http://www.vachss.com/av_dispatches/parade_071402.html
That link is one of my favorite discussions on the topic.
Particularly this section:
Quote:
|
Sickness is a condition. Evil is a behavior. Evil is always a matter of choice. Evil is not thought; it is conduct. And that conduct is always volitional. And just as evil is always a choice, sickness is always the absence of choice. Sickness happens. Evil is inflicted. Until we perceive the difference clearly, we will continue to give aid and comfort to our most pernicious enemies. We, as a society, decide whether something is sick or evil. Either decision confers an obligation upon us. Sickness should be treated. Evil must be fought. |
�Life's hard. It's even harder when you're stupid.� ― John Wayne
�Just think of how stupid the average person is, and then realize half of them are even stupider!� - George Carlin
Well, I'm not sure about 'should we abolish evil?'
What I'd like to know is...........
Mother, May I Sleep with Danger?
@Mental Maden @Maden Mental
"....you are now tackle free for life."-ShoNuff
Quote:
In the context of this article, you could look upon the idea of a genetic retrovirus that cures clinical psychopathy and sociopathy (if there is such a thing) as a way to separate such conditions FROM evil.|
Originally Posted by Ultraamann
That link is one of my favorite discussions on the topic. Particularly this section: |
When you eliminate the medical reasons, what remains is choice.
Story Arcs I created:
Every Rose: (#17702) Villainous vs Legacy Chain. Forget Arachnos, join the CoT!
Cosplay Madness!: (#3643) Neutral vs Custom Foes. Heroes at a pop culture convention!
Kiss Hello Goodbye: (#156389) Heroic vs Custom Foes. Film Noir/Hardboiled detective adventure!
Quote:
Just as ethical as performing medical procedures today on infants, children, mentally handicapped, or comatose/unconscious patients. People are great at finding excuses to justify giving the right to consent to someone else.
|
Originally Posted by Frostbiter
Are we talking strictly ethical here? How ethical is it to force entire generations to undergo medical procedures without consent?
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by NinjaPirate
I imagine the question we need to ask before asking if we should abolish Evil, is "What is Evil?"
-k |
BINGO!
That's the $64,000 dollar grand prize question. The second most important question is
"Who decides what is Evil?"
I can only speak for myself but there isn't anyone I trust making that decision on my behalf.
/begin rant
I think the discussion is really pointless, in real world term say the cure for lack of a better term is discovered in America how many countries would refuse on the basis of where it was founded. Say it was found in Indonesia or Iran would some countries shun the product regardless of the effects because of its origin. Imagine the implementation of the drug how many people really trust the government enough to say “Hell yeah please mess with my genetic structure, as long as you say it’s OK”. With respect to prisoners or mental impaired, I don’t think you have factored in the goody two shoes, lets not upset anybody approach the world has adopted. There would be screams of human right abuses throughout the world. I bet there wouldn’t be a media provider in the world that didn’t go against the concept. It would be dead in the water before it began.
So what are we discussing really the theoretical concept in an alternate reality. Even if the world, that can’t seem to find much in the way of common ground ever, miraculously decide to implement such a drug/cure, imagine how many groups communities’ individuals would refuse. Just how far could authorities go to implement such a vaccine?
I for one would NEVER EVER consent to such a cure and I am willing to bet my right hand that I’m not Robinson Crusoe on that boat.
/end rant
"if you ever get offered a burger from a clown and its not ronald mcdonald don�t eat it, I learnt that the hard way"
Quote:
For the purposes of this discussion, let us define evil as a rational, conscious, antisocial act that results in measurable harm.|
Originally Posted by Forbin_Project
BINGO!
That's the $64,000 dollar grand prize question. The second most important question is "Who decides what is Evil?" I can only speak for myself but there isn't anyone I trust making that decision on my behalf. |
Psycopathy is being defined as a medical inability to understand what is and is not antisocial behaviour.
Sociopathy is being defined as a medical inability to care about antisocial behaviour.
Story Arcs I created:
Every Rose: (#17702) Villainous vs Legacy Chain. Forget Arachnos, join the CoT!
Cosplay Madness!: (#3643) Neutral vs Custom Foes. Heroes at a pop culture convention!
