It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Are some people born evil?

page: 2
8
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Snow.In.Summer

Originally posted by unityemissions

A lack of conscience is not difficult to measure by those who know what to look for. Conscience is the ability to use insight for building an internal ethical code of right conduct as a human being. People who lack insight don't develop a moral compass. These are the APD, but it's a spectrum. The fact that the DSM now seems to deny this spectrum is quite telling of who's in control of these organizations. We're being demoralized into thinking right is wrong, and wrong is right.


"Insight" is a vague term to use, particularly in context with "conscience". It's as vague as the term "empathy". I'm afraid that I see people behave with a lack of empathy, and in a self-serving manner, every day. I agree with the current DSM definition and diagnosis for APD. A clinician is also a person, and can be influenced by their own agenda, whether they know it or not. It's better to stick with what can actually be measured.




You've developed a sociopathic understanding, it seems. Insight is not vague, and empathy certainly isn't. This is what I was talking about. People who attempt to justify their evil by down-playing the terms and making a wrong into a right. It definitely stems from a sick, twisted mindset.

I do agree with you that the people are apathetic on the whole. The elite's psychopathic values have become our own, to such an extent that we no longer think it possible to discern right from wrong. It's truly a sad state for humanity.


Originally posted by Snow.In.Summer
I see that you disagree, which is fair enough. I personally have a discomfort with what I am reading as a very strong definition of "right" and "wrong", on your behalf. Those are contextual terms, to me.


That's why I said an ethical right, rather than suggesting moral absolutes. Of course what is best should take the context into consideration.


Originally posted by Snow.In.Summer

Originally posted by unityemissions
People are animals, but human beings are social creatures. Not all people are human being, imo. It's not merely society which curbs animalistic behavior, for those without the ability to develop a conscience will remain animalistic with intent regardless of being surrounded by societal norms/ethics.


I am not sure what you mean by not all people are human beings! I assume you are using the term "human being" as a metaphor for the positive, as opposed to the metaphor "animal" for the negative. If that is the case, I personally don't think that humans are less "evil" than animals. We are simply more intelligent, and technologically savvy, which gives us the capacity for more "good" and "evil".


It's really easy, actually. Human beings are beings of the homo sapien species which have evolved the ability to empathize and develop a conscience. People who are unable to do this are not human beings. Being able to develop a conscience is certainly a positive or progressive attribute of our species. As for our species being more or less evil than other species, this is pretty much subjective. I'm definitely not trying to go there.


Originally posted by Snow.In.Summer
In this sense, I am terming "good" as behaviour which benefits the self and other humans, and "evil", as behaviour that harms the self and others, although this is also contextual, and open for debate.


Is it contextual? Is it not apparent what is harm and what isn't? I have a hard time understanding how someone could not understand harm from no-harm.




posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 01:18 PM
link   
According to some traditions people are born as hylic (material), psychic, or pneumatic. I think it makes sense. Atheists are at the level of material, some religious people tend to heavily rely on morals and ethics, and pneumatics are of the spirit.

I wouldn't say evil but maybe limited or imperfect, often times because of their own choosing. Hypocrites are an objective measure of evil I would say. Sorta like when people condemn the poor but if they themselves were poor they'd react in the exact same manner.



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by unityemissions
You've developed a sociopathic understanding, it seems. Insight is not vague, and empathy certainly isn't. This is what I was talking about. People who attempt to justify their evil by down-playing the terms and making a wrong into a right. It definitely stems from a sick, twisted mindset.


Well, I can see that there's going to be no basis for discussion here! You do not have any knowledge of me, so please don't pretend to. Personally, I think you just enjoy using the term "sociopath", and "psychopath", even though they are outdated, and no longer in use by professionals.



I do agree with you that the people are apathetic on the whole. The elite's psychopathic values have become our own, to such an extent that we no longer think it possible to discern right from wrong. It's truly a sad state for humanity.


I'm not even going to get into a discussion that uses the term "the elite". There is an inference of paranoia in those discussions.



That's why I said an ethical right, rather than suggesting moral absolutes. Of course what is best should take the context into consideration.


