Are Some Children Just Born Evil? (1 Viewer)

[MarkHastings]

You actually can't ask the question "What other animals have thoughts of murder?".

Murder is defined by 'unlawful' killing. Humans are the only ones that have 'laws'. You can't equate the term in the animal kingdom, which makes it difficult to answer the question.

 

[Holadem]

There are a LOT more things that you can't equate, which makes such simplistic comparisons utterly useless. That was my point.

I mean, humans are also the only animals that get giddy at the thought buying someone their favorite gadget for their birthday. I am certain all your morally superior lions and apes can't beat that.

As for getting aroused at the thought of murder, humans are the only animals that get aroused at the thought of just about anything under the sun (and possibly the sun itself). It's called fetishism. I don't see why murder would be any different.

It ain't that simple

--
H

 

[MarkHastings]

Of course it isn't easy. But as far as murder goes, without laws in the animal kingdom, it's almost impossible to tell.

Since we have laws, we have rules that need to be followed when "Protecting" yourself. If someone breaks into your home, you can't just kill them. You need a better reason to do so, but in the animal world, since there aren't these laws, an animal can kill whenever it feels like. If another animal poses the slightest threat, the protector can kill it.

Perhaps it's the laws (against killing) that is why there are those who kill for fun. An animal won't necessarily kill for fun because it kills whenever it needs to. Not that murders wouldn't decline, but if people were allowed to kill with the same rules as the animal world, maybe we wouldn't have people killing for fun? There just wouldn't be any reason to.

I guess the above thinking is similar to those who feel that a lot of the drug violence would subside if drugs were legalized. Who knows? Maybe people still would kill for fun if killing weren't illegal?

 

[Paul Padilla]

I think the key word here is "thought". True, the act of killing or rape itself is about control and power and isn't thought to include sexual pleasure. But the thought of murder and other violent acts for those who reach that level of psychosis frequently does.

And humans are not alone in the pursuit of sex not solely for procreation. Are dolphins and bolobos evil?

http://www.snopes.com/critters/wild/pleasure.htm

 

[MarkHastings]

No problem. I just wanted to make sure because some people will actually say "I think" when they're actually saying "I think (so everyone else should)"

 

[Holadem]

No Mark, it isn't like that because we have laws and they don't. The difference is far more fundamental, and renders any comparison moot.

--
H

 

[Jeff Gatie]

Ahh the insularity of growing up in the Northeast (just kidding). Not all the laws in the land are so respectful of illegal intruders. In Texas, you can shoot them dead and the police will clap you on the back and remove the body for you. Many other states have similar laws.

Massachusetts, on the other hand, will not even let you defend your family. You must flee your premises by any means possible (including 3rd story windows) and may not use any deadly force, except to protect yourself from imminent death after being cornered with no way to flee. The wife and kids? Sadly, they are on their own.

 

[Chu Gai]

Well they don't keep track of birthdays, but apes are particularly fond of shiny objects. In fact, if you want to catch a monkey, you can place a shiny object in jar and count on its greed and envy to reach for it.

 

[andrew markworthy]

Thanks for the advice, but alas it's not something that's likely to be of much use in Wales.

Just to set the record straight - chimpanzees and dolphins are believed to have sex for pleasure. Let's not get wrapped up in trying to work out whether this constitutes 'pleasure' in precisely the human sense of the word. Certainly they seem to use it for non-procreative purposes.

As for killing for reasons other than for the getting of food, chimps do it and there is at circumstantial evidence that some other primates and monkeys do.

Male lions kill the cubs when they take over a pride because the cubs are not their offspring and when the cubs die the lionesses become fertile again. It thus maximises the quantity of genes they pass on to the next generation whilst diminishing those of rival males. Other animals will kill the young of rivals given the chance (e.g. Belding's ground squirrels).However, arguably these are driven by 'instinct' rather than conscious deliberation.

