Are Some Children Just Born Evil? (1 Viewer)

[mylan]

My wife and I are not able to conceive naturally and the idea of adoption comes up sometimes. She is a nurse at a mental health hospital and has seen firsthand what can happen to a child that has parents with substance abuse problems or has mental issues such as bi-polarism. There is the story of the cute, blond five year old girl who was adopted by a Baptist minister and his wife who has tried to kill the cat and done terrible things to the parents. This has, so far, deterred us from this. It's a shame, there are many loving children who need a home but knowing us, we would get one of the kids from "Children Of The Corn".

 

[JoeyR]

Its not necessarily that they are born evil, every person has free will, but how and what the parents have done has a lot to do if that person is blessed or cursed.

If you have the time to read a short book get The Ancient Paths by Craig Hill, it gives all the answers to the matters that you are talking about.

 

[Robert_Gaither]

The problem with this is that there are about 6 billion of us on the planet and at any given second approximately 190 people are either being born or dying. If the others that were born that particular second were doing likewise then I could see a point but I bet if compare their childhood environment we'd see a source that may explain why they may have become what they did.

 

[MarkHastings]

Me too, that's what I mentioned earlier, but I don't think it's necessarily 'evil', but more so human-nature and instinct. It's just the fact that we've become 'civilized' is when our instinctive/human nature acts become 'evil'.

Like I said about that "killer instinct". It's not evil, but it's unecessary in a civilized world, so it becomes an evil thing.

So in retrospect, we are born evil, but only because we are born to survive an uncivilized world.

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

About the Unsolved Mysteries segment, yeah, it was just something I saw and wanted to mention, like I said I don't know if I beleive any of that stuff or not, never been into signs and all that.

As for my position on human nature in general, I agree that human kind is more on the evil side than any other species on this planet, in fact, i've always beleived, albeit secretly, that we aren't even the highest form of beings on this planet.

Sure, we may be the most intelligent but so what, we are the only species that murder and victimize others for fun, fight wars, consume artificial stimuli (drugs, alchohol), starve others because of greed or because we just simply don't care, we destroy everything we touch, the environment, drive countless species to extinction for nothing and create devices with the sole purpose of causing nothing but harm and death, all in the name of progress or safety.

If there is a God, he had better get here quick because at the moment, the Devil is clearly winning. This is the first time i've ever made public my feelings on this and I don't know how many will agree, but there ya' have it.

 

[Dome Vongvises]

Somebody had to say it.

 

[Ron C]

I believe there are some kids that are just "born evil", due to mal-development in the brain (just like some kids are born “retarded”_. I'd like to believe everyone starts from a "clean slate", but there are just some factors that we can not get around. For example, if a child is born "retarded", there is very little that can be done. Personally I've been born with a genetically inherited condition which I have to live with; no amount of “conditioning” can change that.

However, there are many factors which we can control the affect behavior. Most human beings learn from what they see. Parenting/conditioning plays large part in a child's development. Diet plays an important part as well. It is sickening the amounts of sugar and junk food kids consume these days. ADD has been linked to dietary causes, especially red dye and large amounts of sugar. Kids are given soda for breakfast and parents wonder why they are hyperactive throughout the day. I'm not saying these are the only causes, but many parents (and people) ignore the basics of human life - proper diet and exercise. Yet you see smoking, drinking and fast food everywhere.

 

[Max Leung]

Ah, but have you realized that humans naturally create civilization?

Archaelogists have discovered that humans always tend to create "civilization" themselves. The tribe always chooses a leader. If you believe murder/rape/gossip/cheating are instincts, then you'll have to accept that laws/hazing/marriage/groupthink are instincts too!

(A great book on the subject is Nonzero, by Robert Wright. Hey, not everything is a zero-sum game! )

Researchers tried an experiment to show how a group of boys, when left to their own devices, would devolve into a "Lord of the Flies" scenario. They failed - they COULD NOT do it - the boys stuck together and remained mostly peaceful. The researchers had to step in and separate the boys into two groups and impose a bunch of very restrictive rules to force them to go "Lord of the Flies" on each other. Believe me, it took them a lot of effort to do this. They basically had to create a prisoners-vs-guards environment to get any kind of antagonism out of them.

