Is Evil Impotent or Virile?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

If you have read the discussions of these topics by Nathaniel Branden in his books, and you still think such people can be genuinely happy in any meaningful sense of that term, then there is simply no point in continuing this discussion further.

Dennis,

The way you phrase this seems like a euphemism for, "If you can look at the truth and still say it doesn't matter..."

So I just want to clarify that I do not claim that sociopaths experience the same kind or happiness a person with a conscience does, but I see no reason to claim that the ones I have known are not happy at all, not even that such a person is not "genuinely happy in any meaningful sense of that term."

They were.

Of course, it depends a great deal on what you mean by your qualification, but that phrase does sound a bit loaded toward the euphemism to me. Something like, "Do you still beat your wife?" kind of thing.

I'm not saying it was your intention to convey that message, but your phrase can be easily interpreted in that direction, so I mention it because I want to be clear.

Hare also states that psychopaths have “an ongoing and excessive need for excitement,” which is also consistent with someone who has an obsessive need to escape emotional self-awareness.

You are comfortable claiming that sociopaths have an "obsessive need to escape emotional self-awareness" because they seek excitement more than normal.

I am not.

I cannot describe the people I have known in this manner and consider that to be accurate.

The bursts of shallow melodrama rings true (and how!), but not any need to escape self-awareness. The guys I knew were quite aware of what constitutes an SOB and were proud of the fact that they were SOB's. They crowed about it. They wore it as a badge of honor.

And emotionally, I didn't see the standard signs of people who seek deny their true emotions, like saying one thing while emotionally doing another. When they were mad, they knew they were mad. Ditto for happy. Ditto for bored. And so on.

Frankly, I found it hard to detect an emotional subtext at all with these folks. It was basically what you see is what you get. If I were to create a sociopathic villain for a work of fiction and try to model him on the sociopaths I have known, emotionally he would have to be one-dimensional. He would have to be all surface and no depth (I'm speaking emotionally, not in terms of hidden agendas). No Hamlets. No guilt trips. No existential doubts. No inner child trying to break through. No feeling miserable and not knowing why.

There was some macho BS in the folks I knew, especially when they were mad, but that is normal in all Brazilian males.

I did observe some other kinds of subtexts, though. The ones I detected usually centered around money and how much deception they could get away with in order to get more. They had no compunction against stealing from their partners. (I knew one who, after dividing up the take, hired some third parties to stage an assaut on himself and a partner while sitting next to his partner in the same car. He got away with it, too.)

I once asked a singer I was producing, "Why does XXXX lie so much?" He answered, "Because he can't not lie." For some reason that hit me metaphysically on a Law of Identity level and I cracked up. I still laugh when I remember because it's so accurate. Ducks quack. Dogs bark. Pigs go oink. That dudes lies.

There is one thing I did notice in terms of emotional imbalance. At times my dear criminal sociopaths were so proud of when they outsmarted someone else, they would let the conceit go to their heads, talk a lot of self-serving BS, let down their guard and do something really stupid. I saw that enough to see a pattern. I learned quickly to get away at those moments because you never knew what would happen.

Incidentally, three of the leader types I knew (from those I remember right now) were quite aware of this tendency in themselves. They were strict on themselves about this--disciplined. They fessed up immediately and blamed no one but themselves when they let their guard down because their head got big. I saw them correct themselves several times, and they were usually pissed at themselves when they did it. Those three generally avoided the stupidity. And they often warned others to do the same. That's one of the reasons they did not get caught.

(They also warned constantly about how a woman could take you down, so never, never, never discuss business--you know what kind of business I'm talking about--with a woman you sleep with. And be 100 times more warned if you fall in love with her. The day you cheat on her, she will usually find out. Then she will get pissed and sound off to the four winds. And then you're screwed. But that's another story.)

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

William,

If you know of some fMRI studies on sociopaths and wish to post links, I would be grateful. That would help me a lot.

Thanks.

Michael

[anthony]

An ACT that BRINGS HARM to a HUMAN BEING by INTENT marked by egregious behaviour (without justice, without mercy, without regret, without empathy, without thought, without fully considering its consequences). ________________________

In other words - without SELF.

Without self-responsibility, self-awareness, self-worth - who can fully comprehend what life and Good is?

Evil is what happens when the SELF ends.

Lose independence of mind to Authority - or, lose it to your own irrational whims and wants and desires.

Lose it to power - just for the thrill of it - and 'responsibility' to (and control over) others.