As for fetishes, humans are far from the only species to use dressing up as a means of increasing sexual excitement. E.g. there are umpteen species of birds where the male attracts a female by building a decorated nest or having the very brightest plumage. In a classic study of African widow birds, the male birds had their tails artificially lengthened, shortened, or kept the same. The males with the longest tails got the most mates, even when the tails were so long as to impede movement (and yes, I am aware of the obvious joke that can be made about this).

Humans are different in that we are probably the one species that has the cognitive capacity to consciously plan a lot of this but that does not negate the fact that much that we consider abhorrent in humans is there amongst other animals as well.

 

[Joseph DeMartino]

That's for attracting mates. There is no evidence that either the cross-dressing birds or their mates feel increased sexual excitement or pleasure as a result of these displays. The female nesting birds are hard-wired to go after male birds who take the trouble to decorate their nests only makes sense, and the bright plummage might be associated with other, less visible, genetic traits that make them better mates.

You cannot derive ethics or morality from nature, or make meaningful comparisons between Humans and animals in this regard because there is no morality in nature and animals are not sentient in any meaningful sense. (And yes, that includes dolphins, chimps and other animals of allegedly high intelligence. I've heard the arguments and I've looked at the evidence and I'm not impressed. Get a chimp or a dolphin to put forth a coherent case on the subject and I'll listen. )

Animals kill but they do not murder because they don't have a concept of "murder", nor do they know right from wrong. It has been suggested that some humans are similarly born without the capacity to distinguish right from wrong - or at least to internalize the difference. (Ted Bundy knew certain acts were considered wrong by society, and thus worked very hard to conceal his crimes, but he didn't share this view of the matter himself.)

Very early in childhood developments infants don't really have a sense that they are beings distinct from the world and from other beings. They gradually learn that the world is not a mere extension of themselves, and that their parents are separate entities. At some point the child comes to understand that these other entities are also human beings, like him/herself, who also feel pain, have desires, etc. Finally the child internalizes this knowledge and develops empathy for these others - learns to imagine how he/she would feel in certain circumstances and thus learns to treat others with sympathy and fairness.

Some children never reach the stage of seeing others as fully human, much less empathizing with them. Other people never become "people" to them. In some cases this may be due to brain damage or injury (perhaps caused by exposure to drugs, chemicals or alcohol in utero), in others because of nuture and psychological trauma. (The correct answer to the "question" or "Nature or nurture" is, in nearly all cases, "both", of course. There are too many people carrying a genetic predisposition for addiction who never become addicts and too many products of horrendous childhoods who become outstanding adults for any rational person to believe that either influence explains everything.) Either way the result is a child who is incapable of valuing other humans as remotely equal and who thus would not hesitate to hurt to kill someone for moral reasons if there were sufficiently compelling reasons to do so and sufficiently little risk of getting caught.

Such children can be considered to have been "born" evil, because all children are born amoral and greedy, and it is at precisely the stage where most of us learn to respect others and become decent people that these kids go off the rails. Prior to that point the question has no meaning, and at that point and after, the exact cause is unimportant.

At the point where human beings acquire their moral compass, these kids fail to do so at from that point on will not behave well. If timid, or physically weak, or constrained by circumstance they may merely be selfish and unpleasant and the type to cheat at childhood games, on spouses and in business. If aggressive or strong or in the right environment they may become armed robbers or serial killers.

Regards,

Joe

 

[Andrew W]

I think you have to come up with a good definition of "evil" before you can decide if some children are evil.

I believe a evil person has to know what he is doing is wrong. The evil deed has to cause somebody else to be wronged and the evil person will take pleasure in the harm done. Without at least this combination, no evil is committed. I think premeditation is probably also required.

I don't think babies are evil just for crying. But kids can certainly start down that path by early grade school in my opinion.

 

[Joseph DeMartino]

So Ted Bundy wan't evil? Hitler wasn't evil? Neither thought of their victims as being fully human. Both felt justified in killing them. Bundy thought killing his victims was permissible, Hitler thought killing his was a positive good, a way of improving the world.

