Evil Needs Permission...?

[KorbenDallas]

3 hours ago, anthony said:

The "Trader principle" is what it is all about, practically and morally. By which one chooses as ably and rationally as one can to always 'trade up'. Iow, to always receive a higher value for a lower one, in dealings with people and commerce, but not just, not at all. Good you brought it up, I think the principle is basically a subset of the principle of objective value and I believe you will see, very much part of "value/sacrifice"..

You'll know that popular misconception - e.g. of two, not very wealthy, parents enrolling son or daughter to a quality college, which costs x per year. Others will often say of them (approvingly) that it was a 'sacrificial' act. If they're honest the parents will respond that x dollars is the lower value, their children's best education is the higher - to them. Not a sacrifice then, but 'trading up'. Conversely, 'trading down', giving up a value - which may be a person, a virtue, money - for a non-or-lesser value, is true sacrifice as you know. The value hierarchy one has is invaluable, since issues big and small are always with us, and all our choices depend on it.

Idea evaluations and choices such as the difficult ones we all face now between the degree of security and safety in one's country, against the degree of loss of liberty it entails. How much loss of freedom - for how much public safety? is it worth it? Will it be recoverable in future? Not easy. 

Another thing about the trader principle that I find interesting is perhaps what you might call its inverse, an eye for an eye.  Thoughts?

[william.scherk]

1 hour ago, KorbenDallas said:

6 hours ago, william.scherk said:

I consider someone closer to my concept of 'evil' the closer to sociopathy he or she can be reliably marked. It is in the motive and in the behaviour that I find seeds and stalks of the starkest evil,  the combined-absence of remorse and the basic humanities.

I use The Sociopath Next Door by Martha Stout to help define sociopathy

I found some 50 quotes from the book at GoodReads. Here's some zingers. 

 

“To keep the blinders off our life-enhancing seventh sense, as with most improvements in the human condition, we must start with our children. A part of healthy conscience is being able to confront consciencelessness. When you teach your daughter, explicitly or by passive rejection, that she must ignore her outrage, that she must be kind and accepting to the point of not defending herself or other people, that she must not rock the boat for any reason, you are not strengthening her prosocial sense; you are damaging it—and the first person she will stop protecting is herself.” 

...
“About one in twenty-five individuals are sociopathic, meaning, essentially, that they do not have a conscience. It is not that this group fails to grasp the difference between good and bad; it is that the distinction fails to limit their behavior. The intellectual difference between right and wrong does not bring on the emotional sirens and flashing blue lights, or the fear of God, that it does for the rest of us. Without the slightest blip of guilt or remorse, one in twenty-five people can do anything at all.” 

...
“Or no—let us say you are not quite such a person. You are ambitious, yes, and in the name of success you are willing to do all manner of things that people with conscience would never consider, but you are not an intellectually gifted individual. Your intelligence is above average perhaps, and people think of you as smart, maybe even very smart. But you know in your heart of hearts that you do not have the cognitive wherewithal, or the creativity, to reach the careening heights of power you secretly dream about, and this makes you resentful of the world at large, and envious of the people around you. As this sort of person, you ensconce yourself in a niche, or maybe a series of niches, in which you can have some amount of control over small numbers of people. These situations satisfy a little of your desire for power, although you are chronically aggravated at not having more. It chafes to be so free of the ridiculous inner voice that inhibits others from achieving great power, without having enough talent to pursue the ultimate successes yourself. Sometimes you fall into sulky, rageful moods caused by a frustration that no one but you understands.” 
 

In addition to 'born this way/developed this way' conscienceless folks (the killer type is the one pulling wings off flies, and later torturing small animals for kicks) the wizards of psychology have identified a similar syndrome, an acquired anti-social behavioural suite consequent to brain injury. The 'symptoms' are telling if not entirely parallel to the Killer Next Door or the less evil types. I'd like to think that if one day we can openly or surreptitiously test our children for the trait in utero or in childhood, that some 'fix' would open their brains to full development. 