They concluded that people aren't naturally like that - they had to create an artifical environment to pull the behavior they wanted out of them.

On the other hand, the researchers did show that humans are quite flexible - it takes special circumstances to bring out the worst in people. An airplane crash on a deserted island isn't enough! Just look at the TV show, Lost, as an example...you need to introduce a proactive stimulus.

 

[Yee-Ming]

IIRC, weren't they (and their parents/families) relocated to Australia, because thei sheer notoriety was such that they'd never be able to "live normal lives" in the UK? I vaguely recall a tabloid uproar over this, given the cost of relocation etc.

 

[MarkHastings]

A lot of murderers don't murder for fun, they do it (in their minds) to survive. Someone is causing them trouble and they eliminate that threat. That's done in the wild all the time. If you get in the way of a protective father, he'll kill you. I've even seen documentaries where a particular bird will kill it's offspring if they get too dependant on the parnets for food. We can't do that as humans because it's considered 'evil', but in the wild, it's considered 'strengthening the species'.

 

[andrew markworthy]

Just plain wrong, I'm afraid.

 

[Max Leung]

Andrew, I cannot remember which book I read that in - it may have been Matt Ridley's "The Origins of Virtue : Human Instincts and the Evolution of Cooperation", or Robert Wright's "Nonzero". Perhaps it was Judith Harris' "Nurture Assumption" - but unfortunately I lost the latter.

I will check my Matt Ridley book. It may even be mentioned in Pinker's Blank Slate book.

The other experiments you cited I consider special situations where an "us versus them" special environment was created that triggers the um...dare I say it...torture instinct. There are plenty of prison camp movies that portray the cliche.

The work with the group of boys out at camp was originally intended as a non-interference study - the researchers hoped things would go Lord of the Flies if you leave a bunch of boys alone at a camp to fend for themselves. It didn't happen - so they had to step in and shake things up!

EDIT: I believe the reference was made in Judith Harris' book. According to Amazon.com it should be on pages 123-125, 128, 204, and 273. The specific scan of the index page is here: http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0684...=0#reader-page

 

[Max Leung]

The Robber's Cave study is probably the one. I guess my recollection of it is faulty, or I am thinking of the wrong one. More likely, Judith's interpretation is the account I most remember.

Two groups of random well-adjusted boys (as per 1950's standards) were placed together and encouraged to cooperate. Later, a situation was created such that the two groups would see signs of sharing the same camp, to induce a territorial response, and then later were more formally introduced to each other, with a little push by the researchers to introduce conflict (competitive sports, contests etc.).

Google results:
http://www.google.ca/search?client=f...=Google+Search

In my searching around, it seems girls do not have this problem. Figures.

 

[Paul Padilla]

"Evil" implies a drive or desire for bad things to result from their actions. No, I don't believe anyone is born Evil, but I do believe they are born predisposed or susceptible to that kind of behavior. Multiple Sclerosis runs in my wife's family. Medically speaking, MS itself is not inherited genetically, but the susceptibility to the development of the disease is. It's a fine line, but the difference is distinct.

I feel that he same is true with "bad" children. Children with developmental problems can lack the ability to cogitate the consequences of their actions as well as empathize with the people they affect. (I.e. victims in extreme cases) Poorly developed or damaged brains are where their actions stem from, not evil. Under idyllic circumstances there may be nothing that can correct this behavior, but it isn't evil. At the same time, children born completely normal (as far as is detectible by modern technology) can find themselves in horrendous families which foster essentially the same behavior.

