Born evil?

[grrclark]

4 minutes ago, Newbie to this said:

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!

You are desperately over thinking a potential scenario and in so doing missing the point of the question itself.  It is a hypothetical question of relative morality and not a consideration of how such a theft could be perpetrated or otherwise.

Take away the scenario of a chemist and drugs, the question simply asks is saving or prolonging someone's life worth committing a crime for?

[Gordon R]

Quote

 

You are desperately over thinking a potential scenario and in so doing missing the point of the question itself.  It is a hypothetical question of relative morality and not a consideration of how such a theft could be perpetrated or otherwise.

Take away the scenario of a chemist and drugs, the question simply asks is saving or prolonging someone's life worth committing a crime for?

 

Perhaps we are over thinking this because they were very ill chosen options, in an ill chosen scenario, slanted towards doing something illegal. Had it been a simple choice - save / prolong a life by stealing a banana from a greengrocer - I think many would opt for the banana.

The question is not simple, because it would involve knowing the certainty of death, how long a long might be prolonged and the level of the crime.

 

[Newbie to this]

7 hours ago, henry d said:

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.

 

7 hours ago, grrclark said:

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.

 

 

6 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?

 

3 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.

 

47 minutes ago, Newbie to this said:

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!

 

30 minutes ago, grrclark said:

You are desperately over thinking a potential scenario and in so doing missing the point of the question itself.  It is a hypothetical question of relative morality and not a consideration of how such a theft could be perpetrated or otherwise.

Take away the scenario of a chemist and drugs, the question simply asks is saving or prolonging someone's life worth committing a crime for?

The question is asked in the scenario of a chemist and a drug that cures!

I don't think I have 'desperately' over thought anything, I feel that I have looked at the scenario put in front of me and weighed up the options. None are GOOD!

You made a statement that I made "Huge leaps of assumptions beyond the original question" I don't think I did but asked you how you would go about the theft, so you could point out where I was making 'huge leaps of assumption'.

And I still feel that my question is completely valid in the context of the scenario!

Especially when you make a statement like this -

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.

Edited February 16, 2018 by Newbie to this

[grrclark]

10 minutes ago, Newbie to this said:

The question is asked in the scenario of a chemist and a drug that cures!

I don't think I have 'desperately' over thought anything, I feel that I have looked at the scenario put in front of me and weighed up the options. None are GOOD!

You made a statement that I made "Huge leaps of assumptions beyond the original question" I don't think I did but asked you how you would go about the theft, so you could point out where I was making 'huge leaps of assumption'.

And I still feel that my question is completely valid in the context of the scenario!

Especially when you make a statement like this -

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.

OK, why you have over thought the question and with a bit of pseudo science thrown into the mix as well, because it is really quite fascinating, or at least I think it is.

You constructed a single scenario that involved violence and threat with menace and used that as a justification for your argument.  A 100% contrived scenario to arrive at a specific pre formed conclusion.  This is known as "Backward Induction".  You also demonstrated "Convergent Thinking" by using your pre-determined scenario in order to arrive at an outcome to the question.

As it is an entirely hypothetical question the theft of the wonder drugs could be in a multitude of forms and also doesn't have to conform to any particular reality, it is hypothetical and that is "Speculative Reasoning".

But for the purpose of example  an entirely contrary scenario is perhaps someone else had a prescription issued for the same drug, popped the box into an open topped bag and the desperate husband, who was waiting in the pharmacy to plead for cheap drugs, took advantage of 100% opportunism and seized his chance to act as a pick pocket and lift them out the bag.  Ta da, wonder drug now secured, no threats of violence, the theft undiscovered until the other unlucky victim gets home and his wife goes on to live a happy and healthy life.

Or another scenario, the chemist had prepared the prescription and put it down on the counter to write out labels, the phone rang and he turned his back for a moment, at this point the distraught husband who was all set to plead with the chemist for a cut price deal seized the opportunity to grab the wonder drug off the counter and make a run for it.  Once again no threats of violence, just pure opportunism and again a happy and healthy wife.

