you want to talk about evil that seems like a good resource. Most of us just don't encounter evil in everyday, civilized life.... so yes, on some level I am talk about "the exception."

I do think it's a grave mistake to chalk up all evil to ignorance. It would imply to me that you could sit in front of, say, Ted Bundy and explain to him "well if only you knew the wonders of Philosophy and...."

Other motivations or drives would be jealousy, hate, a sexual motive, or just the implicit recognition that the life of the victim doesn't matter and that murder could be convenient. — BitconnectCarlos

Ok, but why aren't these motivated by a perception of what is good? (or maybe 'not good', in the example of hate).

Surely, when someone pursues a sexual relation with someone else, isn't it obvious that this person does so because they believe it benefits them?

I honestly believe the choice to murder in some cases is essentially just someone saying "fuck it" to the universe and moral instruction. I honestly believe that to be the case. They are choosing to turn their back on that. — BitconnectCarlos

I don't think it is that simple.

A lot of psychopathic behavior can be directly linked to abuses people have endured when they were children, for example.

However, we are talk about evil here. — BitconnectCarlos

The initial premise of the thread included that evil was a natural tendency in all humans. So that is broader than just the sort of extreme evil committed by the world's worst criminals.

Lately I have seen a number of interviews from convicted murderers so if you want to talk about evil that seems like a good resource. — BitconnectCarlos

I occasionally watch those. They are interesting. But such persons are often extremely manipulative and/or narcissistic. There's no real way to tell if they are lying or telling the truth when they talk about the things that went on in their heads when they committed their deeds.

Often it is related to sexual pleasure or some form of power fantasy, though.

I do think it's a grave mistake to chalk up all evil to ignorance. It would imply to me that you could sit in front of, say, Ted Bundy and explain to him "well if only you knew the wonders of Philosophy and...." — BitconnectCarlos

When people are left to their own malignant thoughts for too long, it may be really difficult to ever drag them back into reality. Sure.

However, I do not believe people are born that way. Ted Bundy had a troublesome youth. There's no telling what may have happened to him during his youth that could have been the catalyst for his behavior in later life.

But he too derived sexual pleasure from his acts, leading us back to the person always pursuing what they think benefit them and deluded perception.

I don't think it is that simple.

A lot of psychopathic behavior can be directly linked to abuses people have endured when they were children, for example.

It's fine, you can doubt this. I've personally experienced this and I make that link when I hear the description of others but neither us have direct access to their mental states; we only have direct access to our own. Especially when I was a moral nihilist in my teens I would just do things because "fuck it" - there was no standard of morality present that I could even ever meaningfully violate.

I do believe that the vast majority of men, in their hearts, know that certain things are absolutely wrong but they just choose to ignore it or deliberately violate it.

I'm well aware that abuse and maltreatment plays a huge role, but ultimately one's troubles are their own.

But he too derived sexual pleasure from his acts, leading us back to the person always pursuing what they think benefit them and deluded perception.

Why is that a deluded perception? It did benefit him. He got off, sexually.

I can respond to the rest later if need be, I just want to focus the discussion.

Especially when I was a moral nihilist in my teens I would just do things because "fuck it" - there was no standard of morality present that I could even ever meaningfully violate. — BitconnectCarlos

You were testing your convictions on your surroundings, trying to validate them. The benefit you were seeking seems obvious to me, even if you may not be convinced yourself.

Things like "fuck it" are exactly the kinds of motivations I'd expect an angsty teenager to express, trying to look cool. No offense.

I do believe that the vast majority of men, in their hearts, know that certain things are absolutely wrong but they just choose to ignore it or deliberately violate it. — BitconnectCarlos

I believe so too. Which I why I do not agree with the notion that humans are naturally evil.

Perhaps I'd phrase it slightly different, but only to highlight my point. I think most people are (perhaps unconsciously) aware that their actions violate moral principles, but they do not care because they do not see the direct benefit of behaving morally.

I'm well aware that abuse and maltreatment plays a huge role, but ultimately one's troubles are their own. — BitconnectCarlos

I'm not saying they do not carry responsibility for their actions. But when we understand the process they went through to arrive in their twisted state, we have an easier time recognizing where and how their perception was deluded.

Why is that a deluded perception? It did benefit him. He got off, sexually. — BitconnectCarlos

Every person desires to be happy (or content). ("every person desires the Good")

Our perception is what we use to guide ourselves to this goal.

Did Bundy's actions made him a happier person?

Well, we can't look into the man's head, but I'll wager an educated guess that he was probably deeply unhappy.

You were testing your convictions on your surroundings, trying to validate them. The benefit you were seeking seems obvious to me, even if you may not be convinced yourself.

I would say that I was living out my principles at the time, which were moral nihilism. I do believe a true moral nihilist - one who actually lives their ideology - is someone to be very careful of. A true moral nihilist would believe that those inbuilt moral ideas are basically illusions either put in place by society or evolution or whatnot.

I believe so too. Which I why I do not agree with the notion that humans are naturally evil.

I do not believe that humans are naturally evil either. I would describe myself as someone who's a little more cynical about human nature, but I definitely wouldn't describe humans as naturally evil. I'd be more inclined to say that humans are inherently more self-interested or maybe self-focused and morally probably more neutral. I definitely wouldn't say that humans are inherently good either.

