Poll: Evil: Genetic or Social

[jimbob123432]

Okay, this debate started with black dragon pups in D&D. My party found a bunch of pups and our bard wanted to Wish them into being Lawful Good, but our sorcerer wanted to kill them because they were evil. The bard countered with "but they haven't done anything yet" so therefore they weren't evil. Eventually, this devolved into a discussion of whether or not humans themselves can be classified as "evil" from birth based on their lineage or if "evil" is a result of social surroundings.

Now, I personally believe that "evil" is both a social construct and a socially-created problem. We all have our own definitions of what "evil" is and it is extremely subjective. The question I pose is: can whether or not a person/being will be "evil" be determined by bloodline or does it depend solely on social surroundings?

EDIT: Another point I should bring up is the argument that forcing something that is normally raised in an "evil" society to be "good" within that same society is, in itself, "evil". For example: taking someone within, say, 1960s Cuba and forcing them to believe that Communism is "evil" but not removing them from Cuba, knowing that they will probably be imprisoned for their beliefs in the name of turning them "good".

 

[Unesh52]

I won't presume to suggest I have a complete objective ethical theory, but let me ask you this: if I said it was good to shoot my grandma in the face (we can assume my grandma is a very nice lady), wouldn't you feel justified telling me that's wrong? It's just something to think about; that's not really the point of this discussion.

In any case, there is a certain class of actions and states of being that most people consider "evil," like murder and being the kind of person who doesn't care about others' feelings, and the conditions that bring about these things are both social and genetic. Some people are genetically incapable of empathy, or are predisposed towards violence, but how one is raised has just as much to do with their character. That being said, just because there are genetic factors that can influence a person to be "evil," as it were, that doesn't make a person evil from birth, nor does it make them irrevocably evil. If you can Wish them good (I don't play D&D so I don't know how that works), then you should. That's what I'd do anyway.

 

[OmniscientOstrich]

I Saw 'We Need to Talk About Kevin' a little while back which also delved into this nature vs. nuture debate and really I'm like you, I'm a Nihilist and thus believe the concept of evil to be a social construct subjectively defined by the individual in question. You can't have genetic evil in my mind as I do not believe in objective morality, though even if I did the idea of someone being evil right out of the womb seems highly improbable and downright risible.

- Omni ^_^

-Mod edit: Please stop using the bright colour!

 

[jimbob123432]

I won't presume to suggest I have a complete objective ethical theory, but let me ask you this: if I said it was good to shoot my grandma in the face (we can assume my grandma is a very nice lady), wouldn't you feel justified telling me that's wrong? It's just something to think about; that's not really the point of this discussion.

In any case, there is a certain class of actions and states of being that most people consider "evil," like murder and being the kind of person who doesn't care about others' feelings, and the conditions that bring about these things are both social and genetic. Some people are genetically incapable of empathy, or are predisposed towards violence, but how one is raised has just as much to do with their character. That being said, just because there are genetic factors that can influence a person to be "evil," as it were, that doesn't make a person evil from birth, nor does it make them irrevocably evil. If you can Wish them good (I don't play D&D so I don't know how that works), then you should. That's what I'd do anyway.

The reason I put "evil" in quotations was for instances of ambiguity, such as if someone steals a loaf of bread to feed their family are they "evil"?

The point about Wishing someone Good brought up a lot of problems too. In D&D, black dragons are always Evil, that is to see the vast majority (95%) of dragons are Evil because they just are. Therefore, wouldn't forcing a change on something's baser behaviours that would cause it to be an outcast within its own society be an inherently Evil act in itself? I mean, you would be forcing something to grow up outside of its community, or even be killed, just because you wanted them to be "good".

I guess I should add in the part about forcing someone "Good" in the OP...

 

[Giftfromme]

It's a human construct and can only be applied to humans, it is something that only humans could come up with, and it depends mostly on social surroundings.

 

[Unesh52]

It's a human construct and can only be applied to humans, it is something that only humans could come up with, and it depends mostly on social surroundings.

I'm sure by "humans" you mean "minded creatures." Tolkien style elves and dwarves would theoretically be capable of formulating concepts of evil and good, wouldn't they? Ents? Cognizant dragons? Cyborgs?

I Saw 'We Need to Talk About Kevin' a little while back which also delved into this nature vs. nuture debate and really I'm like you, I'm a Nihilist and thus believe the concept of evil to be a social construct subjectively defined by the individual in question. You can't have genetic evil in my mind as I do not believe in objective morality, though even if I did the idea of someone being evil right out of the womb seems highly improbable and downright risible.