Using multiple constructed theories to derive at a conclusion is known as "Divergent Thinking"

Of course all of the above scenarios are overthinking because they all miss the point entirely, the question is really a very simple one; is doing something "wrong" ever justified in a given context?  This is known as "Motivated Reasoning"

As Henry pointed out, it is a question that is designed to establish someones understanding of what may constitute right and wrong, how their process of thinking and reasoning works in making ethical decisions.

What is fascinating however is seeing how various people on this thread have both interpreted and reacted to the question.  What it does perfectly highlight is the differing thought processes that people adopt, there is a science to "thinking".

As a final bit of rather dull geekery this entire post is an example of "Metacognition" which is thinking about thinking.

Sorry for the thread drift Henry.

[Newbie to this]

7 hours ago, grrclark said:

OK, why you have over thought the question and with a bit of pseudo science thrown into the mix as well, because it is really quite fascinating, or at least I think it is.

You constructed a single scenario that involved violence and threat with menace and used that as a justification for your argument.  A 100% contrived scenario to arrive at a specific pre formed conclusion.  This is known as "Backward Induction".  You also demonstrated "Convergent Thinking" by using your pre-determined scenario in order to arrive at an outcome to the question.

As it is an entirely hypothetical question the theft of the wonder drugs could be in a multitude of forms and also doesn't have to conform to any particular reality, it is hypothetical and that is "Speculative Reasoning".

But for the purpose of example  an entirely contrary scenario is perhaps someone else had a prescription issued for the same drug, popped the box into an open topped bag and the desperate husband, who was waiting in the pharmacy to plead for cheap drugs, took advantage of 100% opportunism and seized his chance to act as a pick pocket and lift them out the bag.  Ta da, wonder drug now secured, no threats of violence, the theft undiscovered until the other unlucky victim gets home and his wife goes on to live a happy and healthy life.

Or another scenario, the chemist had prepared the prescription and put it down on the counter to write out labels, the phone rang and he turned his back for a moment, at this point the distraught husband who was all set to plead with the chemist for a cut price deal seized the opportunity to grab the wonder drug off the counter and make a run for it.  Once again no threats of violence, just pure opportunism and again a happy and healthy wife.

Using multiple constructed theories to derive at a conclusion is known as "Divergent Thinking"

Of course all of the above scenarios are overthinking because they all miss the point entirely, the question is really a very simple one; is doing something "wrong" ever justified in a given context?  This is known as "Motivated Reasoning"

As Henry pointed out, it is a question that is designed to establish someones understanding of what may constitute right and wrong, how their process of thinking and reasoning works in making ethical decisions.

What is fascinating however is seeing how various people on this thread have both interpreted and reacted to the question.  What it does perfectly highlight is the differing thought processes that people adopt, there is a science to "thinking".

As a final bit of rather dull geekery this entire post is an example of "Metacognition" which is thinking about thinking.

Sorry for the thread drift Henry.

I'm afraid we are going to have to agree to disagree.

Your scenarios are makeing huge leaps of assumption, certainly more than my scenario did. Also your pick pocketing scenario puts someone else's life at risk.

Maybe I did over think the question, but I personally wouldn't take any decision to break the law without first thoroughly thinking about the worst possible outcome, that's how I came to my final question. Which weighing it up with all good conscience (and no dying wife) my answer is no it wouldn't be acceptable to steal these drugs unless there was a 100% guarantee of no violence.

Maybe I went straight to a violent scenario, because I was born slightly evil

We both interpreted the question differently, but isn't that what the question is designed to do!

Edited February 16, 2018 by Newbie to this
Bad spelling

[Mungler]

You are actually now agreeing with everything he said - it’s not a bad thing because he’s right.

And besides, I would design a contrived Italien Job / Oceans 11’esque scheme to acquire the wonder drug (indeed, I may start by stealing it off GRRClark as he gets home having just successfully [so he thought] stolen it from the pharmacy, and here would be some plot twists and turns) but ultimately I would acquire the wonderdrug and live like a King from the Royalties to the book I’d write about it.

