The Normal Distribution = Bell Curve, - Exceptions?

Use this philosophy forum to discuss and debate general philosophy topics that don't fit into one of the other categories.

This forum is NOT for factual, informational or scientific questions about philosophy (e.g. "What year was Socrates born?"). Those kind of questions can be asked in the off-topic section.
Spectrum
Posts: 5161
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

The Normal Distribution = Bell Curve, - Exceptions?

Post by Spectrum »

The normal distribution is the most important distribution in statistics. It describes a symmetric bell-shaped distribution. People's heights, weights and IQ scores are all roughly bell-shaped and symmetrical around a mean. This bell-shaped pattern is seen a lot and is why it gets the name normal. Most statistical tests in some way assume data to be roughly normally distributed (even when they're not).

The normal distribution is actually a family of many different bell-shaped distributions. Each can be described by two parameters: the mean μ and standard deviation σ (recall that these are the most common ways of measuring the center and variability of a distribution).

For example, adult male heights are on average 70 inches (5'10) with a standard deviation of 4 inches. Adult women are on average a bit shorter and less variable in height with a mean height of 65 inches (5'5) and standard deviation of 3.5 inches. If we took a large sample of men and women's heights and graphed the frequency of the heights we'd see something like the following:

Image

http://www.usablestats.com/lessons/normal
  • Note: I don't think the average male height within the world is 5'10 [this may be applicable to the 'West' and some Africans]. This is not critical at present as my focus is on the principles of the Bell Curve.
The common variable that conform to the Normal Distribution is human height.

I believe almost all [could be 100%??] human variables conform to the Normal Distribution.
Since I am doing a project on the potential of humans to commit evil, I believe such an evil potential to commit evil will conform to the standard patterns of the Normal Distribution.
Agree?

Can anyone name me one or more human variable[s] within ALL humans that is not likely to conform to the Normal Distribution, highly skewed?
  • Note: The results of Normal Distribution are merely rough guides and not expected to have high precision, thus we have to take into this limitation into account when using the information.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: The Normal Distribution = Bell Curve, - Exceptions?

Post by Steve3007 »

There are various types of statistical distributions, of which the Gaussian (Normal) is one. Another example would be the binomial distribution - used in situations where you have a variable with two possible values, e.g. coin flips or gender. If, in your studies, you decide to place your Muslims in two groups and label those groups "good" and "evil" then perhaps a binomial distribution would be appropriate. Using this distribution, in a group of n Muslims where the probability of any individual Muslim being evil is p, you can calculate the probability that a particular number will be evil. I guess you might find that handy.

Another common one is the Poisson distribution. If you've got a large population (large n) but only a small chance that any individual is evil (small p), the Poisson distribution might be your man. So perhaps a Poisson distribution might be used to calculate the probability of a terrorist act, since the probability of any one individual in a population committing such an act is presumably relatively low.
User avatar
Count Lucanor
Posts: 2318
Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Umberto Eco
Location: Panama
Contact:

Re: The Normal Distribution = Bell Curve, - Exceptions?

Post by Count Lucanor »

Spectrum wrote: February 12th, 2018, 5:52 am

I believe almost all [could be 100%??] human variables conform to the Normal Distribution.
Since I am doing a project on the potential of humans to commit evil, I believe such an evil potential to commit evil will conform to the standard patterns of the Normal Distribution.
Agree?
Can anyone name me one or more human variable[s] within ALL humans that is not likely to conform to the Normal Distribution, highly skewed?
I don't think "evil potential" can be a variable, at least not an useful one. How is that measured and transformed into a discrete value? Even if it could be used as a variable and it conformed to the normal distribution, wouldn't the opposite (potential to do good) conform to the normal distribution, too?

How about Pareto distribution? Not everything in human populations conforms to the normal distribution. It doesn't happen in the distribution of wealth, criminal activity, etc., but of course you can always manipulate data to reflect the normal distribution. What do they say about statistics and lies?
The wise are instructed by reason, average minds by experience, the stupid by necessity and the brute by instinct.
― Marcus Tullius Cicero
Spectrum
Posts: 5161
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: The Normal Distribution = Bell Curve, - Exceptions?