Kiss Hello Goodbye: (#156389) Heroic vs Custom Foes. Film Noir/Hardboiled detective adventure!
Dr. Caron: These are just a few of the images we've recorded. And you can see, it wasn't what we thought. There's been no war here and no terraforming event. The environment is stable. It's the Pax. The G-23 Paxilon Hydrochlorate that we added to the air processors. It was supposed to calm the population, weed out aggression. Well, it works. The people here stopped fighting. And then they stopped everything else. They stopped going to work, they stopped breeding, talking, eating. There's 30 million people here, and they all just let themselves die.
I have to be quick! About a tenth of a percent of the population had the opposite reaction to the Pax. Their aggressor response increased beyond madness. They have become...
[sobs] Well, they've killed most of us. And not just killed... they've done things...
I won't live to report this, but people have to know. We meant it for the best... to make people safer.
On the other hand, if it puts an end to "Twilight" . . . Sign me up.
Im not sure about the definition of evil, what about alcohol and drug based crimes, what about people killing maiming for money, a government dropping a nuclear bomb on two civilian cities, angry parent throwing a crying baby off a balcony in a fit of rage, domestic violence where the wife finally has enough of the beatings and lashes out killing her aggressive and abusive husband. The nurse or doctor that gives the maximum dose of morphine that induces death in a palliative care patient. We could use one or two words to categorise all of the above examples but that is subjective.
Take the last example the nurse is she:
a) sick of seeing the patient and family suffer
b) gets her kicks killing people
c) grossly incompetent at her job
d) hearing the voice of god telling her to act that way
I for one like this world with all the faults, think of the things you would lose if everyone was happy and completely normal.
Who doesn’t love the excitement of walking along at night and looking up to see the creepy guy that smells like cabbage talking to him self and making erratic random hand gestures. That thrill as you walk past him wondering if you just might end up in his freezer with the other 30 people that have mysteriously disappeared over the last year or so.
I like evil, I like the fact that every now and then someone, somewhere does something that every one has considered at one stage. Sure it might not be socially acceptable, politically correct or even sane by modern sociological parameters.
Think of the rabbit that attacked the rattlesnake in the youtube clip that went viral some time ago, now I’m not a Rabbit expert, rabbitologist (yes I know thats not a real word its my attempt at creating a portmanteau word) but you don’t see that every day and I bet if a rabbit has the capacity to reason and think that would be something every rabbit wanted to do at some stage.
ps: This post made no sense to me what so ever and Im about 74% sure I typed it.
"if you ever get offered a burger from a clown and its not ronald mcdonald don�t eat it, I learnt that the hard way"
One mans good is another mans evil......no matter how easy it may be to (as you say) abolish evil...there will always be something that someone considers evil. Therefore I really dont consider evil to be genetic.....
You only fail if you give up. - Dana Scully
Time Jesum Transeuntum Et Non Riverentum - Nick Cave
We're not just destroyers, at the same time we can be saviors. - Allen Walker
What about crimes of passion? Considering most murders are crimes of passion rather than premeditated, how would this treatment really affect that? Are we going to eliminate emotions now too?
When you have to draw the line somewhere why bother picking up the chalk?
Quote:
I have been politely informed that we are dancing on the edge of modification, so I will phrase my comments carefully.|
Originally Posted by Frostbiter
What about crimes of passion? Considering most murders are crimes of passion rather than premeditated, how would this treatment really affect that? Are we going to eliminate emotions now too?
|
Heads up.
However, I see nothing wrong with clarifying my premise:
When a murder (for instance) is committed, it is my completely made up for this discussion idea that it is done in one of a few states:
1: The attacker is psychopathic (medically incapable of realizing that the attack is not appropriate or justified): the retrovirus would make them capable of having that realization, as any 'normal person'. They would have to rationalize the attack conciously and logically in order to want to proceed. Example: regardless of the degree to which their mother were verbally insulted, they would not desire to attack unless they could logically convince themselves that their mother was actually in clear and present danger.
2: The attacker is sociopathic (medically incapable of caring whether the attack is appropriate of justified): see 1 above.
3: The attack is rational and in defense of self or a loved one: the retrovirus would have little or no effect, although it would prevent the attacker from retreating medically into a psy- or socio-pathic state as a reaction to the act in the aftermath. They would likely feel a mild compulsion to turn themselves in.