I suppose I should do some good and go dig around for recent cognitive neuroscience of sociopathy, if there are new developments. 

[KorbenDallas]

2 hours ago, wolfdevoon said:

I believe that True Believers and dodos are a bigger problem than sociopaths, who are frequently successful CEOs.

http://time.com/32647/which-professions-have-the-most-psychopaths-the-fewest/

Did you know a sociopath isn't necessarily a psychopath?  Just wondering, a little birdy told me that.  Smart bird.

[anthony]

William, A question: do you think there would be less Evul, or more, in the world, if every person were held responsible (more importantly, selfishly held himself volitionally responsible) for his actions and their consequences?

Although you've always been a little derisive of "evul", I know you acknowledge that evil exists, in what men do to men - we've often seen your horror at the Syrian death toll. If you think though that sociopaths represent the depth of evil-doers, in light of the facts you've presented which show that they are conscience-less by accident of biology/circumstance of upbringing - it then follows, they lack responsibility (more like, have diminished responsibility, I rather view it) for what they do to others. I could infer that you might consider Bashir al-Assad clinically sociopathic. Maybe he his, may be not. What then can you say of the other 24 out of 25 people who follow him, and all the other leaders and followers on all 'sides' of that war, (since the self-evident facts are being released, only now, that other groups have committed atrocities in this drawn out, pointless war, but that's another story) who are not sociopaths? 

[william.scherk]

3 hours ago, anthony said:

William, A question: do you think there would be less Evul, or more, in the world, if every person were held responsible (more importantly, selfishly held himself volitionally responsible) for his actions and their consequences?

Less evul, no. Less evil, yes.

Quote

I know you acknowledge that evil exists, in what men do to men - we've often seen your horror at the Syrian death toll. If you think though that sociopaths represent the depth of evil-doers, in light of the facts you've presented which show that they are conscience-less by accident of biology/circumstance of upbringing - it then follows, they lack responsibility (more like, have diminished responsibility, I rather view it) for what they do to others.

I do not accept either the 'diminished responsibility' or by-reason-of-mental-defect defence in the case of sociopathic behaviour, in the legal sense. The actors may lack remorse, but they do not lack knowledge of right and wrong in law and customary morality, nor ability to constrain their evil impulses.

Criminal law makes exceptions for crazy, for those acts driven by a psychotic mind.  In my reckoning, a cold calculating sadist-killer is that much more guilty for being impulsive, careless, negligent, remorseless, knowing, willful. I think of killer moms.  Who turns out to be criminal/sociopathic and who turns out psychotic? Who goes to a mental ward and care and sympathy and who to prison?  Only in cases of stark madness would I consider the asylum over the gaol or the gibbet.

(What kind of creeps me out about measuring/blaming brain defects for sociopathic behaviour is when/if the scientific organs of perception become heightened enough to 'detect' the sociopath. I mentioned this upthread in the context of in utero or child development.  There could be a bright side in that the detection of a 'vulnerability/propensity/deficit' before it flowers in a given individual.  I mean, not abortion or youth incarceration. You may agree with me that the future will tell us more about the flowering of sociopathy. Can it be 'prevented' by human ingenuity, or at least countered in education and support and re-training of the young sprout?)

I kind of have a Calvinist mind in matters criminal.  I don't believe we can fully extinguish human propensities to sociopathic crimes.  So the Judge in me is especially unforgiving with the cruel, remorseless humans. 

Practically, if right now you can read the signs in pre-schoolers, if a young criminal in the making is revealed, what can you do? Psychology has no fixes at this point, just amelioration/"youth offender" programs, and files with red flags in counselling offices. Until real harm comes to real people ... detection may have no effect on pro-actively protecting good folk.

Quote

I could infer that you might consider Bashir al-Assad clinically sociopathic. Maybe he his, may be not. What then can you say of the other 24 out of 25 people who follow him, and all the other leaders and followers on all 'sides' of that war, (since the self-evident facts are being released, only now, that other groups have committed atrocities in this drawn out, pointless war, but that's another story) who are not sociopaths? 