As a psychology student, I try to understand why people do things. Not set myself up as a paragon of "ethics".



It's really easy, actually. Human beings are beings of the homo sapien species which have evolved the ability to empathize and develop a conscience. People who are unable to do this are not human beings. Being able to develop a conscience is certainly a positive or progressive attribute of our species. As for our species being more or less evil than other species, this is pretty much subjective. I'm definitely not trying to go there.


Fine, we won't go there. But, I will say that animals are also able to empathize. And Of course all human beings are human beings. Wonderful, complex, and awful in equal measures.



Is it contextual? Is it not apparent what is harm and what isn't? I have a hard time understanding how someone could not understand harm from no-harm.


Of course it is contextual. For instance, some people see war as harm in all cases. Some people see war as justified in some cases. Some people will always see war as justified, as long as it is sanctioned by a government they trust. This is just one example. Another example is the death penalty.

Honestly, I think you and I are too different to find any common ground here.

[edit on 15-7-2010 by Snow.In.Summer]



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 02:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Snow.In.Summer
 


Totally agree.



Let's just agree to disagree.

I'll just note that I find it incredibly hilarious that you think a reference to "the elite" is a sign of paranoia.



Paranoia is irrational fear. Being concerned with powerful and influential sects of humanity is entirely sane, and not irrational.

Cheers.




posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 02:18 PM
link   
Little stewie was born evil ready to kill =)

I don't think anyone is born "evil" though. I think it all depends on how your raised and what your surroundings are. Children are very imitative, what they see is what you get. If they see evil, You get evil. Make sense?



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by unityemissions


I'll just note that I find it incredibly hilarious that you think a reference to "the elite" is a sign of paranoia.



Paranoia is irrational fear. Being concerned with powerful and influential sects of humanity is entirely sane, and not irrational.

Cheers.



I suppose it depends on the level of "concern" one has with "the elite", as to whether I would ascribe it as paranoia, or not. But I'm glad to have made you smile.


Furthermore, yes, we'll agree to disagree.



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by unityemissions
reply to post by OmegaLogos
 


Sociopathy is mostly environmental, and secondary psychopathy is probably a somewhat equal mix of genetics propensity, and environmental circumstances, but primary psychopathy is entirely genetic and 100% incapable of reform via growing a conscience.


This is true, and the worst part about these people is that they are extremely functional within a modern society. My wife's younger prother is struggling with this, but only because it has caused so much destruction in his life. It's sad to watch him try to intellectualize how to properly interact with his 4 yr old daughter, since he simply does not have the physiological equipment to naturally bond with other human beings. He's not a malevolent person, but that's due to his upbringing. That said, he's not at all "connected" to other people in the way that people generally are, and he's cleaning up after his 6th marriage failure (he's only 36 yrs old and doesn't understand that he doesn't understand what's wrong).

He's a very bright and articulate man, and very successful in corporate financial management, but when it comes to ongoing personal relationships, he (1) has no idea how to pick associates, since he can't "feel" people at that intimate level, and (2) he can't tell if he's being destructive to the relationship since he goes about them as if he's grocery shopping, and checking things off the list.

If anyone I've ever known has the full capacity to do literally anything at all to a human being and then eat his lunch in the same room with the mess, it'd be him. He's remarkable to be around. It's like you literally cannot "feel" his human presence at all. It's probably a chemical level absence of some kind of human marker of some sort.



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 02:52 PM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 


In primary psychopathy, two major connections are missing between brain regions which are necessary for experiencing empathy. It's not just biochemical, but actual neurobiology.



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by unityemissions
 


It's an amazing thing to witness firsthand. If evil can be an in-born trait, then this is probably the only way that it can physically manifest. Real evil is dull and banal. It does what it does and never looks back on any of it. This sort of physiological detachment would allow the individual complete freedom of response without any hesitation. We see this kind of crippled brain activity most on Wall Street, sad as that sounds. A true psychopath who is highly functional in all other aspects can become extremely successful and many do. They have nothing in the way of normal human distractions to slow them down.



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 03:12 PM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 


Agree 100%.

This is why I say absolute freedom is psychopathy, and to strive for such a thing is a sickness in itself.