Post by Spectrum »

Count Lucanor wrote: February 12th, 2018, 4:25 pm
Spectrum wrote: February 12th, 2018, 5:52 am

I believe almost all [could be 100%??] human variables conform to the Normal Distribution.
Since I am doing a project on the potential of humans to commit evil, I believe such an evil potential to commit evil will conform to the standard patterns of the Normal Distribution.
Agree?
Can anyone name me one or more human variable[s] within ALL humans that is not likely to conform to the Normal Distribution, highly skewed?
I don't think "evil potential" can be a variable, at least not an useful one. How is that measured and transformed into a discrete value? Even if it could be used as a variable and it conformed to the normal distribution, wouldn't the opposite (potential to do good) conform to the normal distribution, too?
Example:
It is a fact supported by empirical evidence millions of people are killed through various means.
Killing another human [no exception even with justified reason] is an evil.
The above empirical fact of people killed thus must be supported by a potential to commit evil [in this case killing].
Based on trends it is most likely -99% there will be killing in the future [next minute somewhere in the world].
Therefore the "evil potential" is a human variable as abstracted from empirical evidence.

Once it is recognized as a human variable it is not difficult to convert and quantify evil potential into discrete values.
Here is one case of putting ratings on 'murder' which can be extended to general 'evilness'.
Most Evil is an American forensics television program on Investigation Discovery presented by forensic psychiatrist Michael Stone of Columbia University during seasons 1 and 2 and by forensic psychologist Dr. Kris Mohandie during Season 3.[1] On the show, the presenter rates murderers on a scale of evil that Stone himself has developed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Most_Evil
'Potential to be Good' would be a human variable and that can be quantified and I believe it will fit in with the Normal Distribution, i.e. 1% good potential to 99.99% good potential.

How about Pareto distribution? Not everything in human populations conforms to the normal distribution. It doesn't happen in the distribution of wealth, criminal activity, etc., but of course you can always manipulate data to reflect the normal distribution. What do they say about statistics and lies?
Pareto is the 80/20 rule and I believe it is independent with the Normal Distribution.
If we define the very wealthy as having net worth above say 1 billion$ then what counts is the number of billionaire and not their total wealth.
Nevertheless I believe results for Pareto analyses are good clues to an exception to the Normal Distribution subject to further analysis to confirm yes or no.

In terms of wealth, we have to define by what we meant by 'wealth'.
I could define 99% poor as 1% wealth or otherwise.
From the Normal Distribution we will have a small percentage who are very wealthy and a small percentage of those who are very very poor and the rest in between.

Note in this case of humans we are dealing with population of 7 billion which is a very large quantum and thus very likely to conform to the Normal Distribution.

It is possible there could be exception, but I cannot think of any at present.
This information is critical for me to address critiques when I refer to the Normal Distribution to support my points.
Anyone?

I agree statistics has limitations and we must be very aware of the limitations of statistics per se, the criteria used, the population sampling, the producer, etc. Despite these limitations statistics from credible sources do provide very useful guides as a basis for general improvements.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.
User avatar
Burning ghost
Posts: 3065
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: The Normal Distribution = Bell Curve, - Exceptions?

Post by Burning ghost »

Number of legs, eyes, ears, fingers, blood type. etc.,.
AKA badgerjelly
Spectrum
Posts: 5161
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: The Normal Distribution = Bell Curve, - Exceptions?

Post by Spectrum »

Burning ghost wrote: February 13th, 2018, 4:20 am Number of legs, eyes, ears, fingers, blood type. etc.,.
Thanks, I did not think of nor considered the above.
But I don't think I would take these main default features as human variables.
The relevant variables would be the length, size, shape, & others of the legs, eyes, ears, fingers, etc.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.
User avatar
Count Lucanor
Posts: 2318
Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Umberto Eco
Location: Panama
Contact:

Re: The Normal Distribution = Bell Curve, - Exceptions?

Post by Count Lucanor »

Spectrum wrote: February 13th, 2018, 12:22 am Example:
It is a fact supported by empirical evidence millions of people are killed through various means.
Killing another human [no exception even with justified reason] is an evil.
The above empirical fact of people killed thus must be supported by a potential to commit evil [in this case killing].
Based on trends it is most likely -99% there will be killing in the future [next minute somewhere in the world].
Therefore the "evil potential" is a human variable as abstracted from empirical evidence.