I do not consider Bashar Al-Assad clinically sociopathic. His behaviour is 'state behaviour' in large measure, his instrumentality is programmed into the dictatorship's mechanisms of power. I think he may have contracted megalomania, and to have a grossly-inflated self-image ... but at least a portion of this was built in to the job description.  His cruelty is the cruelty of a state actor steeped in Baathism and dynastic cultism and overwhelming might over 'the people.'

Of course, both the Calvinist and the Judge agree that in a perfect world, he would stand in the dock in the Hague, for crimes against humanity. At some point in the process some psychological findings might be made public and prove my clinical judgement wrong.

I see the starkest evil in the conflict zone as the lack of individual liberties, the lack of personal 'protection' Western democracies provide citizens against state abuses.  Whether on individual or racial or ethnic or language grounds, or grounds of political allegiance or even basic grounds of free assembly, free expression, freedom to protest -- the states built in Syria and Iraq were monstrous by our measures.  

If the 'cork' came out of the bottle, if the repression became more acute or 'released' by liberation, the effects of state evil were profound.   I believe Iraq will achieve 'stability' before Syria, as Iraq is rich has fledgling democracy -- and Syria is poor, as Iraq is only one-quarter destroyed compared to its neighbour.

Tony, we probably overlap and  converge on a sense of justice here and elsewhere.  My main point is that I tend to view sociopathic behaviour/acts of evil as particular items of Code Criminel, lists and ranks and scales of offences -- the depraved. The very act itself is depraved. I tend to address the purported crime before I assess the mind of the actor. If he or she was not mad, and not forced or coerced, the code offence  calls for time, time out, time gone from the game, sometimes for good.  

Personal responsibility is a key hinge of my amateur fantasy jurisprudence. At the heights of a criminal regime like Assad, the personal responsibility of the President for brutality and terror and slaughter of civilians can be assessed. Until he is examined in the Hague, I don't know he is a sociopath.  Here I would let the grossly evil acts trump any possible defense of 'mental defect' even if he turned out to be a textbook case. 

To go out on a bit of poetic blur, an abstract but manifold 'evil' in practice bloomed under the Baathist dictatorship in Syria. It propagated with each act of escalation by the regime in defence of itself.   It grew rampant and choked the land.

 

On the sunny side ... I think of the pit of evil in the Middle East as solvable. The solution is a kind of treaty of nations, an update of the deal between states that ended the first and second world wars.  The 'settlement' of the first war left imperial designs on the map, lines on a field of power. The victors did not consult the people directly on these borders and names, and it took the second world war for most the quasi-modern states to become sovereign inside their present borders.  The solution is to repair all of the structural defects of non-democracies in the Islamic world, those  currently drowning in blood and those not.  

I clutch the small reed of hope that the Tunisian experience will over time offer a 'best practice' model for an Islamic state in the modern world. Full democracies with full big five freedoms.

Sorry for the ramble, Tony. As you have noted here and there, I do go on.

Edited July 21, 2016 by william.scherk
Spelking, grrrammar.

[KorbenDallas]

1 hour ago, william.scherk said:

I do not accept either the 'diminished responsibility' or by-reason-of-mental-defect defence in the case of sociopathic behaviour, in the legal sense. The actors may lack remorse, but they do not lack knowledge of right and wrong in law and customary morality, nor ability to constrain their evil impulses.

I don't accept any kind of "born this way" plea, either, their actions hold them accountable no matter what genetic deformity they claim.  Or rearing.  Finding a biological reason as a potential root cause helps explain things rather than trying to explain it with developmental psychology alone.  I like the efforts they are doing in this area, but no sanction.

1 hour ago, william.scherk said:

(What kind of creeps me out about measuring/blaming brain defects for sociopathic behaviour is when/if the scientific organs of perception become heightened enough to 'detect' the sociopath. I mentioned this upthread in the context of in utero or child development.  There could be a bright side in that the detection of a 'vulnerability/propensity/deficit' before it flowers in a given individual.  I mean, not abortion or youth incarceration. You may agree with me that the future will tell us more about the flowering of sociopathy. Can it be 'prevented' by human ingenuity, or at least countered in education and support and re-training of the young sprout?)