- Omni ^_^

Alright, but let's say you have a moral code (I presume you do). If a person's behaviors and character cause them to fall into the category of things you personally think are bad, then would it not be reasonable for you, at least, to call that person evil? If so, isn't it possible (in an abstract sense - nevermind if it's actual or not) that a person could be of a certain character and given to certain actions that you would consider evil? In which case, genetic evil is possible (again, in the abstract sense), regardless of whether there is an objective morality. That is, something intrinsic to them causes them to be something that you consider evil.

[sub][sub]Oh man, it's gettin pedantic up in here.[/sub][/sub]

 

[Unesh52]

The point about Wishing someone Good brought up a lot of problems too. In D&D, black dragons are always Evil, that is to see the vast majority (95%) of dragons are Evil because they just are. Therefore, wouldn't forcing a change on something's baser behaviours that would cause it to be an outcast within its own society be an inherently Evil act in itself? I mean, you would be forcing something to grow up outside of its community, or even be killed, just because you wanted them to be "good".

The D&D concept of good and evil mystifies me. It's a weird sort of Aristotelean notion that I don't have a lot of experience with. But intuitively, I would say that bringing more good into the world and removing more evil is always the good choice, even if it results in the destruction of that good shortly thereafter.

 

[jimbob123432]

The point about Wishing someone Good brought up a lot of problems too. In D&D, black dragons are always Evil, that is to see the vast majority (95%) of dragons are Evil because they just are. Therefore, wouldn't forcing a change on something's baser behaviours that would cause it to be an outcast within its own society be an inherently Evil act in itself? I mean, you would be forcing something to grow up outside of its community, or even be killed, just because you wanted them to be "good".

The D&D concept of good and evil mystifies me. It's a weird sort of Aristotelean notion that I don't have a lot of experience with. But intuitively, I would say that bringing more good into the world and removing more evil is always the good choice, even if it results in the destruction of that good shortly thereafter.

I think the issue isn't so much with the "good/evil" dichotomy in D&D as it is with the subjective views of what is "good" and what is "evil". For some people, the definition of some actions might be "good" while other see it as "evil". I think a good example is with terrorist groups. They definitely see what they are doing and what they are trying to accomplish as "good" whereas the rest of us who are outside that group see it as "evil".

I believe the question boils down to "Is it right to force another being to accept your view of what is "good" and "evil" if it is in contrast to what they already believe?"

P.S. I loathe the D&D alignment system. It forces every decision you make to be pigeon-holed and it can create a bunch of arguments (like this one) within a group.

 

[Unesh52]

I think the issue isn't so much with the "good/evil" dichotomy in D&D as it is with the subjective views of what is "good" and what is "evil". For some people, the definition of some actions might be "good" while other see it as "evil". I think a good example is with terrorist groups. They definitely see what they are doing and what they are trying to accomplish as "good" whereas the rest of us who are outside that group see it as "evil".

I believe the question boils down to "Is it right to force another being to accept your view of what is "good" and "evil" if it is in contrast to what they already believe?"

Well, like I was trying to say earlier, it's hard to really argue that ethics are purely subjective. While it's not easy to pin down what exactly is good and evil, there are some things that are clearly more evil than others. When we observe these things, we say they're wrong, and we don't mean "I think they're wrong" like we might say "I think chocolate ice cream is tasty." Take honor killings, for example. You can go on all day about cultural relativism, but look me in the face (er... the monitor... fucking internet) and tell me they're just as right to say that people should decapitate their daughters for getting raped as you are to say they shouldn't. The implication of this observation is that a person believing something doesn't make it right.

It's also not clear how you might "force" someone to hold a belief. Even if you used magic to create the belief in their head, once they have it, it's a belief in the exact same way that their previous beliefs were. It's not as if we really "choose" what to believe in the first place - it's more like something that happens to us when we are introduced to some knowledge.

I'm sorry. I'm reluctant to even post this. I'm leaving this thread and going to bed. I wish I was being a little more insightful tonight.

 

[jimbob123432]

I think the issue isn't so much with the "good/evil" dichotomy in D&D as it is with the subjective views of what is "good" and what is "evil". For some people, the definition of some actions might be "good" while other see it as "evil". I think a good example is with terrorist groups. They definitely see what they are doing and what they are trying to accomplish as "good" whereas the rest of us who are outside that group see it as "evil".

I believe the question boils down to "Is it right to force another being to accept your view of what is "good" and "evil" if it is in contrast to what they already believe?"