Their acts were evil. What they did to other people was evil. I really don't care what their inner lives were like.



????? Neither does anyone else, and nobody in this thread has suggested anything remotely like this idea.

A small boy who takes exquisite pleasure in gouging out the eyes of squirrels or skinning a cat alive is evil. (Yes, both those examples are taken from real-life - and youthful animal cruelty is something nearly all documented serial killers have in common. they "graduate" to humans as they grow up, sometimes killing other children before moving on to adults.) If such a boy is not evil - if Hitler and Bundy aren't - then nobody is or ever has been and we may as well retire the word from the language.

Regards,

Joe

 

[MarkHastings]

Not at all. As was suggested, some of the most 'evil' people actually thought they were doing 'good'. In fact, a lot of evil people don't really believe that what they did was wrong. In their mind, what they did was justified.

Most people aren't evil because they want to be evil. They do it because they have an altered perception of what's right and what's wrong.

And as far as the crying baby goes, I don't think we're really saying the baby is pure evil, we're just suggesting that their actions are somewhat evil (if you define evil as being selfish). The reason we don't go around classifying babies as evil, is because they don't know any better. I mean, think about acting the same way as an adult? Why are you considered a bad person (when doing those acts) at 30 and not at 3 months? They're the same acts, it's just that the 3 month old doesn't know any better. The 3 month old doesn't know how to act in a society where there are rules and laws.

That's what we were getting at by the loose definition of "babies are born evil"

 

[Andrew W]

Bundy knew he was doing wrong. Why else would he do it privately and evade capture?

Both Hitler and Bundy were evil and they knew what they were doing. BS self justification doesn't count as lack of awareness.

 

[Andrew W]

A whining and crying 30 year old would be rude, annoying and inconvenient, but not evil if those were his only acts.

I don't consider being inconvenienced as moral "harm" although the court systems may consider it legal harm. But laws aren't about good and evil.

 

[MarkHastings]

While I'm no expert in the Bundy case, I would argue that a lot of people realize they're doing something against the law, but they still believe that what they are doing is ok (outside of the law).

We do it all the time/everyday. I have a 50 mile commute and I speed every day. I know I'm breaking the law and doing something wrong, but I (somehow) have the notion that I deserve to go that fast because I have a long commute.

How do you think everyone feels when they get pulled over for speeding? Everyone has this "Why me?" attitude. They know they broke the law, but they still get angry that a cop caught them.

Everyone slams on the brakes when they see a cop on the highway. That suggests that they all know their breaking the law, yet they all have this notion that it's ok to do so, otherwise millions of us wouldn't be speeding every day.

It's similar to these killers. They know that killing is against the law, but they feel that the law is wrong and what they are doing, is "right".

 

[Robert_Gaither]

No different than when children lie to keep from getting into trouble. Kids will cry and exaggerate it if there is someone to hear it but some will not cry if there is no one to hear it (I've seen this way too many times). Evil adults were children who were not taught and conditioned to put their self interest before the common good of others. They were most likely no different as a kid as well. Kids understand the concept of good/evil and right/wrong quickly, I think most people underestimate children way too often.

 

[andrew markworthy]

I presume you stopped going to psychology classes after covering Piaget? There is about 40 years' worth of research that contradicts that argument.

 

[Chu Gai]

Could you expound on that andrew?

 

[Andrew W]

What I mean to say is that in general you can't define a specific act as evil without the circumstances.

Is killing a person evil? What if it's a policeman protecting a victim? What if it's a soldier in war? What if the solder enjoys shooting the enemy in the arms and legs first before he takes a body shot? (I'm sure there's regulations against this) But does it make the normally forgiven act of killing someone in a war an evil act?

Genocide of a race would probably be evil no matter what. A person that is in position to commit this crime can't do it without at least some knowledge that it is a crime against humanity. Same for terrorism, too much planning and knowledge of who will be harmed are inherent in the act.

Being selfish as a child or adult is rude and well, selfish, but not evil. Cutting in front of me at the movie theater is rude, but it causes me no