Jump to content

Born evil?


henry d
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 107
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Fascinating. And I think it’s a bit of both, as some have said.

Is it useful to consider alcoholics in the same way? Almost everyone in this country is exposed to a choice to drink alcohol in some way, but some become addicted, and some can’t stand it.

Those who become clinically addicted definitely have something innate that is triggered or satisfied by alcohol.

But, we can’t overlook  environmental factors - a potential alcoholic might fall in with a hard-drinking crowd, or grow up in a hard drinking family. With booze freely available and a permissive circle of immediate family and friends, it is likely to end badly.

Consider also that a traumatic experience, depression, or other psychological trigger might well make a person more susceptible to alcoholism, even if their predisposition is relatively slight.

Likwise with ‘evil’ - each one of us is exposed to a choice to commit crime/sin/evil, some of us find it more difficult than others to refrain. Fall in with the wrong crowd or grow up in the wrong environment and it can end very badly.

Last thing - consider that many children that grow up in wicked households turn away and live virtuous lives, and many from virtuous backgrounds fall down and live wicked lives.

We all have a conscience and we all have a choice, but it is far harder for some than for others.

LS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, 12gauge82 said:

I don't mean to pick on your post but due to many of the exchanges we've had on other recent threads, genuine question, if you beleive people are born evil why are you so much in favour (mentioned in the other threads) of rehabilitation of serious offenders? Surely if people are born evil they can't be changed and if they've committed evil acts, I.e Venables, they should never be released for public safety? 

Just a genuine interest of your thought process as this is something I've been heavily involved with over the years.

It is a good question and one definitely well worth asking.

I absolutely agree that there are some people who are wired up such that they are not suitable to live in regular society, that can be as much about their propensity to do harm to themselves as well as others, whether with malicious intent or not.

As I mentioned earlier, me saying that I believe people are born evil does need to be qualified, there are a multitude of factors that will influence what the final outcome for that person will be.  IG used better words when he said some people are born with a predisposition to being evil.

I don't think every wrong un is born that way, i think the majority of problems is really due to social and behavioural conditioning and those folk deserve the opportunity of rehabilitation, I think that serves us better as a society than adopting a purely penal approach.  Even in the case of some serious offences.

In the case of those where there is something in their wiring that suggests they cannot be rehabilitated because they just don't have the necessary mental capacity for that then I absolutely would favour adopting a much more precautionary approach where we must assume they are a continual risk and remove them from society.  In case it was misunderstood or miscommunicated previously, in the case of JV I believe that he should be removed from society for life.

I know, very loosely, two guys that have been convicted of murder, they drink in a local pub.  Both men are now in their later years and both were convicted in their late 20s.  In the case of both it was drink related violence, one of them used a pickaxe shaft to beat up a guy who roughed up his girlfriend and obviously killed him.  The other fella was related to a gang rivalry and in a fight beat a guy to death.

In their youth both guys admit they were always in or around trouble, they both came from a background where their parents were always in or around trouble and they both grew up in a rough part of town.  It was likely inevitable that they would have ended up in jail at some point for petty crime, but for both their first and only jail sentence was for murder.  Both men came out in their 40s and both managed to find work, neither of them have committed any further offence and post sentence they both contributed back to society.

It just so happens that there are 2 guys who drink in that bar with that background, but there will be people with similar stories the length and breadth of the land.

For these fellas they were rehabilitated, it was purely social conditioning that led to their criminal behaviour and whilst both were obviously no angels neither were they predisposed to being monsters.

The point of that ramble is that the severity of the crime is perhaps not enough in itself to determine whether rehabilitation is a good or bad option, but I do think that we absolutely have to recognise that for some it simply is not an option.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, this is a very interesting topic.

I know of a couple (friends of the wife) who adopted a child under 9 months of age; father ended up long term in prison with a violent streak a mile wide, serious anger management issues and which culminated in him nearly killing his wife the maternal mother, hence social services and the adoption.

Now then, scroll on a few years and this child (now in school) is off the scale angry, violent and generally malevolent. The child cannot be left alone with any other child or even siblings. 

I’d bet anyone that this child will end up doing something heinous in years to come - it’s just in him/her or rather part of him/her.