Well, like I was trying to say earlier, it's hard to really argue that ethics are purely subjective. While it's not easy to pin down what exactly is good and evil, there are some things that are clearly more evil than others. When we observe these things, we say they're wrong, and we don't mean "I think they're wrong" like we might say "I think chocolate ice cream is tasty." Take honor killings, for example. You can go on all day about cultural relativism, but look me in the face (er... the monitor... fucking internet) and tell me they're just as right to say that people should decapitate their daughters for getting raped as you are to say they shouldn't. The implication of this observation is that a person believing something doesn't make it right.

It's also not clear how you might "force" someone to hold a belief. Even if you used magic to create the belief in their head, once they have it, it's a belief in the exact same way that their previous beliefs were. It's not as if we really "choose" what to believe in the first place - it's more like something that happens to us when we are introduced to some knowledge.

I'm sorry. I'm reluctant to even post this. I'm leaving this thread and going to bed. I wish I was being a little more insightful tonight.

I'm not trying to argue right/wrong here, but I can see your point.

The whole thing about "forcing" someone to believe in your point of view stems from the fact that this debate arose from D&D, wherein you can force someone to believe what you believe.

 

[OmniscientOstrich]

I'm sure by "humans" you mean "minded creatures." Tolkien style elves and dwarves would theoretically be capable of formulating concepts of evil and good, wouldn't they? Ents? Cognizant dragons? Cyborgs?

Yes, but that is only because those creatures are also things of human invention, thus we apply our concept of morality to them, as that is all we know. A minded creature from another galaxy might not share such concepts.

Alright, but let's say you have a moral code (I presume you do). If a person's behaviors and character cause them to fall into the category of things you personally think are bad, then would it not be reasonable for you, at least, to call that person evil? If so, isn't it possible (in an abstract sense - nevermind if it's actual or not) that a person could be of a certain character and given to certain actions that you would consider evil? In which case, genetic evil is possible (again, in the abstract sense), regardless of whether there is an objective morality. That is, something intrinsic to them causes them to be something that you consider evil.

Well, if you're going to get hypothetical on me, I suppose it could technically be possible that someones genetic make up would make them more likely to act in ways which directly oppose my subjective and situational code of morality, to the point which I might label them as 'evil'. However, I kind of feel this idea of genetic evil is rather dependant upon the idea of objective morality. This person might carry out acts which I personally might consider repugnant, while others might laud them for it, the genetics would not be seen as 'evil' in their eyes. A genetic condition is not something that is subjective, you either have it or you don't, you can't not believe in Huntington's disease. Huntington's disease does not carry any repurcussions onto one's ethical stance (it could have an impact on it, but there is no guarantee), it merely asserts that this or that will happen to you, it will affect your body in certain ways and those ways may subsequently produce certain patterns of behaviour. We can objectively define and identify Huntington's, we can not do the same for 'evil'. You can't diagnose it, you can't turn around and say 'We're terribly sorry Mrs. Wilkerson, but your son has the evil' as Mrs. Wilkerson might not agree that the traits and behavioural patterns caused by these genes are necessarily 'evil'. Also, if someone is genetically predisposed to act in a manner and take actions which are considered 'evil', can that person truly be considered 'evil' if they are programmed to be that way? Do they really have a choice in the matter? [sub]I can be pedantic too y'know. [/sub]

- Omni ^_^

 

[DiMono]

Charles Manson gave an interview shortly before he died. In that interview he made it absolutely clear that he was raised in a loving home, with all the advantages thereof, and that the things he did, he did because he wanted to. That leads towards it being genetic, as he had no social cause for what he did.

 

[HardkorSB]

Okay, this debate started with black dragon pups in D&D. My party found a bunch of pups and our bard wanted to Wish them into being Lawful Good, but our sorcerer wanted to kill them because they were evil. The bard countered with "but they haven't done anything yet" so therefore they weren't evil. Eventually, this devolved into a discussion of whether or not humans themselves can be classified as "evil" from birth based on their lineage or if "evil" is a result of social surroundings.

Now, I personally believe that "evil" is both a social construct and a socially-created problem. We all have our own definitions of what "evil" is and it is extremely subjective. The question I pose is: can whether or not a person/being will be "evil" be determined by bloodline or does it depend solely on social surroundings?

So, you see evil as a social construct and yet, you ask if someone can be evil from birth.
That... makes... no... sense...

Yeah, everyone and everything can be evil. Here's why:
A racist might call all black people evil. Therefore, even a newborn black baby will be evil in his eyes. That's the bloodline issue, now to the surroundings.
Someone might call all chavs evil. Therefore, a person who, because of the place and time of his birth, became a chav, is automatically evil.

 

[Daystar Clarion]

It is completely social.

Decades ago, 'scientists' tried to find the 'evil gene' and would falsely identify young children as carrying this gene.