Evil is what happens when the mind stops.

As for empathy: I oppose the creeping cliche and insinuation that a rational individual (to be more precise, a conscientuous Objectivist) cannot be as compassionate as anyone else. What about his being even more so? The point of conscious living is to expand one's human condition, not curtail it, surely.

Practically speaking, for every single Oskar Schindler who saw evil with his eyes wide open, understood it with an objective mind - felt empathy - and acted upon it, there are always going to be thousands who have absconded from their mind and selfhood, and will remain silent, and tamed. Are they empty of empathy? All of them? I doubt it. Tens of millions have been enslaved or murdered in the last century, and empathy may have saved a few handfuls.

So what price 'empathy', when the mind/self has already been surrendered?

Has empathy ever been trustworthy, that it can be counted on as a last resort response? One can only have some certainty of one's own compassion, never of others', I feel.

Further, in the wrong hands, as 'pseudo-compassion' - forcing duty to fellow man - it has itself, justified and promoted evil.

[Dennis Hardin]

There are eight million stories in the naked city, Michael. Sounds like you have lived through about half of them

If you have read the discussions of these topics by Nathaniel Branden in his books, and you still think such people can be genuinely happy in any meaningful sense of that term, then there is simply no point in continuing this discussion further.

Dennis,

The way you phrase this seems like a euphemism for, "If you can look at the truth and still say it doesn't matter..."

Of course, it depends a great deal on what you mean by your qualification, but that phrase does sound a bit loaded toward the euphemism to me. Something like, "Do you still beat your wife?" kind of thing.

I'm not saying it was your intention to convey that message, but your phrase can be easily interpreted in that direction, so I mention it because I want to be clear.

It was nothing like that, Michael. I see my arguments from the perspective of Branden's writings on psychology and self-esteem. This was just my way of saying that, given the context of Branden's extensive work, I felt helpless to add anything new that was worthwhile beyond what I have already said.

(Needless to say, because I see my arguments as consistent with Branden's work does not mean he would agree. I don't speak for him.)

On the other hand, I am an arrogant SOB. I have a real knack for pissing people off. It's my nature.

I once asked a singer I was producing, "Why does XXXX lie so much?" He answered, "Because he can't not lie." For some reason that hit me metaphysically on a Law of Identity level and I cracked up. I still laugh when I remember because it's so accurate. Ducks quack. Dogs bark. Pigs go oink. That dudes lies.

Michael

I know you’ve heard this, but I can’t help repeating it. . .

A scorpion and a frog meet on the bank of a stream and the scorpion asks the frog to carry him across on its back. The frog asks, "How do I know you won't sting me?" The scorpion says, "Because if I do, I will die too."

The frog is satisfied, and they set out, but in midstream, the scorpion stings the frog. The frog feels the onset of paralysis and starts to sink, knowing they both will drown, but has just enough time to gasp "Why?"

Replies the scorpion: "Its my nature..."

[Xray]

I'm interested in establishing a list of components present in all 'evil' acts, in order to get an objective, factual basis we can refer to.

The component 'wanting to exert power' over one or more individuals has been mentioned upthread (in a slightly modifed context); if we add 'lack of empathy': would everyone here agree that these components are always present in acts of evil? (I'm putting this to the test - counter examples are welcome).

Good insight. Objectivist Living-ites like you and me and most everybody are constantly doing sets of criteria. If we are to get closer and closer to understanding both the word and the reality of evil it makes most sense to isolate evil in acts.

I think that every last responsible inquirer on this thread believes that one can find evil in evil acts. We agree that there are evil acts (although we might separately disagree with the catalogue). Thus we could agree that we should look at evil acts to see if we can tease out further mutually-agreed factors in the behaviour.

But first, please, add the factor of effect. Remember that we discern something negative in evil, something that throbs in every single definition of evil that we can find in all the world's dictionaries and all the world's thesauruses in all the world's languages that define something quite like evul.

Harm. (and cognates, of course, each also throbbing: pain, damage, blood, suffering, terror, death, horror, torture, misery, grief)

My concentration was on the agent, the 'evil-doer', because my interest in the context fo this discussion is focused more on the psychological components present (on the part of the agent), in acts of evil.

But for an overall analyis, the effect in the form of harm/damage etc have to be listed too, no question.