4: The attacker is somehow rationally justifying the attack as socially appropriate (example: they live in a culture where failure to attack due to insults is known to frequently result in the insulted party being attacked for their perceived cowardice): see 3 above.
It is beyond the purpose and the ability of the drug to impair free will (at least not moreso than alcohol); however, it is still possible for antisocial acts to be performed. You just don't get a medical excuse for your actions.
EDIT: Reiterating that the above definitions of psychopathy and sociopathy are made up by me for clarity of discusson, and not the real thing. Or if so, it is by coincidence.
EDIT2: Clarifying that I am not advocating any position, simply discussing. I will state that I think that it is something that could come up in the real world some time in the next 5 decades.
Story Arcs I created:
Every Rose: (#17702) Villainous vs Legacy Chain. Forget Arachnos, join the CoT!
Cosplay Madness!: (#3643) Neutral vs Custom Foes. Heroes at a pop culture convention!
Kiss Hello Goodbye: (#156389) Heroic vs Custom Foes. Film Noir/Hardboiled detective adventure!
That's too bad. Would have been an interesting discussion.
If you're talking about a cure for Sociopathy and Psychopathy then yes, I believe we should be willing to cure those. Same as people with Autism or Down's Syndrome. While people can function in the real world just fine with these kinds of problems I don't think they're seen as something particularly desirable. It's difficult for everyone to deal with including the person afflicted.
If you're talking about a cure for 'Evil' then no. Because we've never as a race been able to agree on what Evil is and likely never will. It changes from year to year and culture to culture. What if we had 'cured' the Suffragettes, Malcom X or Rosa Parks for their Antisocial tendencies? At the time it'd have been acceptable but now looking back we'd be horrified.
Those who commit evil do not see themselves as "evil."
In some cases, yes, they are aware of it - but for the most part it doesn't register as "evil" to them.
A majority, however, perceive their actions and behaviors as "evil" - so is it right to conform individuals we don't consider "normal" into our rubric of "good" and "normal"?
Unnecessary quotations FTW!
Note that some cultures consider anyone with red hair 'evil'. That's only about 2% of the earth's population.
I'm pretty sure that Pakistanis would label anyone from India 'evil'. There's a good billion people there.
Given time, I'm sure we can find enough excuses to kill off the entire human race in the name of vanquishing evil.
But I think Joseph Conrad said it best in The Heart of Darkness:
Quote:
|
It was a beautiful piece of writing. The opening paragraph, however, in the light of later information, strikes me now as ominous. He began with the argument that we whites, from the point of development we had arrived at, 'must necessarily appear to the savages in the nature of supernatural beings -- we approach them with the might as of a deity,' and so on, and so on. 'By the simple exercise of our will we can exert a power for good practically unbounded,' etc., etc. From that point he soared and took me with him. The peroration was magnificent, though difficult to remember, you know. It gave me the notion of an exotic Immensity ruled by an august Benevolence. It made me tingle with enthusiasm. This was the unbounded power of eloquence -- of words -- of burning noble words. There were no practical hints to interrupt the magic current of phrases, unless a kind of note at the foot of the last page, scrawled evidently much later, in an unsteady hand, may be regarded as the exposition of a method. It was very simple, and at the end of that moving appeal to every altruistic sentiment it blazed at you, luminous and terrifying, like a flash of lightning in a serene sky: 'Exterminate all the brutes!' |
...
New Webcomic -- Genocide Man
Life is funny. Death is funnier. Mass slaughter can be hilarious.
Exactly. Let's do away with the genes for red hair, for liking certain foods (spinach, cilantro, onions), for left-handedness (sinister!)...
Some things may not be gene-linked, but we can "fix" those too, with memetics. We can condition, I mean convince everyone to think properly and rationally - to despise degenerate music like rap, hip-hop or country, to believe in the right religion or none at all, to hate those stupid hats that some like to wear...
(The myth of objectivism and/or rationalism is that there has ever been, or ever will be, a human being who is perfectly either. There is evidence to suggest that this is not just practically but philosophically impossible.)
My characters at Virtueverse
Faces of the City
If you destroy all evil, then there can be no more good. One defines the other, and they cannot exist independently.