Needless to say, many of those children grew up with severe sociological issue. Imagine being told your entire life that you were a ticking time bomb just waiting to go off.

Some of those people did go off, but purely from a self fulfilling prophecy perspective.

Edit: Ignoring sociopathic mental disorders, but that's a problem with someone's wiring.

 

[Woodsey]

Both. Some people turn into dicks for various reasons, some people act like dicks because they're born that way (although then it'd probably fall under a mental disorder - sociopaths and whatnot).

I would that whether one is an influence on the other or not varies wildly from case to case.

 

[OniaPL]

Genetic and social, since it depends on what you define to be evil. "Evil" is a concept we humans invented. A child who rips off an insects limbs does not know that it is "evil", because the society has not told him that it's evil.

 

[Sandytimeman]

I won't presume to suggest I have a complete objective ethical theory, but let me ask you this: if I said it was good to shoot my grandma in the face (we can assume my grandma is a very nice lady), wouldn't you feel justified telling me that's wrong? It's just something to think about; that's not really the point of this discussion.

In any case, there is a certain class of actions and states of being that most people consider "evil," like murder and being the kind of person who doesn't care about others' feelings, and the conditions that bring about these things are both social and genetic. Some people are genetically incapable of empathy, or are predisposed towards violence, but how one is raised has just as much to do with their character. That being said, just because there are genetic factors that can influence a person to be "evil," as it were, that doesn't make a person evil from birth, nor does it make them irrevocably evil. If you can Wish them good (I don't play D&D so I don't know how that works), then you should. That's what I'd do anyway.

The reason I put "evil" in quotations was for instances of ambiguity, such as if someone steals a loaf of bread to feed their family are they "evil"?

The point about Wishing someone Good brought up a lot of problems too. In D&D, black dragons are always Evil, that is to see the vast majority (95%) of dragons are Evil because they just are. Therefore, wouldn't forcing a change on something's baser behaviours that would cause it to be an outcast within its own society be an inherently Evil act in itself? I mean, you would be forcing something to grow up outside of its community, or even be killed, just because you wanted them to be "good".

I guess I should add in the part about forcing someone "Good" in the OP...

I don't think I ever came across a dragon "community" in D&D. In fact, and I could be recalling this badly, but arn't dragons extremely territorial?

Also I believe it's objective. I doubt that say Saddam Hussan viewed himself as evil, he had a family, I'm sure he loved his children even. But his personal views had to be that he was justified in his actions. I don't believe that anyone thinks that they are evil, in fact I would argue the opposite. Everyone assumes they are good. (ie I'm for the nurture argument)

 

[Sandytimeman]

I believe the question boils down to "Is it right to force another being to accept your view of what is "good" and "evil" if it is in contrast to what they already believe?"

I disagree on this point, because say a cleric or paladin that was lawful good, would have no doubts in spreading their own morality. Because they are zealously dedicated to their own morality. In their mind it is THE ONLY correct way. (someone more neutral in alignment might be a bit more rational)

 

[Scarim Coral]

It's all social, I mean if it was genetic than we would of been attacked by those who are related to Hitler.
Beside in friction there are many children who their parent/ father are evil and they tend to get away from their evil father/ mother footstep's (not sure if anyone had this problem in real life).

 

[Ulquiorra4sama]

Eh, i believe in the concept of Tabula Rasa(The blank slate) so i don't believe in being born with any sort of morality or sexual orientation(for those interested in that).

Now that i think of it i don't think there really is something inherently "evil" in anyone, just misguided or different. Sure there can be fictional characters who are simply just evil, but in real life i don't think i've ever seen true evil. Most of what we call human evil today i just see as someone acting on a different moral ground. You kill someone means you weren't guided to value human life as much as you probably should, something like that.

It is completely social.

Decades ago, 'scientists' tried to find the 'evil gene' and would falsely identify young children as carrying this gene.

Needless to say, many of those children grew up with severe socialogical issue. Imagine being told your entire life that you were a ticking time bomb just waiting to go off.

Some of those people did go off, but purely from a self fulfilling prophecy perspective.

Pretty relevant to what i said, i think. The self fulfilling prophecy basically means you're mislead from what you might WANT to act like because you're affected by what other people THINK you'll act like.

I guess since we have different expectations within different cultures the self fulfilling prophecy applies itself to child raising much of the time and so when one culture imposes different values we see them as "misguided" and sometimes "evil" even if they think what they're doing is the best way to deal with things.

Bear in mind though that some of the worst evil has been brought about by the best of intentions (If someone could point me to where that quote is from i'd appreciate it 'cause i can't for the life of me remember...)