Question for Caleb

[Kat Kanning]

I don't believe in evil people. Only evil actions.

I was curious why you think this? 

[ReverendRyan]

I would define an evil act as something which is harmful, intentional, and driven by a perceived benefit. That makes only actions, not people, fit under it.

You can apply the same reasoning to someone who lies. Does that make the person a liar? When pertaining to that particular act, yes. But theres no such thing as an inherent liar.

It's impossible to call a person inherently evil because the entire concept of "evil" is subjective. Look at the bible. The vast majority of biblical characters would be considered evil today. In that book god's very definition of what is good and what is evil changes from time to time.

[Kat Kanning]

Err, have you changed your name to Caleb?

[Caleb]

 

Ok, the reason I don't believe in evil people. One, because I've seen people "change", and I don't think change is possible if a person is evil. So that must mean that the evil they were doing was caused by something else.

I've noticed that what people believe has a lot to do with their actions.

I think that it is divisive to view people as evil, because that gives us an excuse to harm them. We can view them as subhuman, and in that way end up corrupting ourselves.

I've never met a person who, when told he is evil, says, "Yes, I know. But that's ok. It's who I am." They always try to justify themselves, showing that they need a rationale to do evil things; usually, that rationale is that they are stopping someone who is evil.

Just a few reasons. Most of those are "reasons", but I'm honest enough to admit that it isn't really completely a reasoned position. I've probably looked for reasons to justify what I want to believe.

[kola]

you've never met or experienced "lifers" i prisons...or read about serial killers.

these guys kill without remorse and get excited by it.

evil as all hell.

kola

[ReverendRyan]

you've never met or experienced "lifers" i prisons...or read about serial killers.

these guys kill without remorse and get excited by it.

evil as all hell.

kola

Most "lifers" are in for non-violent offenses.
Most serial killers are insane to one degree or another.

[Caleb]

Gotta agree with His Holiness on this one.

I remember a comedian who did a little bit on Jeffrey Dahmer. He said something like, "Now, he's pleading that he's insane. Can you believe that? <pause> OF COURSE HE'S INSANE!  He shouldn't even have to argue that. I say we set a rule: If you eat more than, oh ... let's go with four people, if you eat more than four people, you're automatically crazy." 

[kola]

Most "lifers" are in for non-violent offenses.

most? what percentage? any proof?


and Caleb,,are you saying serial killers are not evil? how about the pedephile who abuses your child?

[dalebert]

If you eat more than, oh ... let's go with four people, if you eat more than four people, you're automatically crazy." 

I don't know. Six maybe, but four... seems to be kinda picking nits.

[Caleb]

I apologize in advance for this ...

If you are even close to a decent human being, you should probably not click on this link:  http://www.calebjohnson.org/crawlspaces.mp3

[Caleb]

Most "lifers" are in for non-violent offenses.

most? what percentage? any proof?


and Caleb,,are you saying serial killers are not evil? how about the pedephile who abuses your child?

Once again, I think you are going with people are are suffering from some deranged thinking, but that doesn't make them "evil". It means they are capable of doing great evil.

I believe in free will. I don't subscribe to deterministic creeds, whether they be scientific or religious. If you believe that a person can be evil, it seems to me that you are saying that there are some people who are predestined to always choose evil ends and means, or that if they do choose a good path on a rare occasion, that good path must be some accident where they were trying to do something evil and failed or else that good deed must be serving some ultimate evil purpose.

I don't believe in evil people. Or good people, for that matter. There are people. And those people are faced with choices, and when they make choices, those choices could be described as good and evil choices. But to say that someone is "good" or "evil" to me means that is how they have to be, they can't be other than that, which I see as deterministic.

[Jacobus]

I don't think that what we do defines who we are.  As a result, I agree with Caleb; no one is inherently evil or good.  Consider the thought experiment where a serial killer is brought up in a completely different environment.  For example, take baby Dahmer and pretend that he is adopted by some other family.  Does he still grow up to become a serial killer?  I suspect not.  Maybe he even leads a "good" life.  So which is the real Jeffrey Dahmer?

This sort of thought experiment is one reason I like pacifism.  I think of what my beliefs might be if I had been raised in a different environment, and how I would just as likely cling to those beliefs and believe it right to defend them with violence.  So then, whose beliefs are the "right" ones?  The Jacob whose beliefs I have now, or some other Jacob that could have been if for different circumstances and experiences?  One does not even need to go to such an extreme thought experiment, as beliefs change over time.

If I believe it right to defend my beliefs with force, and my beliefs change over time, I cannot even be at peace with myself.

So maybe I shouldn't be too attached to what I believe is right, and certainly I shouldn't think that I ought to use force to defend it.

[David]

I subscribe to the theory that there isn't much difference between the 'crazy' and the 'normal'.  Everyone has impulses that they would rather not tell others.  The 'crazy' just choose not to stifle them.  I believe that peoples thoughts and feelings are genetic, but that they can be pushed, or nudged in one direction or another based on experience. 
It is the behavior that is bad, because that is what effects the person, not the thoughts.  If Dalmer had written about eating people, rather than actually doing it, he would still have been crazy, but not bad in terms of behavior. 
Sorry I am not Caleb, but good question Kat.

[MaineShark]

I don't think that what we do defines who we are.  As a result, I agree with Caleb; no one is inherently evil or good.  Consider the thought experiment where a serial killer is brought up in a completely different environment.  For example, take baby Dahmer and pretend that he is adopted by some other family.  Does he still grow up to become a serial killer?  I suspect not.  Maybe he even leads a "good" life.  So which is the real Jeffrey Dahmer?

Nature versus nurture... ignores free will.

Neither nature nor nurture controls who you are.  Both have influence, but free will is a third (and more important) part of the equation.

Jeffrey Dahmer chose to become a serial killer.  No one made him do it, by how he was raised.  No genetics made him do it, either.  Either of this things may have had an influence on him, but the ultimate choice was his to make.

If you harm someone, you are obligated to repair the damage you did, or repair the person to an equivalent state.  If you do so, congratulations... clean slate.  You made a mistake, and you repaired the damage.  For things like that, it makes sense to talk about someone changing and "giving up their evil ways" or somesuch.

If you do irrevocable harm (eg, murder someone), then there is no way to repair what you did.  It does not make sense to talk about change, in that regard.  You can never "change" enough to "rewind" history and change your acts.  No amount of personal change can ever undo your evil, in that case.

If I believe it right to defend my beliefs with force, and my beliefs change over time, I cannot even be at peace with myself.

You don't have the right to defend your beliefs with force.

You only have the right to defend yourself (or others) with force.  Whether you choose to exercise that right or not is your choice to make.  But it is not a right that changes based upon your beliefs.

Joe

[kola]

Jacobus and Caleb. you guys raised good points. Thanks.

Joey, sorry, I didn't bother to read your drivel.

Kola