Once it is recognized as a human variable it is not difficult to convert and quantify evil potential into discrete values.
Let' say all murders are the manifestation of evil. Does that mean the presence of evil immediately implies the presence of murder? And only of murder? Of course not. So it looks like you would have to put together many other variables as manifestations of evil, but how and who chooses the variables? Which combination of them will account as more evil than the other? Let's say subject #1 rapes 300 children during a long period of his life, but would not dare to kill a fly. And you have a subject #2 that has murdered 10 rapists for the pain they have inflicted on others. How do you isolate the evilness variable here and measure it? It's what they call in courts aggravating or attenuating circumstances, but they seem more like things judged by casuistry than by statistics. Things get even more fuzzy when you don't even talk about concrete manifestations (which we could call empirical) but choose to work with "potential". Let's see: the same subject #1 has been secluded in his home without a job for many years, so he has not committed any crime yet. In one month, he'll start a job in a kindergarten. Subject #2 has two kids in that same kindergarten, as well as subject #3, a harmless, peaceful man. How do statistics will determine what's the "evil potential" of these three?
Spectrum wrote: February 13th, 2018, 12:22 am Here is one case of putting ratings on 'murder' which can be extended to general 'evilness'.
Most Evil is an American forensics television program on Investigation Discovery presented by forensic psychiatrist Michael Stone of Columbia University during seasons 1 and 2 and by forensic psychologist Dr. Kris Mohandie during Season 3.[1] On the show, the presenter rates murderers on a scale of evil that Stone himself has developed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Most_Evil
Just as I said above, the criteria for the evilness associated to a crime of murder, as developed by Mr. Stone, requires a set of circumstances, not the act of murder alone. But it only qualifies the act of murder itself and the direct circumstances involved, which is what the justice system cares for. It means someone might commit murder out of simple jealousy, but there's no direct relation between jealousy and murder. If Mr. Stone's scale measures something, it could be the degree of evilness of the act, not the evilness of the person, which remains unmeasurable in statistical terms (discrete values).
Spectrum wrote: February 13th, 2018, 12:22 am 'Potential to be Good' would be a human variable and that can be quantified and I believe it will fit in with the Normal Distribution, i.e. 1% good potential to 99.99% good potential.
The same problem as with the "evil potential". And since they are opposites which can be found in any subject (a serial killer could be a great philanthropist), they disrupt any statistical measurement of the potential to do one or the other.

Spectrum wrote: February 13th, 2018, 12:22 am Pareto is the 80/20 rule and I believe it is independent with the Normal Distribution.
If we define the very wealthy as having net worth above say 1 billion$ then what counts is the number of billionaire and not their total wealth.
Just the same, it doesn't fit into the normal distribution graphic, as perhaps most situations in human society. Can you show a bell curve for the smartphone market? For military veterans? For pet owners?
Spectrum wrote: February 13th, 2018, 12:22 am I agree statistics has limitations and we must be very aware of the limitations of statistics per se, the criteria used, the population sampling, the producer, etc. Despite these limitations statistics from credible sources do provide very useful guides as a basis for general improvements.
Statistics can be useful, no doubt about it. But they can also leave the wrong impression that everything (specially the human domain) can be measured and that such measurements reveal the cold facts by themselves. Statistics can lie, as it has been proven with the common correlation fallacy.
The wise are instructed by reason, average minds by experience, the stupid by necessity and the brute by instinct.
― Marcus Tullius Cicero
Spectrum
Posts: 5161
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: The Normal Distribution = Bell Curve, - Exceptions?

Post by Spectrum »

Count Lucanor wrote: February 14th, 2018, 12:12 am
Spectrum wrote: February 13th, 2018, 12:22 am Example:
It is a fact supported by empirical evidence millions of people are killed through various means.
Killing another human [no exception even with justified reason] is an evil.
The above empirical fact of people killed thus must be supported by a potential to commit evil [in this case killing].
Based on trends it is most likely -99% there will be killing in the future [next minute somewhere in the world].
Therefore the "evil potential" is a human variable as abstracted from empirical evidence.