Edited February 16, 2018 by Mungler

[Newbie to this]

1 minute ago, Mungler said:

You are actually now agreeing with everything he said - it’s not a bad thing because he’s right.

I don’t see how

[henry d]

8 hours ago, grrclark said:

OK, why you have over thought the question...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sorry for the thread drift Henry.

Not a problem, thoroughly enjoyed that ?

[grrclark]

42 minutes ago, Newbie to this said:

I'm afraid we are going to have to agree to disagree.

Your scenarios are makeing huge leaps of assumption, certainly more than my scenario did. Also your pick pocketing scenario puts someone else's life at risk.

Maybe I did over think the question, but I personally wouldn't take any decision to break the law without first thoroughly thinking about the worst possible outcome, that's how I came to my final question. Which weighing it up with all good conscience (and no dying wife) my answer is no it wouldn't be acceptable to steal these drugs unless there was a 100% guarantee of no violence.

Maybe I went straight to a violent scenario, because I was born slightly evil

We both interpreted the question differently, but isn't that what the question is designed to do!

It is absolutely designed to make you think about moral and ethical choices and also understand how we arrive at those choices.

A great and real example of a similar dilemma happened in the recent Las Vegas shooting incident, in order to get victims to hospital a guy who was there stole a pickup truck to put some of the injured in and drove them to hospital himself.  So consciously making himself a thief in order to try and save a life.  

Of course in so doing he may have unwittingly denied the owner of the pickup an opportunity to escape or ferry his own wounded family to hospital, or potentially risk being shot by the truck owner/police forces for stealing the truck.

What would you have done in that situation?

The scenario is of course different, but the ethical and moral dilemma is the very same.

 

[henry d]

Thanks everyone for the input, very informative

[old man]

On 15/02/2018 at 13:05, Mungler said:

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”.

Just Evolution in action?

[Zapp]

So here is quite a compelling case for someone who shows signs of being "evil" but without the usually attendant damaged or chaotic upbringing etc.

Born into privilege and raised in a stable family, educated and with every comfort and opportunity life could afford him.  Yet he chose to commit acts of sheer wanton destruction and cruelty for nothing more than amusement and sexual satisfaction.

I'm still less convinced by the black and white notions of good and evil, but here is a man clearly predisposed to be an extremely dangerous, manipulative and harmfull individual. 

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/news.sky.com/story/amp/dark-web-paedophile-matthew-falder-jailed-for-32-years-11257478

[Duckandswing]

Now Mathew Falder I would hang without a moments hesitation.

[silver pigeon69]

3 minutes ago, Duckandswing said:

Now Mathew Falder I would hang without a moments hesitation.

At first i thought the same as you, but then i thought maybe 30 odd years in prison, in solitary ( i would imagine), fearing for your life every minute of every day may be a better punishment?

[Newbie to this]

6 hours ago, silver pigeon69 said:

At first i thought the same as you, but then i thought maybe 30 odd years in prison, in solitary ( i would imagine), fearing for your life every minute of every day may be a better punishment?

But he'd only fear for his life if he was in general population, not in solitary. I don’t think prisons should segregate prisoners, prison should be a society. Prove you can live in this society or you will never be released. Prisoners have it way too easy!

[old man]

Evolution in action is the only logical answer to me, because only it can provide the means and triggers?

[henry d]

1 hour ago, old man said:

Evolution in action is the only logical answer to me, because only it can provide the means and triggers?

Care to expand?

[old man]

Personally can't see any other answer, it's how we have all arrived where we are as species?

Physical and mental responses constantly changing to seek some form of betterment and adaption, not always successful?

Maybe?

[henry d]

On 19/02/2018 at 11:16, old man said:

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”.

Just to give context; the above is Mungler`s interesting quote. Some of it I think might be right, but I think the (bad) nurturing of the child had something to do with it too.

On 20/02/2018 at 07:03, old man said:

Evolution in action is the only logical answer to me, because only it can provide the means and triggers?