You talk to old country boys and farmers about bad seeds, genetics and ‘traits’ in animals and they “just know”.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Vince Green said:

No definitely not, autism (for example) can totally remove a lot of social skills and right and wrong are just concepts not functions of the brain. 

social skills are learned and are not something we have been gifted, so can't be removed. Facial expressions that are misread, taking things literally etc. are the traits of mid spectrum people and have to be learned. Most of the ASD young people I know have very rigid rules of right and wrong, which can be a minefield. We had a very interesting conversation about a hypothetical situation where a woman has cancer and her husband cannot afford the new wonder drug that a chemist invented. It was sold at 1000 times the price to manufacture. The questions posed are; is it right for the man to ask the chemist to sell it at cost? To steal it (either totally steal or leaving money to cover the cost price)? Is it ethical for the chemist to sell at such a mark up? Some found it too much, others understood it was hypothetical, however things like this help them to critically engage with the world and to see somethings are grey not B&W.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Gordon R said:

I have to say that I cannot agree with the range of options. One is not going to happen, the third makes the chemist seem like a villain and the second is stealing. These are not grey area questions, they are very black and white - even extreme.

I would disagree.

1. It is absolutely right for the man to ask the drugs to be sold at cost, although the pharmacist may not agree to do that, but it is right to ask.

2. Stealing is wrong, but is the penalty for theft worth the sacrifice to spare his wife's life? It is a accepting that sometimes in life we have to make choices based on a value decision, often taking the least worse option, but when none of the choices are particularly desirable.

3. The ethics of the last are incredibly complex and grey, the pharmacist may well be a villain and being highly exploitative, or he could just commercially astute and recognising he has a product people will pay handsomely for, but if he holds out for the top dollar price then he has to accept he is effectively pricing some people out of life.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, grrclark said:

 

 

 

So back to Oppenheimer, born with the right wiring for science genius  or a lack of humanity such that he could invent the most destructive and indiscriminatory  weapon ever conceived?

 

As you said, he had a crisis of conscience. He was a genius but may have thought that having the biggest weapons would then stop wars altogether, but when you open Pandora's box...

If he had intended to use it to control or manipulate others to his own end then yes evil, but I don't think he was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, grrclark said:

2. Stealing is wrong, but is the penalty for theft worth the sacrifice to spare his wife's life? It is a accepting that sometimes in life we have to make choices based on a value decision, often taking the least worse option, but when none of the choices are particularly desirable.

But this choice wouldn't simply be a case of shoplifting, these drugs wouldn't be off the shelf.

So not just a simple case of theft. A more likely scenario would be a violent robbery, probably with the assailant being armed, with a high likelihood of someone being seriously injured or killed.

Is destroying/taking someone else's life to possibly save your wife from an illness ever justifiable?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, grrclark said:

It is a good question and one definitely well worth asking.

I absolutely agree that there are some people who are wired up such that they are not suitable to live in regular society, that can be as much about their propensity to do harm to themselves as well as others, whether with malicious intent or not.

As I mentioned earlier, me saying that I believe people are born evil does need to be qualified, there are a multitude of factors that will influence what the final outcome for that person will be.  IG used better words when he said some people are born with a predisposition to being evil.

I don't think every wrong un is born that way, i think the majority of problems is really due to social and behavioural conditioning and those folk deserve the opportunity of rehabilitation, I think that serves us better as a society than adopting a purely penal approach.  Even in the case of some serious offences.

In the case of those where there is something in their wiring that suggests they cannot be rehabilitated because they just don't have the necessary mental capacity for that then I absolutely would favour adopting a much more precautionary approach where we must assume they are a continual risk and remove them from society.  In case it was misunderstood or miscommunicated previously, in the case of JV I believe that he should be removed from society for life.

I know, very loosely, two guys that have been convicted of murder, they drink in a local pub.  Both men are now in their later years and both were convicted in their late 20s.  In the case of both it was drink related violence, one of them used a pickaxe shaft to beat up a guy who roughed up his girlfriend and obviously killed him.  The other fella was related to a gang rivalry and in a fight beat a guy to death.

In their youth both guys admit they were always in or around trouble, they both came from a background where their parents were always in or around trouble and they both grew up in a rough part of town.  It was likely inevitable that they would have ended up in jail at some point for petty crime, but for both their first and only jail sentence was for murder.  Both men came out in their 40s and both managed to find work, neither of them have committed any further offence and post sentence they both contributed back to society.

It just so happens that there are 2 guys who drink in that bar with that background, but there will be people with similar stories the length and breadth of the land.

For these fellas they were rehabilitated, it was purely social conditioning that led to their criminal behaviour and whilst both were obviously no angels neither were they predisposed to being monsters.

The point of that ramble is that the severity of the crime is perhaps not enough in itself to determine whether rehabilitation is a good or bad option, but I do think that we absolutely have to recognise that for some it simply is not an option.

 

 

Really appreciate the thougher reply, thank you.