Once it is recognized as a human variable it is not difficult to convert and quantify evil potential into discrete values.
Let' say all murders are the manifestation of evil. Does that mean the presence of evil immediately implies the presence of murder? And only of murder? Of course not. So it looks like you would have to put together many other variables as manifestations of evil, but how and who chooses the variables? Which combination of them will account as more evil than the other? Let's say subject #1 rapes 300 children during a long period of his life, but would not dare to kill a fly. And you have a subject #2 that has murdered 10 rapists for the pain they have inflicted on others. How do you isolate the evilness variable here and measure it? It's what they call in courts aggravating or attenuating circumstances, but they seem more like things judged by casuistry than by statistics. Things get even more fuzzy when you don't even talk about concrete manifestations (which we could call empirical) but choose to work with "potential".

Let's see: the same subject #1 has been secluded in his home without a job for many years, so he has not committed any crime yet. In one month, he'll start a job in a kindergarten. Subject #2 has two kids in that same kindergarten, as well as subject #3, a harmless, peaceful man. How do statistics will determine what's the "evil potential" of these three?
Note we are starting with facts within human history.
It is observed factually and objectively there are a certain pattern of a range of acts which are abhorrent, abominable and negative to humanity.
Generally such a range of acts [genocide, murder, rapes, thefts, etc.] have been labelled as bad or evil, but I have classified them as 'evil' for easy communication sake.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/concept-evil/

Since such acts of evil are factual, it is inferred there must be something within the psyche of these humans to cause this range of evils.
The above acts of evils is also represented by a trend over the history of mankind.

Thus we can infer there is a potential within humans to commit those terrible acts.

This potential of evil can be easily predicted and verified.
For example, I predict there will x hundreds of murder in the city of Chicago in 2018, I am confident my prediction will not be far off.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_ ... go_by_year

In this case we can conclude the existence of a potential to commit evil within humans will definitely result in murders and other types of evil acts.

We can also conclude a theory based on observations 'where there a humans [in sufficient numbers] there will be murders.'

From historical data we know not all but only a small percentage will commit murder and this can be represented in a Normal Curve. The same is applicable to evil in general.

The next question is what are the causes that trigger the evil potential to drive a person to murder and other evil acts.
There are lots of research done to point to evil laden elements in media, movies, computer games, etc. do trigger evil prone people to commit evil acts. A small minority may even commit evil for good no reason or causes.

The above statistics do not apply to individual[s].
The principle is evil laden elements will trigger a percentage [X] of humans who has an active evil potential.

To know whether an individual is certain to commit murder or rapes would need more advanced science which we do not have at present.
However we can narrow our probabilities, e.g. those professionally diagnosed as psychopaths are more likely [not certainly] to commit murder than those who are not.

Spectrum wrote: February 13th, 2018, 12:22 am Here is one case of putting ratings on 'murder' which can be extended to general 'evilness'.
Just as I said above, the criteria for the evilness associated to a crime of murder, as developed by Mr. Stone, requires a set of circumstances, not the act of murder alone. But it only qualifies the act of murder itself and the direct circumstances involved, which is what the justice system cares for. It means someone might commit murder out of simple jealousy, but there's no direct relation between jealousy and murder. If Mr. Stone's scale measures something, it could be the degree of evilness of the act, not the evilness of the person, which remains unmeasurable in statistical terms (discrete values).
Agree, Stone ratings measure of degree of the act and not the potential to commit evil.

We can measure the potential of evilness by rating with other factors.
As above, if one is diagnosed with psychopathy, then the greater the probability to commit murder and other evil acts.
We can then break down the nature of psychopathy [via various diagnostic tools] into malignant or benign psychopathy. As for malignant psychopathy this can be rated in term of degrees.
Thus is a person has a high degree of malignant psychopathy and his childhood and adulthood was exposed to environment that is likely to inflame his psychopathy then we can give such a person a high rating, say 90%.
For example if you come across someone whose traits fit exactly with Charles Manson or 'Hannibal Lecter' and with same background, would you make him your best friend?