You need more than one set of eyes to properly operationalize, perhaps. Why don't you borrow the concept of 'marker,' Angela? This would be criteria collapsed into label. You want markers of evil, I think

You are right. Before writing yesterday's post, I was actually thinking to myself of something like 'semantic markers' to use here, but on the other hand, was hesitant to make the whole issue too 'formalized'.

For making it very formalized might require too many additional markers. But I think it is worth trying.

For example, in a list showing "human killing dog with intent", a vet putting a suffering, deadly ill dog to sleep would fall into this category too. In that case, 'disempathy' would have to be marked with a " - ".

[william.scherk]

William,

If you know of some fMRI studies on sociopaths and wish to post links, I would be grateful. That would help me a lot.

Thanks.

Michael

I will do my best. There is a swamp of material, and I haven`t yet found the set that is restricted to our interests in this thread. But, I am on it. Here is one that does not exactly fit the bill, but is full of further references to the field: http://rstb.royalsoc...31/561.full.pdf

-- you can skip down to Section 6 for a look at what the authors found in regard to sociopathy or psychopathy (which distinction is important to acknowledge).

[Xray]

No human being can function completely without some primitive concepts, and no human being can avoid some dim awareness of potential future consequences of his actions. We are talking about very significant differences of degree here.

Ayn Rand often referred to criminals as 'mindless brutes' (which creates the association of an IQ way below average); but what about highly sophisticated criminals? What about crimes committed by white-collar types working in the industry or in politics? Are they really all "the most miserable people in the world"? Isn't this more wishful thinking than reality?

Also, these people usually function on far more than just "some primitive concepts", which is why they have more than a "dim awareness" of what is going to happen to them if they get caught. So they have a fully conscious awaress of reality, of the laws, etc .

For If they didn't have that awareness, they would not try to cover up their crimes. And when we think of unsolved criminal cases, quite a few perps obviously have sucessfully covered up their crimes. Would any 'mindless brute' be able to manage that?

So what makes these people tick? It is not a lack of knowledge about concepts. What makes them tick is that, despite having fully conscious conceptual awareness, they don't seem to care about the harm they inflict on others. Which is another issue altogether.

[anthony]

No human being can function completely without some primitive concepts, and no human being can avoid some dim awareness of potential future consequences of his actions. We are talking about very significant differences of degree here.

What makes them tick is that, despite having fully conscious conceptual awareness, they don't seem to care about the harm they inflict on others. Which is another issue altogether.

Before they get to inflict harm on others, they have had to inflict it on themselves, first.

Evil 'begins at home'.

That's the basis of Objectivist ethics, and why Objectivism is the most anti-evil of any system.

Forget outward appearances, no evil-doer (short of psychopaths) is, or can possibly be, happy as a constant state. By the same way he views others as victims, so he also knows he can be one, too, at any moment. He's the ultimate second-hander.

If you can equate the brain, with a mind, and logic, with rationality, you may have little difficulty viewing such a person as having "a fully conscious awareness of reality".

I don't.

[william.scherk]

William,

If you know of some fMRI studies on sociopaths and wish to post links, I would be grateful. That would help me a lot.

Thanks.

Michael

I will do my best. There is a swamp of material, and I haven`t yet found the set that is restricted to our interests in this thread. But, I am on it. Here is one that does not exactly fit the bill, but is full of further references to the field: http://rstb.royalsoc...31/561.full.pdf

-- you can skip down to Section 6 for a look at what the authors found in regard to sociopathy or psychopathy (which distinction is important to acknowledge).

When I wrote that the field is a swamp, I should have added why I say it that way. It is because I seem to be looking for something discrete and separate like say a tennis ball. In the swamp of research, however, few things are discrete like that -- it is like an ecosystem of knowledge. It is a bit like that trope of science or other form of rational inquiry (like history) -- converging lines of evidence, mutually-supporting findings, validations, extensions, implications, corrections, and so on.

It is this interconnectedness of work, the standing on the shoulders of giants, the regular and sweeping reviews of work in the broad field that gives me pause. So do not think I am lazing away coming up with references. I am looking for something really good.

By way of reference to the issues at hand: consider that we are looking for work on physiological measures, and that emotion is the thing being measured, and that the person's being measured are either A) Psychopaths, B) Sociopaths C) incarcerated violent criminals, not a single diagnostic criteria. As Dennis may have been alluding to, there is overlap and a lack of fit between official diagnostic instruments such as the DSM (DSM conducts its groupings of categories by behaviour. So, anti-social personality disorder is not the same thing as Psychopathy per Hare, nor do either of these categories presume to reflect the psychology of the entire violent offender population.

