I think it is true that too much empathy would have been bad for our hunter-gatherer ancestors. Share your food with another tribe, and you decrease your own group's survival. So I believe evolution reached a balance that was optimal for survival. But extreme psychopaths - those who enjoy killing their neighbors - I don't see any way that that would be beneficial to survival. A more reasonable explanation is that there will always be extremes of every personality characteristic, where myriad gene alleles happen to line up rarely in individuals, but it's uncommon enough that it doesn't trigger evolutionary changes. On the other hand, people who are relatively lacking in empathy make good ruthless captains of industry and in some cases successful entrepreneurs, politicians, dictators, and so on - and in some cases their drive for personal fame, riches, and glory can benefit the general population.Boots wrote: I think we may be saying the same thing here? Psychopaths are around because they have enhanced the survivability of the species. They may not be valuable to us anymore and, if that is the case, they will eventually be selected out.
Does amorality actually exist?
-
- Posts: 1500
- Joined: December 22nd, 2013, 4:57 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Eric Hoffer
- Location: California, US
Re: Does amorality actually exist?
- Lucylu
- Posts: 676
- Joined: October 1st, 2013, 2:32 pm
Re: Does amorality actually exist?
Yes, take Mr Trump for example- he is feeding in to the common fears of the masses in order for himself and the USA to prosper in the short term, but he doesnt appear to have much realisation or empathy for the world at large, or even the US in the long term. It is a very strange phenonemon that the world leaders could soon be Trump, Putin, Kim Jong-un, Mugabe, and Bashar al-Assad!!Wilson wrote:On the other hand, people who are relatively lacking in empathy make good ruthless captains of industry and in some cases successful entrepreneurs, politicians, dictators, and so on - and in some cases their drive for personal fame, riches, and glory can benefit the general population.
Someone lacking empathy appears to be prosper in business and politics. I'm not sure how we fix that?
-
- Posts: 1500
- Joined: December 22nd, 2013, 4:57 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Eric Hoffer
- Location: California, US
Re: Does amorality actually exist?
The only way is to have a smarter, more fact-based, logic-driven voting public. I'm not sure how to accomplish that, either.Lucylu wrote: Yes, take Mr Trump for example- he is feeding in to the common fears of the masses in order for himself and the USA to prosper in the short term, but he doesnt appear to have much realisation or empathy for the world at large, or even the US in the long term. It is a very strange phenonemon that the world leaders could soon be Trump, Putin, Kim Jong-un, Mugabe, and Bashar al-Assad!!
Someone lacking empathy appears to be prosper in business and politics. I'm not sure how we fix that?
- Lucylu
- Posts: 676
- Joined: October 1st, 2013, 2:32 pm
Re: Does amorality actually exist?
To speculate, I think once we can extend quality of life, as well as life, then it seems reasonable that formal education could last in to our 30's or 40's for all, and voting rights would be moved to 30 or 40 or 50! I cant imagine a way without drastically improving education and that doesn't seem feasible or viable at the moment.Wilson wrote:The only way is to have a smarter, more fact-based, logic-driven voting public. I'm not sure how to accomplish that, either.
- LuckyR
- Moderator
- Posts: 7935
- Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am
Re: Does amorality actually exist?
Sorry to break it to you but the age of standard or classic education being a common goal are over. Now that everyone has access to worldwide information & opinions (masquerading as information) sitting in their pocket, the Ivory Tower has lost the keys to the pulpit. Any ol' rabble-rouser can (and do) write any ol' thing and there must be something compelling psychologically about seeing ideas typed up all officially looking such that a percentage of an audience will believe anything. No, literally ANYTHING.Lucylu wrote:To speculate, I think once we can extend quality of life, as well as life, then it seems reasonable that formal education could last in to our 30's or 40's for all, and voting rights would be moved to 30 or 40 or 50! I cant imagine a way without drastically improving education and that doesn't seem feasible or viable at the moment.Wilson wrote:The only way is to have a smarter, more fact-based, logic-driven voting public. I'm not sure how to accomplish that, either.
The future will be an exaggeration of the present: a shrinking majority who don't jump on conspiracy theories in either direction and a slowly expanding fringe on both extremes who wait for the Leader who take them to the Greatness That Never Was (for the right) and Never Will Be (for the left).