This, if I get what you are saying doesn`t siit right. The reasons are we would have got rid of all the bad uns in the past as we swung them from the gallows, end of their ability to pass on bad genes (see also Munglers quote). Also means and triggers are external stimuli, only a genetic tendancy towards evil can provide the initial means to be evil.

12 hours ago, old man said:

1 - Personally can't see any other answer, it's how we have all arrived where we are as species?

2 - Physical and mental responses constantly changing to seek some form of betterment and adaption, not always successful?

Maybe?

1 - Not sure? If we adapt to certain things to allow us, as a species, to pass on our genetic material and to survive better in our environment; then what makes evilness a trait that helps us in this way? If you are evil to a potential mate, then it isn`t going to happen, if you attack your nearest village/tribe/neighbour, then you better be a bigger and better armed person than they are or you end up dead/debilitated and not able to pass on your genes and if you are successful then as a person you have survived better but as a race you have not.

2 - I don`t think physical responses are anything to do with evilness, however the majority of mental responses have to be conditioned, the ones we seem to have as an infant are to react to stimuli. Take feeding as an example, the infant has a pain in its stomach as there is no food there (hunger) it responds by crying, the mothers instinct is to attend to its needs and she uses deduction to eventually find out that it is hungry. The child is fed and all is well, and has learned that if it feels W it does X it gets Y. The brain has neural pathways that connect in a logical pattern and that is how we learn, if the pathway does not get used then the path gets "overgrown" and another different path may be used to get a different response. I saw this with my mothers dementia, she ate little as she was forgetful about her surroundings and her food got cold, so she didn`t eat much, her stomach shrank, she then couldn`t eat much anyway and eventually she lost lots of weight and eventually succomed to a lung infection that happily took her quite quickly. Her neural pathways were changed and her environment was changed which all had an effect on her physical being.

I need to go to work but will come back to this later, ta ta!

[old man]

In short, as must pop off. 

Not sure that any species has much if any control over evolutionary pathways?

Certainly we all seem to be subject to something at all levels such as addiction, empathy etc, the list being endless?

Getting interesting now?

Edited February 21, 2018 by old man

[Flashman]

Some science on the subject - from the Daily Telegraph in 2014:

"Scientists believe they’ve identified the genes responsible for high levels of rage and violence – does that make some men evil from birth?

There are many theories about why humans commit unspeakable evil, but none of them are particularly comforting. If the childhoods of serial killers are filled with abuse and hardship, then they can appear to be victims of painful circumstances. But if society isn’t to blame at all – if murderers have charming upbringings and little to complain about – then could they be born evil?

Scientists in Sweden have analysed criminals who commit the most serious crimes, and believe they have identified the genes that contribute towards violence. The discovery suggests that acts of evil aren’t terrifyingly inhumane, but all too human.

We could all commit evil

Brian Masters, who has written biographies of several mass murderers including Rosemary West and Dennis Nilsen, says that every human being has the capacity to commit wicked acts. The purpose of society is to curtail evil and without that influence – such as in Nazi Germany, where mass murder was encouraged – every human could commit terrible deeds.

“It’s one of the most terrifying thoughts I’ve ever encountered and I think about it year after year,” says Masters. “Whereas I am an equitable soul and would never raise my fist in anger or try to do something that is harmful to another person, I have to admit in total sanity and intellectual honesty that I could. I’m so grateful to live in a country where that is unlikely.”

The early signs of murderous intent

But although all of us could do terrible things under the right circumstances, some are more likely to do so than others. Masters says that those who are likely to commit murder usually show early symptoms in their childhood.

“The man who is addicted to murder didn’t wake up before breakfast and think, ‘ooh, I’m going to start murdering people’. The frustrations in his personality were there all his life and they grow and fester,” says Masters. Whether or not you’re going to do something dreadful is usually apparent before the age of five. Long before he kills somebody, he will exhibit behaviours that show he’s capable of it.”

Genetic links to psychopathy

Essi Viding, professor of developmental psychopathology at University College London, says that nobody’s born a killer, but that there are individual differences that affect the likelihood of developing murderous traits.