Then again, both are abstract notions created by humans so they can attach reasons and justifications to both their own actions and the actions of others. The universe itself is amoral.
Quote:
I thought highschool experience said yes to this question. |
Originally Posted by VoodooGirl
Those who commit evil do not see themselves as "evil."
In some cases, yes, they are aware of it - but for the most part it doesn't register as "evil" to them. A majority, however, perceive their actions and behaviors as "evil" - so is it right to conform individuals we don't consider "normal" into our rubric of "good" and "normal"? Unnecessary quotations FTW! |
BrandX Future Staff Fighter
The BrandX Collection
Quote:
If accurate, that is a frankly terrifying proposition/prediction, as I guarantee that one or more of the first parties to make such a breakthrough would use it to abolish free will in favor of their own values. Which are, of course, the only good and correct ones, thus justifying such an action for everyone's Greater Good.|
Originally Posted by Kitsune9tails
EDIT2: Clarifying that I am not advocating any position, simply discussing. I will state that I think that it is something that could come up in the real world some time in the next 5 decades.
|
If you would like to see a worked example in a superheroic setting, I encourage you to find a copy of the Squadron Supreme miniseries from 1985-86. The titular heroes, based heavily on the JLA, take it upon themselves to start fixing the problems of the world, including "behavior modification" of most criminals and supervillains with a machine invented for that purpose. Naturally, it's soon used for other purposes...
My characters at Virtueverse
Faces of the City
Calling a medical condition good or evil is a stupid way to describe it. Instead you should be asking me if there is a way to cure a disease, should we administer that cure? To which I would say yes, so long as you have consent from the patient to administer this cure. Forcibly administering procedures upon an unwilling patient is slavery, as far as I am concerned.
Slavery is evil.
Another way of putting it might be:
Would it be correct to introduce a medical procedure that prevents people that would vary too much from a "normal" genetic standard from ever being born, in the hope of abolishing certain birth defects.
Story Arcs I created:
Every Rose: (#17702) Villainous vs Legacy Chain. Forget Arachnos, join the CoT!
Cosplay Madness!: (#3643) Neutral vs Custom Foes. Heroes at a pop culture convention!
Kiss Hello Goodbye: (#156389) Heroic vs Custom Foes. Film Noir/Hardboiled detective adventure!
Quote:
Again that really depends on what "Normal genetic standard" means here. I mean if they've got to be human shaped then sure, why not. But if it means .... you know I've no idea how else you could take this one. The question is too short on details.
|
Originally Posted by Kitsune9tails
Another way of putting it might be:
Would it be correct to introduce a medical procedure that prevents people that would vary too much from a "normal" genetic standard from ever being born, in the hope of abolishing certain birth defects. |
I know what exactly has brought me to this moment. In my teen years something awful had happened(my crime alley.), and part of me truly did wish to lash out. (Magneto is right!) I asked myself why do I want to be good, is it because I fear the consequences of being evil? Is it something that I have been brought up to be, or is it something I wish to be? I decided at that moment my intiatial reasoning for being on this path didn't matter either way and I was to choosing to be good from this moment forward because it was what I wanted to be. I was master of my own destiny. Not because some super being would punish me, or some law said I couldn't be anything else.
Because of the things I felt and experienced I knew what to say to people I care about in times when they were thrown in the deep end. One of the people I care about most in this world is still alive because of the horrors I saw. If I could redo myself I'd have to let everything stand for if I was a fiber less of a man and couldn't save her I would have been devastated in ways the intial hell could never have. I would endure it all 1000 times for that.
If the world didn't have some sort of catalyst to create change the stagnation would likely be worse than crimes commited against us. We all come into this world damaged, but it's moment like I saw that cause us to admit it, and humble us.(seems like we have get our magic hammer stolen for a bit to see the big picture.) The only way for us to truly understand everything is to experience everything. I accept both the light and dark inside me. Only with them both am I whole. I refuse to let someone take that away from us.
- Justice
Lastjustice- lvl 50 defender
Leader of Eternal Vigilance.
- Freedom
Lastjudgment - lvl 50 corruptor
Member of V.A.M.P.
Beware:NERDS ARE THE WORST FANS!!