So, with that pre-excuse for my lack of returns so far, here is something that warrants a look, Michael. It is a web-page by a fellow who says "I am a Sociopath." Read this page here and the comments, and you can see that there is a community of people who proudly accept the diagnosis of SPD or ASD or Psychopathy. It is fascinating to discover how I Am A Sociopath describes his own life and realization and attempts at curbing and controlling his anti-social behaviour.

Here is just a tease. If you have the time, I think the whole page is worth your while.

[i did not manage to include the URL for the "I am a Sociopath' website. Sloppy! It is at the Experience Project.

• "I am a sociopath" What Causes a True Sociopath? Is There a Cure?
  

There are other communities of self-acknowledged sociopaths, but the I Am A Sociopath pages are quite revealing and interesting.]

I figured I would dispel some of the myths about sociopaths. A lot of people seem to think that a bad childhood made you this way... not true. As a matter of fact, a sociopath is not even 'disturbed' in the truest sense of the word. True sociopathy as a disorder is caused from actual brain damage.

Neurosurgeons have pinpointed the roots of what causes a true sociopath. Specifically, it is damage to regions of the cerebral cortex. This is the area of the brain that most neurosurgeons point to as the source of love, empathy, moral compass, compassion. Essentially, it's the emotional center of the brain.

You can be born with this sort of brain damage, it can also be the result of a head injury. The good news is, if you want verification, an MRI can reveal whether a brain is inhibited in this area. So if you think your a sociopath, there is an actual medical test for it these days. The bad news is, there is no getting better, no recovery. when brain cells die, they stay dead. No amount of therapy can cure or even mildly improve brain damage.

I have had an MRI that concluded significant brain damage to this region so I can personally vouch for it's accuracy. When I was 3 I Drowned in a pool and was underwater, clinically dead for an unknown period of time. This is most likely when received brain damage. My mother even tells me that after that, I was always different: distant, withdrawn, and seemed to have an explosive temper.

It's important to remember that even brain damage is no excuse for bad behavior. A sociopath should develop a clear set of rules... a Code of Conduct. To take the place of his lack of conscience. For some of you this may take all the "fun" out of being a manipulative con-artist, but it will make life easier in the long run and you won't ever end up in jail either. Socios are all about self-preservation, developing a Code of Conduct that respects others is just another tool for protecting yourself, think of it that

No human being can function completely without some primitive concepts, and no human being can avoid some dim awareness of potential future consequences of his actions. We are talking about very significant differences of degree here.

What makes them tick is that, despite having fully conscious conceptual awareness, they don't seem to care about the harm they inflict on others. Which is another issue altogether.

Before they get to inflict harm on others, they have had to inflict it on themselves, first.

Evil 'begins at home'.

[ ... ]

If you can equate the brain, with a mind, and logic, with rationality, you may have little difficulty viewing such a person as having "a fully conscious awareness of reality".

I don't.

If you can equate the brain, with a mind, and logic, with rationality -- you might be missing the points some have been making about Psychopathy, about Sociopathy, about 'measuring' evil.

You can indeed equate the brain with a mind and logic and rationality. But if you misunderstand the role that emotion plays in the function of the mind, you can also appreciate that this is the disfunction some believe they have found (using psychological tools of inquiry). The lack of empathy, lack of remorse in a 'true sociopath' is what logic and rationality have found. How do you deal with that news?

Moreover, don't you think we have to check our statements against reality? How can you prove or disprove your notion that before they get to inflict harm on others, they (criminals or psychopaths or sociopaths or evil creatures) have to inflict it on themselves?

Seriously, if this is true, then it will not be difficult to find people that fit your criteria. There should be more than one. Indeed, if your generalization is true, every single person in your group (Them) should show unmistakable evidence of your findings or your claims.

Do they? This is the kind of question Dennis Hardin avoids. How do he or you know that what you say is true? How come, when challenged to deliver some evidence (from observation or the literature) Dennis faints away? If Dennis or you are confident that your assertions are true, garnering evidence and sharing it is a toddle. But that is not happening

Edited January 11, 2012 by william.scherk

[Peter]

william.scherk wrote:

It's important to remember that even brain damage is no excuse for bad behavior. A sociopath should develop a clear set of rules... a Code of Conduct. To take the place of his lack of conscience.

