Should we abolish evil?

...if it were discovered to be genetic?


Some/many/all(?) psychological conditions have a chemical and possibly genetic origin, with others being a result of environmental conditions. This ranges from destructive urges such as suicidal depression to social variance such as sexuality.

It can be extrapolated then, that sociopathy (defined here as an emotional disdain for society that renders one incapable of feeling like they "ought to" obey the rules) and psychopathy (defined here as an inability to comprehend society in a way that allows one to comprehend what the rules actually are) may be the result of genetic flaws in an individual. Almost literally, "brain wired differently".

If a retrovirus were developed that could isolate and remove these genetic disorders, and repair them if they developed from environmental conditions, should it be used?

For this discussion, let's ignore tangents such as the possibility of nightmare runaway mutations and the like, and concentrate on the main issues:

- Every human develops a conscience that they cannot simply ignore: they can only overcome it with will/logic. You can ignore the needs of society, but your reason will never be "I felt like it".

- Potentially 'benevolent' social/mental disorders are also abolished, such as autistic savants, or some cases of ADD or ADHD (so no mad scientists consumed by a single theory, etc)

- Morality and Ethics are entirely determined over time by the needs of society and community. It is almost impossible to avoid wanting to pitch in and help make things better. What 'better' means is determined, recursively, by society itself.

My initial reaction?

The act of removing the "free will" from someone is just as evil.

Are we talking strictly ethical here? How ethical is it to force entire generations to undergo medical procedures without consent?

Some of the worst evils in history have been committed by people who honestly thought they were doing the right thing.

Just sayin.




-k

And how would this affect your average anti-social person? If you wanted to give me a shot that made me want to hang out with people and go bar hopping then be prepared to fight me.

"Existence offers us nothing if not the opportunity for an endless series of betrayals. There's a world behind the world. Lie once, cheat twice and everything becomes clear. Do not mistake my deception for a character flaw. It is a philosophical choice, a profound understanding of the universe. It is a way of life. I am a monster, yes."



-k

I don't see how what you are describing is in any way abolishing evil?

I don't believe humans have the wisdom to define good or evil on their own, personal prejudices and leniencies will always get mixed up. I also don't believe that we are merely the sum of out genetics, although genetics obviously does play a role, I do believe humans have free will.

So, with those two things in mind, no, no I do not think people should be altered at the genetic level to remove "evil".

However, if there was a shot to cure emo then I'm all for it.

This seems more to be saying "If we could treat existing mental illnesses, should we treat them?"

Which we already do (With varying success). So I guess the answer is yes? It's not really much of a question.

There are definitely a few actions that are almost universally agreed upon as being "evil," but ultimately that distinction is subjective, defined by individual persons and cultures. That said, I think that genetics, biology and chemistry can only take so much credit/blame for how a person behaves. You also have to factor in things like environment, upbringing and so forth. And, of course, free will. Ultimately, we all make a choice on whether or not to act on whatever impulses spring forth in us. Certain factors may predispose us toward one action or another in a given situation, but they're not the only (or even the biggest) element.