This is a very poor example. So selfishness equates to evil? Selfishness stems from trying to fulfill a need. When we can't reason where the need stops and "more for the sake of more" begins, that's an emotional problem but it isn't evil. Babies cry because it is the only form of communication available to them. They feel...they react. The ability to reason their feelings out hasn't developed to say nothing of language. How many mothers have you heard who are exasperated because their baby is crying and they can't figure out what they want. The point is that the baby doesn't really know what it wants the majority of the time. Even food isn't the concrete concept we might think at early stages. They are simply reacting to a feeling. We know the feeling as hunger, but the baby has no logical association.

 

[MarkHastings]

While this is true, if untreated, the baby will grow up thinking that it's acceptable behavior (which it's not). Parents understand that the babies crying means he/she needs something, but they also teach the child (as he/she grows older) that crying is not the right way to get something.

And there lies the definition problem. Is a baby 'evil' or 'bad' for crying because he/she wants something? Considering most people try to discourage that behavior, I'd agree that it is. Most people don't agree with it because they accept the behavior as what babies do and the fact that they can't help it.

Not that I'm saying we shouldn't accept it, I just also think that behavior (i.e. selfishness) is also an evil thing which needs to be taught once the child has the capability to understand that it's a selfish trait.

And not that I'd go around saying that all babies are evil, but more on a differnent level I can see it.

 

[Robert_Gaither]

Of course selfishness equates to evil, most people don't commit evil deeds for the sake of sharing it, it's done from the perspective of self fulfilment without the consequences of what it may do to other parties or even in some cases knowing the consequences and caring less about it. Evil really is a generic term and comprises of many negative traits, most children will have most of them unless the parents teach them otherwise.

Most children live in a world where their perception is based on them being the center of it and when learning that they are not the center of it and how they should interact with the rest of society is what makes them better people. Some parents fail to teach their children that life isn't just about them or their need for their own gratification, babies will cry because it's the most effective form of communication they have immediately but it's not the only one they have at their disposal but are willing to use even if they are aware it's at the discomfort of the provider of the care (there's been several studies and shows about this). Sometimes a baby will cry just because they're bored or lonely, some may not consider this evil but most would consider this a very negative trait if the person was of an older age stage as an inappropriate behavior for wanting to draw attention to themselves in an inappropriate way, especially if all they want to be is the center of attention and nothing more. I think when a baby cries they usually know what they want, we may not be able to interpete it, but it isn't necessarily a healthy request in some situations.

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

You honestly believe that there aren't sick people in this world who torture and kill for the hell of it? I'm sorry but that's a little naive.

Mark,
I wasn't referring to murder for survival, I was actually referring to the sick thrill that serial killers get from murdering someone, humans are the only one's who do that.

 

[andrew markworthy]

The Robber's Cave occurred to me about half an hour after I logged off. However, in that study weren't the kids territorial (though not as badly as in Lord of the Flies)? I'm not a social psychologist (I teach animal behaviour in some years and cognitive developmental and abnormal psychology every year) so the area isn't one I know in depth, and I'm happy to be corrected. I should be having lunch tomorrow with a colleague who is a social psychologist and I'll ask her.

 

[Paul Padilla]

The definition does have a huge impact on opinion. Morally wrong is the first and simplest definition in most references, but it's far too broad a concept for the OP's question IMO. To paraphrase the OP, that would change the thread to, "Are Some Children Morally Wrong? I mean morally wrong to the core." Without the hope of rehabilitation". That puts a different spin on it.

Scores of what could be deemed evil through history has been perpetrated for greater good. Is the slaughter of westerners by any of a number of native tribes throughout history and the world evil? I don't mean death during battle...I mean hunting down settlers. They were protecting the survival of their tribe from invaders. It was done for the greater good of their people...even though many times it wasn't done directly in self defense by modern standards. They killed so that others might survive and it's fair to say that they were fully aware of the consequences to themselves and their society. It may not have been entirely selfless, but certainly was a noble pursuit within their culture that benefitted many. Was it evil?

 

[MarkHastings]

and of course there are those who do think it's evil. And who's to say it's not morally objectful? Just because it's not morally objectful to you, doesn't mean you have the same morals as everyone else.