-
- Posts: 327
- Joined: February 11th, 2016, 9:19 am
Re: Does amorality actually exist?
Higher functions? Anthropocetricism.Lucylu wrote:I tend to think the opposite actually. Perhaps our origins, ie base organisms and invertabrates, are all essentially psychopaths. They run on instinct, without having developed higher functions and empathy. Empathy and cooperation (rather than competition) is what maximises prosperity and survival for a species. There is still an extremely small minority born truly lacking this ability or brain structure, but maybe they are just exhibiting the few remaining genes, the remants of our origins?Boots wrote:I think we may be saying the same thing here? Psychopaths are around because they have enhanced the survivability of the species. They may not be valuable to us anymore and, if that is the case, they will eventually be selected out.
Obviously, too much empathy could also be disastrous for a species!
Do you suppose the dinosaurs were highly empathic?
I agree though that we would have started out without empathy and that it was an evolutionary development that enhanced our species' survivability. I also agree that too much would lessen our survivability. Perhaps psychopaths remain within the population that reason.
- Lucylu
- Posts: 676
- Joined: October 1st, 2013, 2:32 pm
Re: Does amorality actually exist?
Compared to bacteria, yes. That was my point. I tend to think that mammals have the most emotional intelligence of all animals but I could be wrong. Perhaps the only thing that sets humans apart is abstract thought.Boots wrote: Do you suppose the dinosaurs were highly empathic?
LuckyR wrote:Now that everyone has access to worldwide information & opinions (masquerading as information) sitting in their pocket, the Ivory Tower has lost the keys to the pulpit.
You never know what advances may come in the future. What if information could be learnt as quickly as a computer can download i-tunes, like in the matrix film? I'm not a fan of playing with genetics, but I cant think of a reason why, if a gene was identified to maximise emotional intelligence, we shouldn't improve the lives of everyone.
- LuckyR
- Moderator
- Posts: 7935
- Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am
Re: Does amorality actually exist?
True no one knows the future but the dispersal of the classic understanding into an infinite number of alternative understandings is impossible to reverse if you believe the second law of thermodynamics. No one would happier than me if I am wrong.Lucylu wrote:LuckyR wrote:Now that everyone has access to worldwide information & opinions (masquerading as information) sitting in their pocket, the Ivory Tower has lost the keys to the pulpit.
You never know what advances may come in the future. What if information could be learnt as quickly as a computer can download i-tunes, like in the matrix film? I'm not a fan of playing with genetics, but I cant think of a reason why, if a gene was identified to maximise emotional intelligence, we shouldn't improve the lives of everyone.
-
- Posts: 327
- Joined: February 11th, 2016, 9:19 am
Re: Does amorality actually exist?
Even compared to bacteria, from what science tells us, dinosaurs and many other animal species do not have empathy, do not have morality, and do not have a concept for right and wrong (morally speaking).Lucylu wrote:Compared to bacteria, yes. That was my point. I tend to think that mammals have the most emotional intelligence of all animals but I could be wrong. Perhaps the only thing that sets humans apart is abstract thought.Boots wrote: Do you suppose the dinosaurs were highly empathic?
LuckyR wrote:Now that everyone has access to worldwide information & opinions (masquerading as information) sitting in their pocket, the Ivory Tower has lost the keys to the pulpit.
You never know what advances may come in the future. What if information could be learnt as quickly as a computer can download i-tunes, like in the matrix film? I'm not a fan of playing with genetics, but I cant think of a reason why, if a gene was identified to maximise emotional intelligence, we shouldn't improve the lives of everyone.
Perhaps the thing that sets humans apart from other species is the same thing that sets each species from one another. The inability to successfully interbreed. The concept of species is a human one.
- Misty
- Premium Member
- Posts: 5934
- Joined: August 10th, 2011, 8:13 pm
- Location: United States of America
Re: Does amorality actually exist?