I also consider one's views towards humanity to be a foundational belief. And by that I mean foundational in the sense that it influences or impacts many other beliefs.

Did Bundy's actions made him a happier person?

Well, we can't look into the man's head, but I'll wager an educated guess that he was probably deeply unhappy.

We're now experiencing difficulty at this notion of "happiness."

From what I understand about a really evil guy like Carl Panzram is that he may have reached this "happy" state if the entire universe burst into flames.

I feel like you're pushing a different notion of happiness though. I feel like you're pushing one that's a little more universal, maybe something more in line with Eudaimonia? I thought I suggested this idea to you earlier but you shot it down.

Happiness is a difficult subject though. Something might make you happy in the short term, or it could be unpleasant in the moment but form a good long-term memory. I would usually view happiness/content as a subjective thing, but I'm not totally closed off to the notion of some sort of Eudaimonic happiness either.

We're now experiencing difficulty at this notion of "happiness."

From what I understand about a really evil guy like Carl Panzram is that he may have reached this "happy" state if the entire universe burst into flames.

I feel like you're pushing a different notion of happiness though. I feel like you're pushing one that's a little more universal, maybe something more in line with Eudaimonia? I thought I suggested this idea to you earlier but you shot it down.

Happiness is a difficult subject though. Something might make you happy in the short term, or it could be unpleasant in the moment but form a good long-term memory. I would usually view happiness/content as a subjective thing, but I'm not totally closed off to the notion of some sort of Eudaimonic happiness either. — BitconnectCarlos

I do believe there is something like 'true happiness', maybe close to the Greek idea of eudaimonia. (I do like classical Greek philosophy in general). Or perhaps maybe something close to Buddhist ideas of enlightenment.

Everyone is looking for this sort of true happiness (consciously or unconsciously), but very few find it. Many look for it in the wrong places. Western society teaches people such happiness can be found in material things. I doubt that, but to each their own.

Also, I think true happiness, morality and reason are closely connected. If our reasoning faculty is deluded (perception), we get led onto false trails on our quest for happiness, which can have dire consequences for ourselves and others.

I would simply counter the problem of evil with the problem of good:

If the Devil exists:

Is he able, but not willing? Then he is benevolent.

Is he willing, but not able? Then he is impotent.

Is he both able and willing to prevent good? Then where cometh good?

Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him Devil?

Which I why I do not agree with the notion that humans are naturally evil. — Tzeentch

Does this then mean humans are naturally good?

Perhaps. Like I said before, I don't consider animals to be capable of evil or good. — Tzeentch

I didn’t say animals, I said primates. If you don’t think they’re capable of evil or good then how would you define good, is it something only humans are capable of?

I would simply counter the problem of evil with the problem of good:

If the Devil exists:

Is he able, but not willing? Then he is benevolent.

Is he willing, but not able? Then he is impotent.

Is he both able and willing to prevent good? Then where cometh good?

Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him Devil? — IvoryBlackBishop

:up: God, thought of as omnibenevolent, is duty-bound to stop the devil but he wouldn't want to impose himself on us - that would be rude to say the least. Hence he gives us free will so that we may choose freely which side we want to be on.

This fits beautifully with how Adam and Eve, the first man and woman, although tempted to breaking point by the serpent-devil, chose "freely" to partake of the forbidden fruit. It seems that disobedience is an essential feature of free will and freedom in general. I remember in my discussions on free will that negation/denial/rejection (disobedience) is a crucial element for free will. Slaves, paragons of lacking freedom, obey their masters.

This state of creators being worried about the possible disobedience of their creations is instantiated in the present, raging debate on AI (artificial intelligence) taking over the world. This is what I call the creator complex.

So, it does seem reasonable to believe that god, being omnibenvolent, ignored the creator complex and imbued Adam and Eve and ergo all of humanity with free will, knowing full well that Adam & Eve would at some point disobey his command and take a bite of the forbidden fruit.

In that sense, the devil played a critical role in making us aware of our freedom. Yes, we were punished, quite severely it seems (death), but we were now free men and women. It seems God and we must thank the devil for doing the dirty work of revealing our freedom to us: God will be happy to know those who chose him did so freely and we are happy because nothing was imposed on us.

I just don't consider evil to be a natural tendency, but a tendency born out of ignorance — Tzeentch

Evil recognizes no boundaries in my humble opinion: parents have slain children so we can forget about strangers shooting you in a random act of violence. Evil is not restricted to only the ignorant.

If you don't mind me asking, what do you think comes naturally to us, good or evil or both, and why?

Thinking a bit more on the issue, I feel we need free will in order to own up to our actions whatever they may be.

If we're good by nature - programmed to be so - then the notion of a good person is at stake: we can't be good if we didn't choose to be good. Free will would be necessary in such cases but then we'd have to deal with problematic people who choose evil. Such a world would have good and evil

On the other hand if we're programmed to be evil then giving us free will makes sense only as a means to allow us some goodness i.e. the choice then is not to do evil and do good. Such a world would have good and evil.

The difference between the two worlds is that in one free will enables goodness and in the other it enables evil.

Perhaps our natural tendencies are balanced between good and evil and we're morally ambiguous creatures. In such a world free will would certainly assure responsibility for both our good deeds and bad deeds. Such a world would have good and evil.

Which of the three possible moral worlds do we live in?