There is a danger with such ratings and thus it must be done with great care.
Spectrum wrote: February 13th, 2018, 12:22 am Pareto is the 80/20 rule and I believe it is independent with the Normal Distribution.
If we define the very wealthy as having net worth above say 1 billion$ then what counts is the number of billionaire and not their total wealth.
Just the same, it doesn't fit into the normal distribution graphic, as perhaps most situations in human society. Can you show a bell curve for the smartphone market? For military veterans? For pet owners?
Yes it is possible depending on the criteria used.
E.g. the amount spend on smartphone by individuals, i.e. some will go for the cheapest, some the most expensive, the rest in between.
Spectrum wrote: February 13th, 2018, 12:22 am I agree statistics has limitations and we must be very aware of the limitations of statistics per se, the criteria used, the population sampling, the producer, etc. Despite these limitations statistics from credible sources do provide very useful guides as a basis for general improvements.
Statistics can be useful, no doubt about it. But they can also leave the wrong impression that everything (specially the human domain) can be measured and that such measurements reveal the cold facts by themselves. Statistics can lie, as it has been proven with the common correlation fallacy.
[/quote]As long as we do not take a dogmatic stance either way, it will be ok.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.
User avatar
Burning ghost
Posts: 3065
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: The Normal Distribution = Bell Curve, - Exceptions?

Post by Burning ghost »

Spectrum -
I believe almost all [could be 100%??] human variables conform to the Normal Distribution.
Since I am doing a project on the potential of humans to commit evil, I believe such an evil potential to commit evil will conform to the standard patterns of the Normal Distribution.
Agree?
No, because you cannot empirically measure such a thing. There is no unit of "evil". Hence, your position is one starting from conjecture.

Also, you're talking about human behavior. I don't see how you think you can compare that to physical measurements.
AKA badgerjelly
Spectrum
Posts: 5161
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: The Normal Distribution = Bell Curve, - Exceptions?

Post by Spectrum »

Burning ghost wrote: February 14th, 2018, 2:30 am Spectrum -
I believe almost all [could be 100%??] human variables conform to the Normal Distribution.
Since I am doing a project on the potential of humans to commit evil, I believe such an evil potential to commit evil will conform to the standard patterns of the Normal Distribution.
Agree?
No, because you cannot empirically measure such a thing. There is no unit of "evil". Hence, your position is one starting from conjecture.

Also, you're talking about human behavior. I don't see how you think you can compare that to physical measurements.
I agree physical measurements are definitely very much easier than the mental and other abstracts qualities.

Nevertheless there are already my quantification of subjective variables, e.g. intelligence, even beauty as in beauty contest, sports, and many others. As such we should not just give it up as the ratings re evil potential can be very useful [with much care] for humanity to deal with the problem of evil and evil acts .


Note the following;
10 Most Famous Psychopaths In History

Josef Mengele. In the psychopathic doctor category, Josef Mengele takes top honors. ...
Ivan The Terrible. This Russian Tsar's name says it all. ...
Adolf Hitler. ...
Zodiac Killer. ...
Jack The Ripper. ...
Henry VIII. ...
Jeffrey Dahmer. ...
Vlad The Impaler.

http://positivemed.com/2014/09/30/10-fa ... s-history/
Surely there is something different between
  • 1. the above 10 and all others who are diagnosed as psychopaths and had committed terrible evil, and
    2. Ordinary folks who are not diagnosed with psychopathy.
There is obviously an active evil potential in them that drove them to commit the evil acts.
In this case, I will not be far off if I roughly rate their active evil potential at say 9/10 while those who have not commit any such evils acts at say 1/10.

From this rough start I can then find ways to improve the precision of the scale.
I am optimistic we can improve the precision higher in the future given the advancing knowledge within genomics, neuroscience, neuro-psychology, neuro-psychiatry and other fields of knowledge and technology.

Note this;

"Psychopathic Child"
Child of Rage Full Documentary - The Original Documentary
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9GYExnh1yU

I am sure the psychiatrists could rate her psychopathy in comparison to other ordinary children and psychopaths.
It is with such comparative ratings that the concerned parents and psychiatrists would have given her the necessary counselling to cure her.

Thus despite the difficulty, we should try our best as much as possible [with as much caution as possible] to quantify evilness within a person.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.
Spectrum
Posts: 5161
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: The Normal Distribution = Bell Curve, - Exceptions?

Post by Spectrum »

Note corrections in the above post;
"Nevertheless there are already many quantifications of subjective variables"
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.
User avatar
Burning ghost
Posts: 3065
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: The Normal Distribution = Bell Curve, - Exceptions?

Post by Burning ghost »

As I have been having a long discussion (through PM) with someone else about "intelligence", I think you'd have an incredibly hard time pushing for a scale of "evil". The modern equivalent is simply "the law".