Your view actually seems to mirror mine in many ways. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure what to think really. I know plenty of violent folk who came from violent families; my OH's step brother for example, whose Mother is a very good example of what could be described as evil. He was adopted by my OH's parents at a very young age and has had a perfectly normal ( with a slightly higher standard of living than most ) upbringing, but has always shown a seemingly uncontrollable willingness for violence. He has grown into an adult who has sired countless kids to countless women; all of whom he's knocked about. He has little contact with his adoptive parents. 

He seems to be able to function ok while things are going well, but reverts to violence when not. His mother was simply violent all time; I have no knowledge of her upbringing.

I can't say I believe anyone is born evil, but I do believe that people with a predilection for evil, never change. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Scully said:

 

 

I can't say I believe anyone is born evil, but I do believe that people with a predilection for evil, never change. 

I know of quite a few, one was the most violent prisoner in Scotland as a teenager, another who looked like Smithers from the simpsons yet beat people to pulp unless dragged off by many people, both now are model citizens. I work with a young man who was very similar, 9 stone wringing wet but given the wrong stimuli he goes all Hulk and has had to be restrained by half a dozen cops, hes almost there but it has taken several years and many different agencies.

 


 

9 minutes ago, matone said:

Dont need proof ,it`s an age old adage ,no doubt born from long experience !

Another one for the corner?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, henry d said:

I know of quite a few, one was the most violent prisoner in Scotland as a teenager, another who looked like Smithers from the simpsons yet beat people to pulp unless dragged off by many people, both now are model citizens. I work with a young man who was very similar, 9 stone wringing wet but given the wrong stimuli he goes all Hulk and has had to be restrained by half a dozen cops, hes almost there but it has taken several years and many different agencies.

 


 

 

I believe peoples circumstances change, ( but not their character ) which can have an effect on peoples behaviour.  Remove those circumstances and the original traits prevail. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Newbie to this said:

But this choice wouldn't simply be a case of shoplifting, these drugs wouldn't be off the shelf.

So not just a simple case of theft. A more likely scenario would be a violent robbery, probably with the assailant being armed, with a high likelihood of someone being seriously injured or killed.

Is destroying/taking someone else's life to possibly save your wife from an illness ever justifiable?

Haha some huge leaps of assumption beyond the original question.

A big philosophical question, answer is both yes and no, but not going to drag Henry's thread off topic.

Edited by grrclark
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the biggest indicators for those who will go to jail is having a farther who has also been to jail, look at rough areas or council estates, it usually follows rough family's continue to have problem children, I think there is little doubt most offending, particularly lower level, is upbringing more than being born bad, another example (bit of a stretch but I think still relevant) if you take a puppy away from it's litter too early I.e at 6 weeks it's likely to have behavioural issues, which proves in dogs, that there social boundaies are established very young, now, I have no evidence for this next bit, but, extrapolate that out to humans and I'm sure our social behaviour is probably established very young to, obviously far longer than a dog but if a child is bought up by abusive parents and removed at say 4 i bet you could still have issues with some, even into later life. It is also well known that the earlier you intervene with offenders, the better the chance of success for long term change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

One of the biggest indicators for those who will go to jail is having a farther who has also been to jail, look at rough areas or council estates, it usually follows rough family's continue to have problem children, I think there is little doubt most offending, particularly lower level, is upbringing more than being born bad, another example (bit of a stretch but I think still relevant) if you take a puppy away from it's litter too early I.e at 6 weeks it's likely to have behavioural issues, which proves in dogs, that there social boundaies are established very young, now, I have no evidence for this next bit, but, extrapolate that out to humans and I'm sure our social behaviour is probably established very young to, obviously far longer than a dog but if a child is bought up by abusive parents and removed at say 4 i bet you could still have issues with some, even into later life. It is also well known that the earlier you intervene with offenders, the better the chance of success for long term change.

 

You might be on to something there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Gordon R said:

Nothing to disagree with there, but Mungler's example was under 9 months old.

I suppose the question is whether something like that could ever be fixed. And moreover, say it costs £1m to rehabilitate in resources; wouldn’t those resources be better spent on...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, grrclark said:

Haha some huge leaps of assumption beyond the original question.

A big philosophical question, answer is both yes and no, but not going to drag Henry's thread off topic.

I'd like to hear your take on how this 'theft' would occur!

I put myself in the shoes of the pharmacist, and I would just push the panic button if an unarmed person came in demanding I hand over prescription drugs, the Police would be quick to respond.

I also put myself in the desperate husband's shoes, and being willing to do what it takes, knowing these drugs wouldn't be on the shelf, if I was to go down that route, I can't see anyway it would work without the threat of violence or actual violence.

I hope you see how I came to the conclusion that I did, crimes with threats of violence normally end up with someone getting hurt or worse!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...