To be human is to suffer. Not to suffer is to be inhumane, and incapable of developing a conscience.

The specific connections are between the amygdala & orbitofrontal cortex. Having a miswiring of one end results in autism, but having both sides miswired or even severed results in secondary/primary psychopathy.




[edit on 15-7-2010 by unityemissions]



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 03:22 PM
link   
If you look at most serial killers and others who do evil things, you will almost always find childhood trauma of some kind. I think a lot of it is a combination of nature AND nuture. I believe what a child is surrounded by IS an influence on their psyche....our culture is saturated with violence and pornography and on the internet, a child who is not monitored can see the most vile and warped things known to humanity.....that being said, not everyone who is exposed to evil will BECOME evil, so I do think some people are born with a predisposition to evil. There are some that come from good families and still turn out this way. But it is the exception rather than the rule I think.



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 04:25 PM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 


I'd be interested to know if your wife's younger brother has been diagnosed by a mental health professional? Because the symptoms you describe can be markers of many psychological disorders ...



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 05:14 PM
link   
Many are puzzled by how someone can commit acts without remorse or consequence, to the self.

Here's the link to a show I watched on the Discovery channel that offers an explanation:

investigation.discovery.com...

Some theorize it's due to a prior injury to the frontal lobe of the brain. Which causes the individual to act impulsively, and the person does not have control of their rationale to dismiss actions by others which do not affect a normal person.

Many disregard this type of study, though, because they fear defense lawyers will argue it in court to have the case waived, or penalties significantly lowered.



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by passingthought
Many are puzzled by how someone can commit acts without remorse or consequence, to the self.

Here's the link to a show I watched on the Discovery channel that offers an explanation:

investigation.discovery.com...

Some theorize it's due to a prior injury to the frontal lobe of the brain. Which causes the individual to act impulsively, and the person does not have control of their rationale to dismiss actions by others which do not affect a normal person.

Many disregard this type of study, though, because they fear defense lawyers will argue it in court to have the case waived, or penalties significantly lowered.
You are correct. Many serial killers have had head injuries as children affecting this area of the brain. This is why in the old days they would perform lobotomies on mental patients, because the frontal lobe is so important to behavior, and they were trying to alter the patient's behavior by removing it....which ultimatley turned the patient into a zombie...


[edit on 15-7-2010 by StealthyKat]



posted on Jul, 16 2010 @ 07:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by StealthyKat

You are correct. Many serial killers have had head injuries as children affecting this area of the brain. This is why in the old days they would perform lobotomies on mental patients, because the frontal lobe is so important to behavior, and they were trying to alter the patient's behavior by removing it....which ultimatley turned the patient into a zombie...


[edit on 15-7-2010 by StealthyKat]


They still do this with Chemicals. What many call the Psychotropic Cocktail. These medicines can suppress the areas that they try to control to stop the behaviors that are inacceptable. But, there again as you said, the patient often becomes a zombie.

As you stated in your other post, I also believe some are predisposed to being bad/evil. Just because material is available in the media, doesn't mean one should be grossly attracted to it, but some are. You see them wearing memorabilia they purchase via the Inet: Skull and Bones, Death, Anarchy, things like that. They seem to aspire to the Dark side of life.



posted on Jul, 16 2010 @ 07:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by passingthought

Originally posted by StealthyKat

You are correct. Many serial killers have had head injuries as children affecting this area of the brain. This is why in the old days they would perform lobotomies on mental patients, because the frontal lobe is so important to behavior, and they were trying to alter the patient's behavior by removing it....which ultimatley turned the patient into a zombie...


[edit on 15-7-2010 by StealthyKat]


They still do this with Chemicals. What many call the Psychotropic Cocktail. These medicines can suppress the areas that they try to control to stop the behaviors that are inacceptable. But, there again as you said, the patient often becomes a zombie.