LucyLu wrote:Don't you feel sorry for him in the Christian sense? He must have lived (in his mind) in a very strange and terrible world, if that is what he created. What about 'There but for the grace of God go I'? You would never wish to be born in to his body and live his life. Along with his hatred of Jews and gays, (nothing that everyone else at the time didn't also feel) he was probably mentally ill but just undiagnosed. If he was your son would you still think he was evil? Obviously Hitler is a very extreme example, but say if you're son murdered someone, would you think he was possessed by evil? That seems like skirting attachment to humanity to me. "It wasn't human, it was evil".Misty wrote:Zealous acts can be evil acts. Hitler's thoughts, his advisors thoughts were evil, which led him/them to evil acts. "A purely zealous act" does not deem it good, or right. It was not an act of war because those murdered could not defend themselves. That holocaust included ANYONE Hitler was opposed to. Six million Jews and Five million+ non Jews. Hitler and his comrades were sick bastards, EVIL, as was Stalin and other murderers throughout human history. If you or any one you loved were his victim, you would sing a different tune.
I am shocked that you feel sorry for Hitler.
Besides, Hitler actually had very little to do with the 'action'. He remained far away, in a mountain top retreat or latterly in a bunker. When he travelled, by train or car, he kept the windows covered so he couldnt see the effects of the war. He was a fantasist, detached from reality to the last; paranoid and egomaniacal with (unfortunately) terrific political and communication skills. I'm not sure evil exists though, as I don't believe in its opposite (God). I do feel sorry for people who do terrible things- they must have no real sense of love or safety in their lives, to have become so warped and lost.
(Dan Hughes has written some excellent books on how abandoned, abused and neglected children develop in harsh environments. Its like they cant cope with happiness, and it can even cause them pain. They prefer disorder and chaos, as that is what they feel they can control. Its home to them so, perversely, that's what they create in life.)
No, I do not feel sorry for Hitler in any sense. In my own research on Hitler's health, both physical and mental, it was
deemed he was sane and responsible for his actions. Illness does not have to precede evil. His childhood was not much different than most others at the time. People can choose evil thoughts and acts, which Hitler did. The coward took his own life instead of facing up to his evil actions.
If my own child committed cold blooded murder on innocents, then yes, I would say the thoughts and actions were evil.
-- Updated Tue Mar 08, 2016 3:14 pm to add the following --
How do you define evil?Boots wrote:
Define evil.
The eyes can only see what the mind has, is, or will be prepared to comprehend.
I am Lion, hear me ROAR! Meow.
-
- Posts: 327
- Joined: February 11th, 2016, 9:19 am
Re: Does amorality actually exist?
If a person is a psychopath, then they are amoral and incapable of feeling 'bad' or 'evil'. Wouldn't they be like an insane person and not really responsible for their actions?
How can we label them as evil when they are not capable of 'being' evil? Just as an amoral animal is not capable of 'evil'.
I am not saying that we should do nothing about such individuals, but rather I am saying that we need to recognize who we are dealing with and stop seeing them as the same as some one who does have empathy and a personal moral compass. I think we need to treat them like they were an amoral animal and not a moral human.
- Misty
- Premium Member
- Posts: 5934
- Joined: August 10th, 2011, 8:13 pm
- Location: United States of America
Re: Does amorality actually exist?
Boots, "Evil is a human concept that comes from our sense of right and wrong." Where doesBoots wrote:Evil is a human concept that comes from our sense of right and wrong. Very bad is evil. But, the same actions in an animal, an amoral creature, would not be labelled evil.
If a person is a psychopath, then they are amoral and incapable of feeling 'bad' or 'evil'. Wouldn't they be like an insane person and not really responsible for their actions?
How can we label them as evil when they are not capable of 'being' evil? Just as an amoral animal is not capable of 'evil'.
I am not saying that we should do nothing about such individuals, but rather I am saying that we need to recognize who we are dealing with and stop seeing them as the same as some one who does have empathy and a personal moral compass. I think we need to treat them like they were an amoral animal and not a moral human.
the human sense of right and wrong come from?
"I think we need to treat them like they were an amoral animal and not a moral human." Please expound on this as I am not sure what you mean. Wild animals are left alone to do what their species dictates, humans don't arrest them or stop them from their natural innate behavior, so, how should Hitler (if he were alive) be treated?
The eyes can only see what the mind has, is, or will be prepared to comprehend.