End quote

Very insightful. The Showtime Channel’s character Dexter, is such a person. He is a vigilante who lacks all remorse and conscience. I see no reason why a sociopath cannot *behave* rationally. I will go further. There is no reason why a sociopath cannot *be* rational, if he or she volitionally chooses to be. The fear of retribution need not be the reason for faked rationality. It could be real. The sociopath can be rational, just not empathetic; he is a robber baron, who's benefits to society trickle down, but who may not be a genuine philanthropist.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

[Peter]

william.scherk wrote:

It's important to remember that even brain damage is no excuse for bad behavior. A sociopath should develop a clear set of rules... a Code of Conduct. To take the place of his lack of conscience.

end quote

I have thought about William Scherk’s letter some more and I am still impressed with his reasonable candor about himself and his “smarts.” I have spoken before on the web about my deceased father who was a fairly rational, prudent predator and my Great uncle who was the godfather of the Irish Costello’s in the San Francisco Bay area. I have even been blessed with a third family member who was brilliantly successful, fascinating, and had plenty of friends, but was also a prudent predator of a higher order.

I stand by what I said. You can be rational, without a traditional conscience. In many way it is sad. They were happy but their loved ones missed who that person could have been.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

[Peter]

Ah, Dad. Where were you?

Cats in the Cradle

by Harry Chapin

A child arrived just the other day,

He came to the world in the usual way.

But there were planes to catch, and bills to pay.

He learned to walk while I was away.

And he was talking 'fore I knew it, and as he grew,

He'd say, "I'm gonna be like you, dad.

You know I'm gonna be like you."

And the cat's in the cradle and the silver spoon,

Little boy blue and the man in the moon.

"When you coming home, dad?" "I don't know when,

But we'll get together then.

You know we'll have a good time then."

My son turned ten just the other day.

He said, "Thanks for the ball, dad, come on let's play.

Can you teach me to throw?" I said, "Not today,

I got a lot to do." He said, "That's ok."

And he walked away, but his smile never dimmed,

Said, "I'm gonna be like him, yeah.

You know I'm gonna be like him."

And the cat's in the cradle and the silver spoon,

Little boy blue and the man in the moon.

"When you coming home, dad?" "I don't know when,

But we'll get together then.

You know we'll have a good time then."

Well, he came from college just the other day,

So much like a man I just had to say,

"Son, I'm proud of you. Can you sit for a while?"

He shook his head, and he said with a smile,

"What I'd really like, dad, is to borrow the car keys.

See you later. Can I have them please?"

And the cat's in the cradle and the silver spoon,

Little boy blue and the man in the moon.

"When you coming home, son?" "I don't know when,

But we'll get together then, dad.

You know we'll have a good time then."

I've long since retired and my son's moved away.

I called him up just the other day.

I said, "I'd like to see you if you don't mind."

He said, "I'd love to, dad, if I could find the time.

You see, my new job's a hassle, and the kid's got the flu,

But it's sure nice talking to you, dad.

It's been sure nice talking to you."

And as I hung up the phone, it occurred to me,

He'd grown up just like me.

My boy was just like me.

And the cat's in the cradle and the silver spoon,

Little boy blue and the man in the moon.

"When you coming home, son?" "I don't know when,

But we'll get together then, dad.

You know we'll have a good time then."

[BaalChatzaf]

She's talking about human beings--good and evil--not moral-less mountain lions. People as predators are not creators and producers.

--Brant

Some of the earliest building material were the bones of animals killed in the hunt. Some of the earliest "fabric" were the hides of animals killed in the hunt. Stuff was built from things destroyed. In fact almost all of our material requires taking apart (a kind of destruction) something in nature. We very rarely create useful material from primordial matter. More often than not, creation requires destruction.

Try creating an omelette without breaking an egg.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[BaalChatzaf]

But to wish for evil to end, to pursue the goal of promoting the good - is a high ethical ideal which can unleash tremendous benevolent energy. Promoting the good instead of the evil also implies the wish to reduce suffering, and includes empathy for the victims.

And sometimes to end suffering (in the long run) we have to produce suffering in the short run. Examples: The bombing of Dresden, the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Sometimes we have to pursue Good by driving our tanks of the living bodies of people. Such is life.

Conan, what is best?

Closing with the enemy, driving him before you, smelling his hot blood spilling on the ground and hearing the lamentations of his women.