As you stated in your other post, I also believe some are predisposed to being bad/evil. Just because material is available in the media, doesn't mean one should be grossly attracted to it, but some are. You see them wearing memorabilia they purchase via the Inet: Skull and Bones, Death, Anarchy, things like that. They seem to aspire to the Dark side of life.
Exactly. Case in point....Jeffrey Dahmer. He is one who had a predisposition to evil. His parents had some marital problems, but they were good parents and showed him love etc. They didn't let him run wild, and tried to instill morals in him. Yet, as a young child he was going into the woods to torture and kill animals. It is really interesting because if you were to meet him, you would never guess he did the gruesome crimes he did....he was articulate and very intelligent, polite, soft spoken....you would think he was harmless. Very scary. Then on the opposite side of the spectrum, you have Charles Manson....he is an example of one who is a product of his environment. His mother was a prostitute who called him "no name"....she would turn tricks while he was in the room at age 5....he was exposed to the dark side since the day he was born, and neglected. So he BECAME evil.....and by forming the group who idolized him, he became everything he never was as a child....important and adored by his followers. To me, there is one "man" who defines evil.....his name was Albert Fish...he was sinister and the most evil I have ever heard of.



posted on Jul, 16 2010 @ 07:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Snow.In.Summer
reply to post by NorEaster
 


I'd be interested to know if your wife's younger brother has been diagnosed by a mental health professional? Because the symptoms you describe can be markers of many psychological disorders ...



He hasn't, and yes, I am not a mental health professional. What would the evaluation consist of if not an empirical examination over an extended period of time? There are no blood tests for such a disorder, and behavior is pretty much what you're left with. I am able to be very familiar with every member of his immediate family, and to know very intimate details about his childhood and general upbringing by way of my wife and her mother's accounts.

I'm actually in a pretty good position to make an informed opinion, and since this man has never acknowledged that he has a "problem", (and has dismissed the concerns of marriage therapists and the like) I'm probably the only one (other than the ex-wives, of course) who's taken an ongoing interest in his behavioral profile, who is detached enough, and has had enough exposure to information concerning general personality disorders to have a plausible recommendation about what's causing him to give the people around him so much grief.

Like I said, it's the small indications that really jump out at you in this case. Of course, you can't overlook the six quickly failed and irrationally replaced marriages, or the fact that he has never had a steady friend, but it's the small things that are really startling with him. Especially since he actually tries to fit in, and play the part of a person who connects with others.

It's kind of creepy to watch him play with his 4 yr old daughter. It's like he overworks the enthusiasm that he's assumed is necessary, while you can see that he's actually intellectualizing it all to try and get the balance between excited and disinterested (which does naturally exist in every response) correct and consistent. Eventually, the consistency betrays the effort, and it's kind of unnerving to witness. But like I said, he's not a bad person. He simply does not seem to have an ability to emotionally connect with others, unlike everyone else in his family (for good or ill as the case may be).



posted on Jul, 16 2010 @ 07:45 AM
link   
pristine, basic human nature is evil.
hence an external, unchanging moral law
must be internalized and followed.



posted on Jul, 16 2010 @ 07:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Haydn_17
 


of course some are inherently 'evil' i.e. destructive...


being 'good' is a nurture thing, a learned behavior and action

being destructive 'evil' is nature thing, a reversion to the baser instincts,
and leads one to become a sociopath or psychopath as their learned behavior


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

QUESTION:


StealthyKat and Snow in Summer,
what reason or code are your avatars showing only your one eye?




[edit on 16-7-2010 by St Udio]



posted on Jul, 16 2010 @ 08:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by NorEaster

I'm actually in a pretty good position to make an informed opinion


This is the sentence that concerns me. If you are not a mental health professional, then it is not an "informed" opinion. You have information that you have gathered by interaction, and observation. But unless you have the training, you cannot diagnose, only suppose.

I see layman's bias in the words you use, such as "creepy". I am mainly having this discussion, because I am generally tired of seeing psychological terms such as "psychopath" flung around carelessly. These labels are often misused, and can be very harmful.

You wouldn't diagnose yourself, or a family member with diabetes, would you? You would declare your symptoms, and see a Dr. This is my case in point. Psychology has been hijacked by popular culture, and it's terms and definitions have become warped. The field of psychology deserves the same respect as the field of medicine. A proper diagnosis, by a trained professional is required, always.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join