I am Lion, hear me ROAR! Meow.
- Lucylu
- Posts: 676
- Joined: October 1st, 2013, 2:32 pm
Re: Does amorality actually exist?
I'm not sure what you mean. If people gave in to their animal instincts Hitler would have been humiliated, tortured and mutilated for the crowds, just as Mussolini and his partner were. He was told of this, and of how Mussolini's girlfriend's body had been stripped and defouled after death. Is that Christian behaviour or is it barbaric, as if from the middle ages? Is it not logical to die quietly when faced with this?Misty wrote:Wild animals are left alone to do what their species dictates, humans don't arrest them or stop them from their natural innate behavior, so, how should Hitler (if he were alive) be treated?
Perhaps Hitler thought his plans for the world would free us all forever from such 'evil' and so he was willing to do anything necessary. There is a twisted logic there. Fantasy, but it had internal consistency, until the Parkinson's I think made it untenable.
Because you have the ability to choose, do you think everyone does? The essence of mental illness or personality disorders are the individual's lack of control over their own thoughts. They believe, as surely as you do, that they are right, which is why it is so difficult for them to change. If you look up narcissistic personality disorder, Hitler would tick all the boxes.Misty wrote:People can choose evil thoughts and acts, which Hitler did.
I think this is the crux of the matter. If you believe evil is a supernatural force 'other' than us, then wouldn't you still need to have sympathy for these people? Are they not victims in a way?Misty wrote:How do you define evil?
Or, there is a train of thought in new age philosophy that says that there is not only an afterlife, there is another plain from which we choose to come here, and we choose in to which body we will be born. If that's the case- the people who choose to be the enemy are actually sacrificing themselves, (to an even greater extent than any conscious martyr) as they are teaching us the most and receiving the least in return- even being hated if necessary, in order for us to learn. That's real sacrifice.
So what is your definition of evil and what is your definition of the afterlife or 'before' life in this context?
- Misty
- Premium Member
- Posts: 5934
- Joined: August 10th, 2011, 8:13 pm
- Location: United States of America
Re: Does amorality actually exist?
Lucylu, You have pulled my statement out of context to my response to Boots.Lucylu wrote:I'm not sure what you mean. If people gave in to their animal instincts Hitler would have been humiliated, tortured and mutilated for the crowds, just as Mussolini and his partner were. He was told of this, and of how Mussolini's girlfriend's body had been stripped and defouled after death. Is that Christian behaviour or is it barbaric, as if from the middle ages? Is it not logical to die quietly when faced with this?Misty wrote:Wild animals are left alone to do what their species dictates, humans don't arrest them or stop them from their natural innate behavior, so, how should Hitler (if he were alive) be treated?
I answered your post #43 in post #55. I would like to add: "I'm not sure if evil exists though, as I do not believe in it's
opposite (GOD)." God is not the opposite of the human behavior evil.
The eyes can only see what the mind has, is, or will be prepared to comprehend.
I am Lion, hear me ROAR! Meow.
- Lucylu
- Posts: 676
- Joined: October 1st, 2013, 2:32 pm
Re: Does amorality actually exist?
Did you give your definition of evil yet, or did I miss it? Id be interested to hear one from a theist.Misty wrote: God is not the opposite of the human behavior evil.
I would also like to hear your take on my previous post, whether it was a non sequitur or not, if you have time?
Lucylu wrote:If you believe evil is a supernatural force 'other' than us, then wouldn't you still need to have sympathy for these people? Are they not victims in a way?
Or, there is a train of thought in new age philosophy that says that there is not only an afterlife, there is another plain from which we choose to come here, and we choose in to which body we will be born. If that's the case- the people who choose to be the enemy are actually sacrificing themselves, (to an even greater extent than any conscious martyr) as they are teaching us the most and receiving the least in return- even being hated if necessary, in order for us to learn. That's real sacrifice.
Lucylu wrote:Because you have the ability to choose [your thoughts], do you think everyone does? The essence of mental illness or personality disorders are the individual's lack of control over their own thoughts. They believe, as surely as you do, that they are right, which is why it is so difficult for them to change. If you look up narcissistic personality disorder, Hitler would tick all the boxes.
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023