It is a tough problem because I remember someone saying "volcanoes" were "evil". Which makes no sense to me.

I don't equate someone who has little to no capacity for empathy an "evil" person anymore than I deem a tiger to be "evil" when it eats someone.

You don't seem to understand something here and I cannot figure our quite what it is ... ? I'll have to think about this and see if I can find a way of making it clearer to you that lack of empathy does not make someone "evil" and I am not really sure we can use the term "evil" empirically when we have "law" that dictates degrees of punishment to uncivil behavior. Psychopaths are not "evil" they simply don't possess the common mindset of thr populace.

Those consciously out for the destruction of human life and to wilfully cause the greatest suffering they can on other life forms I consider to be "evil". It is complex now because the question is what is meant by "wilfull". Some people would argue that any act carried out regardless of outcome should be judged in and of itself, whilst others argue that the outcome worse.

Attempted murder and successful murder are punished differently. Why is this? How do they differ? If thr intent is the same shouldn't the punishment be equal on bith counts? Tricky questions. Questions it seems you've stepped past simply to push home your position.

Explore the law, why mentally ill people go free ... I'll post Sapolsky vid later that gors over this subject and how a woman was found not guilty of murder due to her being on her period.
AKA badgerjelly
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: The Normal Distribution = Bell Curve, - Exceptions?

Post by Steve3007 »

Burning ghost wrote:It is a tough problem because I remember someone saying "volcanoes" were "evil". Which makes no sense to me.

I don't equate someone who has little to no capacity for empathy an "evil" person anymore than I deem a tiger to be "evil" when it eats someone.

You don't seem to understand something here and I cannot figure our quite what it is ... ?
I think the problem you're grappling with is the fact that we tend (rightly or wrongly) to think of humans as being uncaused causes, whereas we tend to think of both volcanoes and tigers as being simply links in a chain of cause and effect. We say things like "tigers are simply following their instincts" and often think of that as being similar to a volcano simply following the laws of geo-physics.

The human actions which we regard as having a cause - of being a reaction to a stimulus - are those that we we tend not to label with words like "evil". That's why you're reluctant to use that word to describe someone who, as some kind objective physical fact, lacks empathy. That's why we often have the notion that objectively existing mental illness somehow absolves a person of responsibility for their actions...
Those consciously out for the destruction of human life and to wilfully cause the greatest suffering they can on other life forms I consider to be "evil".
...and that's why when you think you've identified a human action which is a result of "free will" - i.e. is not a link in a causal chain but has been manufactured ex nihilo by the actor - you're happy to label it as good or evil.

So the debate about evil is really just the old debate around the extent to which our actions are a physically necessary result of such things as our genetically inherited characteristics and our life experiences, and the extent to which they are manufactured causelessly by an act of personal will. For people who entirely believe the former, presumably even the actions of the Nazis (that handy old example of pure evil) are no more evil than those of a tiger. They are simply part of a web of cause and effect. (This is the view that the poster called Supine has spent 100% of his time for many years railing against.)
User avatar
Burning ghost
Posts: 3065
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: The Normal Distribution = Bell Curve, - Exceptions?

Post by Burning ghost »

In terms of Nazi Germany, I don't think they were all "evil", yet circumstances washed over the national attitude to quell the spirit of the people being consumed by a wave of violent "revenge" upon the world in general. They were effectively mostly "maddened" driven by SOME truly "evil" ideas and "evil" people who fed off the whole situation.

The point was merely to reveal to Spectrum he's making extremely strange statements about what can and cannot be measured and what his definition of these terms are.
AKA badgerjelly
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: The Normal Distribution = Bell Curve, - Exceptions?

Post by Steve3007 »

One question that I find interesting is: Could anybody imagine themselves ever regarding any action of a non-human animal as evil? It's closely related to the question of where, in the scale of complexity from microbes to humans, we place the dividing line above which we deem consciousness to exist.

There is evidence that chimpanzees engage in warlike behaviours that, when humans do them, we usually regard as evil:

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/ ... vil/58643/

Can some chimpanzee actions be regarded as evil? If so, do we draw a line just below chimps? Or could some of the actions of tigers also be regarded as evil? Does it make sense to draw a dividing line at all?
Post Reply

Return to “General Philosophy”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

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

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021