Or see the opening scenes of -Gladiator-. To bring the light of civilization to the dark forests of Germania it was necessary to bring a torch to the enemy.

Read The Book of Ecclesiastes some time. So it goes.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[anthony]

No human being can function completely without some primitive concepts, and no human being can avoid some dim awareness of potential future consequences of his actions. We are talking about very significant differences of degree here.

What makes them tick is that, despite having fully conscious conceptual awareness, they don't seem to care about the harm they inflict on others. Which is another issue altogether.

Before they get to inflict harm on others, they have had to inflict it on themselves, first. Evil 'begins at home'. [ ... ] If you can equate the brain, with a mind, and logic, with rationality, you may have little difficulty viewing such a person as having "a fully conscious awareness of reality". I don't.

If you can equate the brain, with a mind, and logic, with rationality -- you might be missing the points some have been making about Psychopathy, about Sociopathy, about 'measuring' evil. You can indeed equate the brain with a mind and logic and rationality. But if you misunderstand the role that emotion plays in the function of the mind, you can also appreciate that this is the disfunction some believe they have found (using psychological tools of inquiry). The lack of empathy, lack of remorse in a 'true sociopath' is what logic and rationality have found. How do you deal with that news? Moreover, don't you think we have to check our statements against reality? How can you prove or disprove your notion that before they get to inflict harm on others, they (criminals or psychopaths or sociopaths or evil creatures) have to inflict it on themselves? Seriously, if this is true, then it will not be difficult to find people that fit your criteria. There should be more than one. Indeed, if your generalization is true, every single person in your group (Them) should show unmistakable evidence of your findings or your claims. Do they? This is the kind of question Dennis Hardin avoids. How do he or you know that what you say is true? How come, when challenged to deliver some evidence (from observation or the literature) Dennis faints away? If Dennis or you are confident that your assertions are true, garnering evidence and sharing it is a toddle. But that is not happening.

William,

"How do... you know that what you say is true?"

Without wanting to be tricky or evasive, how do you know I don't?

Can I point to four decades of observation and induction of an intense interest of mine, "the human condition", and claim a measure of truth for my conclusions? Not enough to convince anyone else but myself.

(If we could all grant each other the good faith that nobody here is purposely out to deceive - and further, to entertain others' notions at least for a little while - things might progress.)

As I say, I can't show proof. But I haven't lived a cloistered life, and professionally and privately have strayed a bit too long on the dark side of things. I believe I know the difference between sociopathic evil, and 'evasive' evil. I have been up close to both, without I must add, often distinguishing one from the other.

I drew the distinction in my post, but it seems you lump them together. I am not concerned here with what I see as the aberrational, though I accept the strong probability of some cross-over between them. As there is a bridge between philosophy and psychology, if not fully explored as yet.

To be clear,is it your contention that all causation of "evul" is psychological/sociopathic/brain-damaged?

In that case, I take it you do not accept the Objectivist metaphysical identification of Man's nature. Which I crudely and simplistically view as Man at his optimally rational state - therefore, proscribing individual man to choose to live according to that model, and to his own optimum.

Fundamentally, we don't have the option to select our highest values and virtues - if we don't, simultaneously, have the option to abnegate them, and evade the self-responsibility, and turn to evil.

Without the possibility of such choice, morality and ethics is dead in the water: superfluous.

So yes, the non-sociopath who inflicts evil, first commits an evil upon himself, in his deliberate rejection of his own nature, and that of Man's - I think. He knows better, and being unthinking and unfeeling - unconscious - was his initial evil.

As for my argument of the error in interchangeably using 'brain' and 'mind'; 'logic' and 'rationality', you missed my point: Of course, there is clear and obvious over-lap within each set. But, in short, brain and logic are tools toward mind and rationality.

Again, metaphysical choices are the determining factor - otherwise we are just walking 'calculating machines', pre-determined by the arbitrariness of our psychology, and ruled by our rampant, inexplicable emotions.

But with your knowledge of O'ism, you could have guessed this would be my response, surely?

Tony

[Xray]

She's talking about human beings--good and evil--not moral-less mountain lions. People as predators are not creators and producers.

--Brant

Some of the earliest building material were the bones of animals killed in the hunt. Some of the earliest "fabric" were the hides of animals killed in the hunt. Stuff was built from things destroyed. In fact almost all of our material requires taking apart (a kind of destruction) something in nature. We very rarely create useful material from primordial matter. More often than not, creation requires destruction.

