Are Some Children Just Born Evil? (1 Viewer)

[Paul Padilla]

Not "everyone" Mark. I'm a far cry from being a goody two shoes, but when I get busted for speeding, I pull over and quietly and take my medicine. I know it isn't the officer's fault, but my own. I would think that most people who get angry in those circumstances are angry at themselves for getting caught or not leaving earlier which led to the speeding in the first place. They may vent it in the direction of the police officer, but it's just frustration.

I do know people, however, who insist that they have the right to drive as fast as they want and truly feel that a police officer is harrassing them by stopping them and issuing a citation. The cliche "Don't you have real crimes to pursue." really does happen. Then there are weasels who feel that it's only wrong if they get caught. I know one individual who wrote his thesis on that premise using speeding and software piracy as examples of, "Everyone does it, so at what point is it truly illegal?"

I think that this attitude of getting away with as much as one can is a form of evil. (of which I have been guilty)

 

[andrew markworthy]

Not sure whether you were asking Andrew W or me for a further explanation, so skip the following if it isn't me you wanted:

Basically, Piaget (famous pioneer of child psychology) argued that for babies, it was literally a case of 'out of sight, out of mind' and that a baby had the idea that what they could see and sense was all that existed. In effect, the baby's view of the world is that they create it through their senses and that they and the world are basically one indivisible thing. As proof of this, Piaget demonstrated that babies did the most unusual things. For example, when a baby is old enough first to reach for things, s/he will stop reaching fo a toy placed in front of them if a cloth is placed over the toy hiding it from view. Even weirder than this is the A nto B error. A couple of months older, the infant will search under a cloth for a toy, but if the infant is shown a toy being hidden under a cloth at position A for several trials and then the toy is hidden under a cloth at position B, the infant (who has seen the toy being hidden) will search at position A. Under certain special circumstances you can even get the kid to do this when the toy is put under a transparent cover. It's only at about 18 months that the infant finally can search sensibly and seems to be fully aware of items having individual existences.

Now all this implies that the infants literally cannot distinguish between different items as having a separate identity and are seduced by their immediate perceptions, Thus, things like covers seem to be regarded not as covers hiding something but as e.g. pieces of cloth that have replaced the toy.


So far so good. But in the 1960s psychologists began to question Piaget's arguments. They pointed out that Piaget's studies rely on watching babies' movements. Given that babies are fairly clumsy things, it was argued that maybe the babies' thoughts were rather different. this proved to be the case.

For example, babies indicate that they notice something is different or wrong through changes in facial expressions. It was found that the infants far younger than the ones Piaget used would express surprise when objects behaved in ways that Piaget said babies would think are normal. In a classic case of this, a researcher called Baillargeon showed babies a block of wood and then showed a 'drawbridge' rise up in front of the infant, blocking the infant's view of the block. If the drawbrige tilted back and stopped at a point where it met the block, then the infant expressed no surprise. However, if the drawbridge arried on moveing, with the block apparently not stopping the drawbridge's movement (because in reality the block had been quickly moved out of the way with the infant seeing it) then the infant expressed surprise. So in other words, infants are aware that items exist when they aren't within view.

There are plenty more experiments to support this argument and it now seems almost certain that babies are far more aware of their surroundings than was once thought. Under certain conditions (e.g. in some instances when there is no movement of the items) babies behave as Piaget first said, but it seems far mroe plausible that babies can distinguish their surroundings from a very early age.

 

[MarkHastings]

To bring some humor into this thread:

Through the Eyes of a Child: by Michael McDonald (From the South Park movie)

Through the eyes of a child
The world seems magical
There's a sparkle in there eyes
They've yet to realise, the darkness in their soul

 

[MarkHastings]

Not to stir up trouble, but that's also similar to those who want to legalize pot and use the "Drinking alcohol is legal, so pot should be too" route.

People have some odd justifications as to why they feel it's ok to break the law. It's almost like they don't consider themselves bad people, they feel that the laws are what is wrong, so it's ok to break them and there's nothing wrong (or immoral) about it. That's why so many people have that "Why me?" attitude when they get caught. They know they're breaking the law...they just feel it's unfair that they get in trouble for it because it's the law that is wrong.

Wasn't there a thread where someone had the mentality of "If you don't get caught, it's not illegal"???? or something like "If I don't get caught, then what I'm doing isn't wrong or bad."???

I feel that a lot of us are under that impression (myself incuded to a certain point).

 

[Andrew W]

Laws don't define what is good or evil.

There used to be laws against weird things such as carrying pliers in you back pocket on Sunday. Would a law against such an act really make it become evil on one day and not evil when the law was rescinded? Of course not.

Is breaking the law always evil? I don't think so. There are so many laws you can't even know if you are breaking some of them. If you buy a pocket knife with a 3" blade and happen to take it to the wrong county where there is a law against it, did you automatically become evil when you crossed the county line and not evil when you stepped back out? That's a ridiculous proposition, in my opinion.

Yes, some laws exist to prohibit and punish harmful acts, but the acts have to exist within a context to determine if they are evil or they are not, the laws don't make them so.

 

[MarkHastings]

Well, again, it depends on how you want to define "evil".


Some defintions:

Evil: Morally bad or wrong

Moral: Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action

Law: A code of principles based on morality

Immoral: Contrary to established moral principles

Principle: A basic truth, law, or assumption


Principles & Laws define good behavior...Good behavior defines morality and morality defines wether or not you're evil. They're all intertwined.

Now, would I go so far as saying "Anyone who goes at least 1 mph over the speed limit, is evil!"??? I probably wouldn't, but where is the line? How immoral do you have to be to be considered evil?

 

[Holadem]

Just what exactly is your point Mark?