Although most children become distressed when those around them are unhappy, some are less reactive to others’ emotions. “This is what psychologists call emotional contagion,” says Viding. “We think it’s one of the early markers of how readily you develop empathy.” A lack of empathy is one of the key signs of psychopathy, and increases the likelihood of committing harmful crimes.

But Viding, who focuses on the neurobiological basis of psychopathy, says parents and teachers have a strong effect on a child’s mental trajectory. Growing up in a cold, mercenary environment is likely to make a child less empathetic, while a positive teacher who rewards good behaviour can help a child react appropriately to others’ suffering.

“Even juvenile delinquents who have high levels of these traits can benefit from therapeutic interventions so it doesn’t mean that if you have these traits that you’re somehow predestined to become a psychopath,” she says. “I really believe that there’s no such thing as someone born evil. At the same time it would be unrealistic to say there aren’t individual differences in how prone someone is to becoming evil.”

A combination of nature and nurture

Simon Baron-Cohen, professor of development psychopathology at Cambridge University and author of Zero Degrees of Empathy, says that human behaviour is never more than 50 per cent determined by genetics. Although one version of a MAOA gene increases the likelihood of committing anti-social behaviour, Baron-Cohen says no gene will inevitably lead to psychopathic behaviour.

“If you look at the history of people committing anti-social acts, breaking the law and hurting other people, there are strong environmental factors that predict that,” says Baron-Cohen. “Growing up in an environment of criminality is one big factor, as is early neglect and abuse – those purely emotional factors.”

Understanding evil

Most people shy away from trying to understand those who commit evil, and worry that comprehension can lead to empathy for those who are guilty of terrible crime. But Masters stresses that, while understanding evil is important, we should never start to pity the psychopathic murderers among us.

Someone who commits murder doesn’t do so just because his parents treated him badly. A lot of peoples parents behave badly but the children don’t turn into killers. Is it because he lives in a violent society where it doesn’t seem to matter so much? No, because he has a capacity to be different, he can choose to go along with the violent society or fight against it. Is it because of a psychological disorder? No, that’s another excuse.

But if all these things are combined – if you’re badly treated as a child, if you grow up in a violent society, if you’ve got a psychological disorder - then you don’t stand a chance. Then the murderer is himself a victim. But that doesn’t mean you feel sorry for him. It means you have attempted to explain very wicked, abhorrent behaviour."

Whether men are motivated by nature or nurture, we cannot ignore the evil that exists in the world. We may flinch from understanding evil, but it’s our moral duty to do so."

[grrclark]

That's a great post Flashman and whilst it asks as many questions as provides answers I think the statement by Professor Essi Viding “I really believe that there’s no such thing as someone born evil. At the same time it would be unrealistic to say there aren’t individual differences in how prone someone is to becoming evil.” is the most telling

Some are likely born with a predisposition where it is easier to adopt evil behaviour.

[henry d]

It is a good piece, however having a trawl about there is not a lot of academic work on this subject, and Brian Masters is deffo not an academic.

This from CNN is interesting, and is backed by scientific method, and it seems to point to an inbuilt sense of right and wrong in infants and seems to confirm that some people are predisposed to become more evil as time passes and learning increases.

[Scully]

It is indeed an interesting topic. I’ve read many accounts of people who grew up to commit all manner of evil acts; some of whom it was unsurprising given their upbringing; but there are possibly many cases to the contrary which don’t see the light of day due to the fact they have led unremarkable lives.

What I did find fascinating was the astonishing acts of evil carried out after Hitler rose to power ; often from one neighbour to another, and friends whom up until that point had mixed seemingly quite happily with each other. 

Inbred subconscious indoctrination? 

[old man]

41 minutes ago, Scully said:

It is indeed an interesting topic. 

What I did find fascinating was the astonishing acts of evil carried out after Hitler rose to power ; often from one neighbour to another, and friends whom up until that point had mixed seemingly quite happily with each other. 

Inbred subconscious indoctrination? 

Maybe another strand of evolution sparking up once the brakes are off?