Try creating an omelette without breaking an egg.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Good points.

[Xray]

So yes, the non-sociopath who inflicts evil, first commits an evil upon himself, in his deliberate rejection of his own nature, and that of Man's - I think. He knows better, and being unthinking and unfeeling - unconscious - was his initial evil.

But isn't a deliberate rejection of one's own nature the opposite of "being unthinking" and "unconscious"?

[anthony]

So yes, the non-sociopath who inflicts evil, first commits an evil upon himself, in his deliberate rejection of his own nature, and that of Man's - I think. He knows better, and being unthinking and unfeeling - unconscious - was his initial evil.

But isn't a deliberate rejection of one's own nature the opposite of "being unthinking" and "unconscious"?

I think this revolves round 'effort' and consciousness. Biologically, one can have a pulse, be awake - and be conscious.

In the metaphysical sense, this is an unconscious state, to go to extremes.

At the other extreme, full consciousness involves all one's faculties, plus focus, cognition and logic (and introspection of feelings) and having the complete sum of one's knowledge at one's finger-tips - constantly. Which knowledge includes moral judgment and choice - its applications through context and hierarchy - as well as adding new knowledge with on-going concept formation.

Not exactly simple, though rewarding.

In Rand's typical 'take no prisoners' style, little less than this standard is acceptable. Much less is "blank-out". (Heh.)

It is hardly possible to remain at this peak - however, I believe that it is creating the effort - effort that becomes habitual and easier -which one cannot avoid.

"Deliberate" rejection, relates to my understanding that it is inherent in all of us to seek reality, to not evade, but to follow our nature towards that rational state which I roughly explained.

To resist making that effort, also takes effort. Less effort, definitely, I think, but such a person is literally putting a wrench in their machinery - regularly - until even those evasions become practised, and 'easy'.

One could almost say, (with apologies to Aristotle): " Evil then, is not an act, but a habit."

[Xray]

... slavery was made possible by the willingness of a lot of otherwise intelligent, productive people, such as statesmen and lawmakers, who were willing to support it or look the other way. Without their support and complicity, it could not have lasted as long as it did.

This is an example of presentism (applying modern standards to ancient thinking). When you say "slavery," you are talking about the vast majority of human history.

Which means that ethical standards are subject to permanent change. When we look at what has changed in the field of ethics over the millenia, does there exist a specific direction toward which the ethical standard is being moved?

What was that turned human thinking and feeling so much around that e. g. no one currently living in a civilized nation would advocate slavery anymore?

For centuries and centuries, people simply didn't think slavery was bad. So they had nothing to "look the other way" about. They didn't see slavery as you and I do.

It's not like they thought, "Slavery is bad, but I get so many economic benefits from it, I will not think about the moral implications." They looked at slaves and thought, "This is the way things are."

Slavery in ancient times was merely the extension of "rulers and the ruled" metaphysics that comes as an outgrowth of our tribal primate nature. (I call this midbrain or neomammalian brain morality.) Valuing the individual as an end in himself (or as an equally loved child of God for the thinking of yesteryear and the religious folks today) is a very recent phenomenon in human history.

Notice that even at the historical start of this notion (individualism), the "rulers and the ruled" metaphysics was the default. The ancient Jews considered themselves as "the chosen people" and slavery was the norm back then.

Individualism is a neocortex thing and it had to evolve just as the neocortex itself did.

To me, it looks like the 'circle of empathy', as one could call it, is continually being widened toward the ideal of a global, but also individualistic, family of men.

It would be interesting to examine in what way the rise of individualism is correlated with the rise of empathy.

Forget outward appearances, no evil-doer (short of psychopaths) is, or can possibly be, happy as a constant state.

But no human being can be "happy as a constant state".

[Peter]

Xray wrote:

It would be interesting to examine in what way the rise of individualism is also connected with the rise of empathy.

end quote

Rand was a champion of individualism but I don’t think she had any empathy. Yet she was not always mean spirited or begrudging. Her characters reflect that, and I seem to remember Eddie Willers putting coins in a bum’s can. They are aware that their productiveness will benefit others, and they are just fine with that.

In some ways Christianity promotes individualism - free will, individual salvation through good works, and charity, so this particular individualist religion promotes true empathy with trappings of evil statist altruism. I love Charles Dicken’s empathetic, “A Christmas Carol.”