--
H

 

[RobertR]

No, laws define legal behavior, which may or may not be evil. In fact, there are many clear examples of laws that are evil/immoral, passed by people engaged in evil behavior. You cannot argue that they weren’t evil because it was “legal”, or that all illegal behavior is “evil”.

 

[Paul Padilla]

Interesting that the first definition of "Law" you chose has a moral spin. Here's the first three that come up in Word's dictionary.

Law

Binding or enforceable rule:
A rule of conduct or procedure recognized by a community as binding or enforceable by authority.

Piece of legislation:
An act passed by a legislature or similar body

Legal system:
The body or system of rules recognized by a community that are enforceable by established process

So laws aren't necessarily based on good vs. evil.

 

[MarkHastings]

I see what you're saying, but even if a law isn't based on good vs. evil - isn't it the fact that you're breaking a law, mean that you're doing something that isn't good?

Wearing a blue shirt isn't evil, but if they passed a law that forbade wearing blue shirts, then 'technically' wouldn't you be doing something wrong if you wore a blue shirt?

Again, forgive my ignorance in the matter.

 

[RobertR]

I don’t know where you got that definition, but it’s a lousy one. Paul’s are much better. You CAN’T assume that morality determines laws. Examples:

Laws favoring a business at the expense of others
Laws whose purpose is to codify racial oppression (southern states had laws outlawing the teaching of blacks)
Laws that suppress free speech

These kind of laws have been passed in this country. Would you say anyone who broke them is assumed to be “immoral” or “not doing good”? Were the people who imposed them “moral”?

 

[Paul McElligott]

The key to that phrase are the words "based on". The law is not equal to morality, just derived from someone's interpretation of it.

 

[Andrew W]

That's why I think it's not a good idea to base morality or determine evil based only on laws. Yes, I concede that some laws such as those concerning murder, robbery, rape and other capital offenses attempt to legislate some aspect of morality. But true evil has to be determined by some higher philosophical principles.

Also, I have to think about my opinion on genocide some having recalled there were several instances in the old testament where God told the Jews to invade a particular city and kill everyone that wasn't a Jew. Is genocide OK if a diety commands you to do it? What if it's not the diety that I believe it, but the diety that you believe in?

(Of course the answer to this is obvious. In the event of a dispute between dieties, My diety is always correct and your's is wrong and I have been told by my diety to kill you if you refuse to admit it.)

 

[Holadem]

The fundemental principles of any society (e.g. constitutions) are based on their collective morals. And morals do form the basis of quite a few laws (same sex marriage, abortion etc...).

But the very subjectivity of morals makes it impossible for any "legal == moral" equation to hold. Each and everyone of us can cite laws they find morally reprehensible and amoral actions that are illegal. And as Robert pointed out, most people will agree that some laws are just flatout evil (sometimes including the bastards who created them).

Mark, I am really curious, are laws truly the basis of your morals?

--
H

 

[MarkHastings]

Not completely, but again, this is where I feel we all get into trouble.

Everyone bases good and bad by their own sense of morals. Speaking of speeding, it reminds me of the George Carlin bit where he talks about how we all think that anyone, who drives slower than us, is a slow-poke and anyone who drives faster than us, is an asshole.

The same can be said for morals. We all have our own definition of what morals are and anyone who goes against our morals, is bad, and anyone who goes along with them, is good.

What a bizzare concept when you really think about it. While my morals work for me, who am I to say that my morals should work for everyone else? Just take a look at a lot of these threads. Take a news story about someone who locks problem kids in cages and all hell breaks loose because some people think it's ok and other don't agree. Who the hell is right? Was that woman evil? It all depends on your perception. And if that's the case, what the hell IS evil?????

 

[RobertR]

That's an interesting question, Mark. But I hope you now agree that it's not just a matter of what some legislators say at a given time and place. Also, there are rational and irrational concepts of what is evil, just as with any idea. All ideas are NOT "equal".

 

[Andrew W]

Well, that was my question in this discussion. You can't decide if kids are born evil, become evil through bad parenting or other natural causes or become evil adults or even evil geniuses if you don't have sort of an idea of what is truly evil. I don't thinks crying, selfishness, bedwetting, jaywalking or talking loudly on your cellphone in the theater are evil. (Although I'm sure someone will come up with circumstances where they are...)

On the other hand, killing and dismembering, raping and looting, beating up homosexuals on the street and suicide bombing are currently on my list of evil stuff.

My personal criteria of evil is deliberately causing meaningful pain or loss to someone, without their consent and taking great pleasure in it. The means by which this is accomplished may even be legal. I think we can all agree this covers the major criminal offenses like murder, robbery, rape and battery.

There are some things that I don't think are evil but others do. Fornication is a good example. (That's pre-marital sex between consenting adults, for those of you that weren't raised Baptist.) It causes no harm to the parties involved or to others. I think some of the historical basis for this being considered morally wrong is the long held belief that women are property and that their virginity belonged to their future husbands. This also goes a long way in explaining almost every society's willingness to look the other way when young men get around but to condemn young women if they take few rolls in the hay before marriage.

 

[MarkHastings]

Well, I was using it as a starting point. It's not a foolproof equation, but (IMO) it's closer than anything anyone else can come up with. I mean, the only other equation that comes close is "Religious text", but the only way that can work, is if there was only one religion.

 

[RobertR]

You have exactly the same problem with the fact that there's more than one political philosophy.

 

[MarkHastings]

but at least that political philosophy can be a constant in large areas, rather than religious beliefs where my next door neighbor can have the complete opposite view point as I do.

As far as the law goes, we can determine if I or my neighbor is going to jail...but as far as religion goes, if we differ in that area, which one of us is going to hell?