Short of abortion, infanticide, or incarceration this seems like the best option.  I wish I was more optimistic, though.  I really don't think these people can ever be anything more than sheer evil.

[anthony]

3 hours ago, william.scherk said:

Less evul, no. Less evil, yes.

 

Good enough for me. You say more rational selfishness, less evil. I actually agree with you...

[KorbenDallas]

3 hours ago, william.scherk said:

evul

I'm not following what this is...

edit: nm, figurrd it out

[anthony]

(The only thing to be done with a sociopath is to stay well away from any, once recognized, I found).

But there is something missing when picking out sociopaths, especially. Since: 1. They are a small minority 2. They are known for a predisposition for harm (which I hasten to add and agree, can not be legally and morally excusable).

If all or most evil gets laid on their doorstep, we badly miss the point and invert the real causes of evil . Most evil done in mankind's history has been perpetrated by non-sociopaths, only going on studies/numbers alone. Most evil then is by average humans  - rational and volitional - and who largely lack such deviant aberrations.

I quite enjoy/admire animals in general, and particularly value my own dogs and cats. A dog has specific canine characteristics. For instance if it barks at visitors and growls at other dogs, it's simply protecting its territory or you, its pack leader. Within a range, a dog can only be a dog and no more - he shouldn't be punished e.g. for pinching food off the table, etc. (when it's the owner who's at fault for leaving it there). Similarly, a lioness hunts and kills buck, and cannot be 'blamed' for its nature.

All dogs have identity as the species, and (as dog owners know) a particular ~individual~ nature, above that. ('A personality', enhanced by good care, communication and attention).

A dog can never be "evil", it just is what it is.

Man too has a biological nature - but - also a metaphysical nature, which is the identity of man's consciousness. Autonomous, rational and volitional. Within the limits and capacities of this range, an individual forms a consciousness with its own identity too. Unlike the dog, one isn't 'man' automatically nor can survive automatically, he has to apply himself to reality with his volitional reason (and of course he picks up human behavior from others around). Therefore a man has to teach himself to be 'good', has to learn pro-life values for himself, and has to look for and find and think of the good ideas which sustain them - or else his ideas may be so badly wrong - potentially evil - that he can and likely will - do evil.

I say sociopaths are a tiny part of the problem of evildoing. The major part is leaders with power and control on their minds with false ideologies and their followers who have renounced independent minds. Next to some 'normal' people, I prefer my dogs.

 

[anthony]

22 hours ago, KorbenDallas said:

Another thing about the trader principle that I find interesting is perhaps what you might call its inverse, an eye for an eye.  Thoughts?

'Trading' dis-value for dis-value, iow? Do unto others as they did unto you? ha! I'd say, I'm against. Can it be rationally and selfishly of any purpose for one to exact payback for wrongs, especially when it's rationalized (as we are emotionally inclined to) as teaching 'em a lesson? In later years I learned the sense of leaving anyone who's done me dirty to stew in their own juice. To break contact and move on. By their nature, such individuals meet what they deserve one way or other.

[KorbenDallas]

1 hour ago, anthony said:

(The only thing to be done with a sociopath is to stay well away from any, once recognized, I found).

Same here.

45 minutes ago, anthony said:

'Trading' dis-value for dis-value, iow? Do unto others as they did unto you? ha! I'd say, I'm against. Can it be rationally and selfishly of any purpose for one to exact payback for wrongs, especially when it's rationalized (as we are emotionally inclined to) as teaching 'em a lesson?

Yea, trading disvalue for disvalue--aggress and be aggressed upon.  Sometimes I think of it as dealing justice for an injustice.  Don't tread on me kind of thing.

46 minutes ago, anthony said:

In later years I learned the sense of leaving anyone who's done me dirty to stew in their own juice. To break contact and move on.

Starting to see this is the best option, gets back to peace quicker.