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

[Xray]

But to wish for evil to end, to pursue the goal of promoting the good - is a high ethical ideal which can unleash tremendous benevolent energy. Promoting the good instead of the evil also implies the wish to reduce suffering, and includes empathy for the victims.

And sometimes to end suffering (in the long run) we have to produce suffering in the short run. Examples: The bombing of Dresden, the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Sometimes we have to pursue Good by driving our tanks of the living bodies of people. Such is life.

Hopefully, there will exist more overall global rationality in future times to make such horrific acts unnecessary.

[Brant Gaede]

Xray wrote:

It would be interesting to examine in what way the rise of individualism is also connected with the rise of empathy.

end quote

Rand was a champion of individualism but I don’t think she had any empathy. Yet she was not always mean spirited or begrudging. Her characters reflect that, and I seem to remember Eddie Willers putting coins in a bum’s can. They are aware that their productiveness will benefit others, and they are just fine with that.

In some ways Christianity promotes individualism - free will, individual salvation through good works, and charity, so this particular individualist religion promotes true empathy with trappings of evil statist altruism. I love Charles Dicken’s empathetic, “A Christmas Carol.”

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

Rand had empathy, but it was uneven and depended on the context and circumstances.

--Brant

based on B. and N. Branden

[Xray]

We have mirror neurons, so when we see misery--especially the facial muscles in others expressing misery, we feel down.

What is the explanation for e. g. the Old Romans' mirror neurons not being influential enough to feel down when watching the suffering and misery of the victims cruelly killed in Roman gladiator arenas?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

We have mirror neurons, so when we see misery--especially the facial muscles in others expressing misery, we feel down.

What is the explanation for e. g. the Old Romans' mirror neurons not being influential enough to feel down when watching the suffering and misery of the victims cruelly killed in Roman gladiator arenas?

Xray,

That's a good question.

As I understand it, not all our neurons work in harmony all the time. I know mine don't.

On a serious note, we also have the predator within us. If we use evolution as a frame of reference, blood sport developed as a way for training for hunts and battles. It's just like any normal animal that plays using its survival skills.

This obviously overrides the mirror neurons when it kicks in. We have channeled this urge in modern times into sports. But notice that when a player gets seriously damaged, it kills all the fun. So we are actually wedding mirror neruons to the inherited smell of blood as we evolve. That's an opinion, not a fact I have read about anywhere, but it sounds right--at least from the perspective of what I have studied up to now.

There's another thing, too. Back during the Roman empire, human life was only at a premium when those in power were involved. If a person was on the wrong side of a certain line (or passed over to that side), he was thought of as an animal. So you could kill him, enslave him, whatever. At least they didn't eat him like an animal!

There's a book somewhere I skimmed through, or maybe it was a TED talk, where the person discussed respect for human life as a very recent development in human history. Even in Medieval times, they thought nothing of killing off children and starving whole groups of people to death. That was normal for the rest of society, not an outrage, and that's just for starters. A modern butcher is not bothered by a slaughterhouse for pigs, chickens, cattle, etc., when he goes to one. And society mostly ignores it. I believe the ancients thought of getting rid of humans like that.

Also, I believe ancient Romans saw gladiator fights much in the same light modern people see dog fights. Not for everybody, but those who like it love it.

It can get worse. Something is coming around the bend that looks really unsavory. We now have war "reality shows." People are filming real military strikes and posting them on the Internet (which started essentially with CNN's coverage of the first Iraq war, although that was mostly broadcast back then and not video). I hope this doesn't foster our inherited bloodlust side. but I fear it will. People are looking at that stuff more for entertainment than for news.

Michael

[anthony]

To me, it looks like the 'circle of empathy', as one could call it, is continually being widened toward the ideal of a global, but also individualistic, family of men. It would be interesting to examine in what way the rise of individualism is correlated with the rise of empathy.

Forget outward appearances, no evil-doer (short of psychopaths) is, or can possibly be, happy as a constant state.

But no human being can be "happy as a constant state".

You may take it as dry understatement I made - as the context makes clear. That's what happens when I'm not literal enough..

Repeating my earlier point, such a person, living by, and through, victims, can only see himself as a victim 'waiting to happen', also. Logical, really: if one's metaphysical view is "eat, or be eaten", he lives in constant fear and anxiety - not helped by his mystical certainty that he deserves punishment.

They usually tend to mysticism of some form, I think.

With some such nasty people in my experience, the bigger the laughter and the charm, the greater the anxiety.

He is pleading "Don't eat me!"