junie
𝕝𝕠𝕧𝕖 𝕞𝕖 𝕠𝕣 𝕟𝕠𝕥
Have you ever wondered why people do bad things? It's been on my mind for quite some time now. Is the evil side more powerful than the good? Let me know your thoughts!
Other ♡ ᴡʜʏ ᴅᴏ ᴘᴇᴏᴘʟᴇ ᴅᴏ ʙᴀᴅ ᴛʜɪɴɢs ♡
- Thread starter junie
- Start date
Idea
The Pun Tyrant
I've thought about this quite a lot, amidst several other philosophical considerations, as it is a passion of mine.
so allow me to show you something.
in a vacuum, that is, the absence of any context, consequence or anything of the sort, would you prefer to eat a delicious food once or twice?
remember, nomatter what, there is no difference whatsoever except taht you are eating another delicious thing. No deaths, nobody is losing anything, no extra expenses, no favor loss, no desease, nothing... Just the extra sensation of a delicious flavor.
If you're sane and you understood what I asked, you likely answered you'd take the two delicious things. What kind of idiot would it take to pick a an option that is DIRECTLY WORSE?
this line of reasoning can easily be translated to altruistic action, that is, action for the benefits of others, not your own. Again In a vacuum situation, would you rather save one person's life or two?
the obvious answer is two.
so, as I believe I just demonstrated, when aware of all consequences and without sacrifice attached, the human being always makes the best decisions.
now, there is an idea that are , by nature , selfish. However, I'd like to contest the idea using one of the examples used to demonstrate it.
imagine a man walking by the road who sees an injured duck. The man feels pity for the duck and thus helps it.
some have argued that it was the feeling of pity , something that feels bad, that we actually help the duck for. To spare our own feelings. However , even if it is the case, the fact we felt empathy in the first place , to me at least, clearly presents that humans have an inherent sense of community, even when there is nothing in it for them.
This to me is proof that humans are inherently selfless. Selfish behavior, when it happens, happens because we identify ourselves as part of a greater whole, and as such, consider ourselves important too.
with this, I solved one of the problems, taht of sacrifice. Sacrifice is a true issue if we are inherently selfish, however, if the opposite is the case, then we can safely say we'd make sacrifices for the greater good, if not for the other problem.
Awareness.
I always say, "ignorance is humanity's greatest evil" and it pertains to this. It is because we don't know we're doing evil.
why do we do bad things? Because we think we are doing things when we do them, or at least the best thing possible. They are all mistakes. There is just too many ways to get things wrong and we don't know enough, often, to pick the right decisions once they reach the level of complexity that our world's problems have.
so allow me to show you something.
in a vacuum, that is, the absence of any context, consequence or anything of the sort, would you prefer to eat a delicious food once or twice?
remember, nomatter what, there is no difference whatsoever except taht you are eating another delicious thing. No deaths, nobody is losing anything, no extra expenses, no favor loss, no desease, nothing... Just the extra sensation of a delicious flavor.
If you're sane and you understood what I asked, you likely answered you'd take the two delicious things. What kind of idiot would it take to pick a an option that is DIRECTLY WORSE?
this line of reasoning can easily be translated to altruistic action, that is, action for the benefits of others, not your own. Again In a vacuum situation, would you rather save one person's life or two?
the obvious answer is two.
so, as I believe I just demonstrated, when aware of all consequences and without sacrifice attached, the human being always makes the best decisions.
now, there is an idea that are , by nature , selfish. However, I'd like to contest the idea using one of the examples used to demonstrate it.
imagine a man walking by the road who sees an injured duck. The man feels pity for the duck and thus helps it.
some have argued that it was the feeling of pity , something that feels bad, that we actually help the duck for. To spare our own feelings. However , even if it is the case, the fact we felt empathy in the first place , to me at least, clearly presents that humans have an inherent sense of community, even when there is nothing in it for them.
This to me is proof that humans are inherently selfless. Selfish behavior, when it happens, happens because we identify ourselves as part of a greater whole, and as such, consider ourselves important too.
with this, I solved one of the problems, taht of sacrifice. Sacrifice is a true issue if we are inherently selfish, however, if the opposite is the case, then we can safely say we'd make sacrifices for the greater good, if not for the other problem.
Awareness.
I always say, "ignorance is humanity's greatest evil" and it pertains to this. It is because we don't know we're doing evil.
why do we do bad things? Because we think we are doing things when we do them, or at least the best thing possible. They are all mistakes. There is just too many ways to get things wrong and we don't know enough, often, to pick the right decisions once they reach the level of complexity that our world's problems have.
Miracleist
Bathing in dream light
Good and evil (or bad) are both subjective concepts that are far too restrictive a label to apply on most situations, I feel. The world's far too complex for certain actions to easily be classified under a certain category without a chance for it to belong to the other. This, I feel, is why there are sometimes situations where what appears to be 'bad' or 'evil' can be 'good' from another perspective. As such, I think that people would do bad things simply because it's not necessarily 'bad' to those people - and I refer to 'bad' here as something that is defined by the individual in question. Simultaneously, the 'bad' act also benefits them in some way or another - whether it makes them feel better, or whether it provides some kind of material gain (even if on the surface it might seem detrimental, E.G. those who self-mutilate).
TL
R People would do bad things because of their definition of what is 'good' or 'bad' and what benefits they gain from the act.
TL
R People would do bad things because of their definition of what is 'good' or 'bad' and what benefits they gain from the act.
Idea
The Pun Tyrant
Good and evil (or bad) are both subjective concepts that are far too restrictive a label to apply on most situations, I feel. The world's far too complex for certain actions to easily be classified under a certain category without a chance for it to belong to the other. This, I feel, is why there are sometimes situations where what appears to be 'bad' or 'evil' can be 'good' from another perspective. As such, I think that people would do bad things simply because it's not necessarily 'bad' to those people - and I refer to 'bad' here as something that is defined by the individual in question. Simultaneously, the 'bad' act also benefits them in some way or another - whether it makes them feel better, or whether it provides some kind of material gain (even if on the surface it might seem detrimental, E.G. those who self-mutilate).
TL
Allow me to disagree. Sure, the world isn't black and white, but things can still be objectively said to be "good" or "bad". Even if people have different opinions about the WORDS good and bad, the CONCEPTS are not up to debate: nomatter how much you believe it to be this or that, it won't change how things actually are.
I'll try to take an example, although it's hard to put this as per an example, and of course, no example it perfect.
Imagine a psychopath who just happens to bump into someone one day and feels that it is a good thing to kill them. So he does.
The question is, does the psychopath's belief in that their action was good have any effect of whether it was good or bad?
Miracleist
Bathing in dream light
I see what you're getting at and you're not wrong. In fact, I'm not really sure what you're disagreeing with. I'm definitely not saying that the 'bad' things that people do are 'good', personally or objectively. I'm only suggesting a reason why people do 'bad' things - that they do not see it as 'bad' and it has some kind of benefit for them (be it objective or subjective or both). It answers the main question in this thread directly, I think.
Though, I think you raised an interesting diversion. I think it's a difference in perspective that we have right now... And the way I see it, it seems to boil down to a disagreement that we have about the notion of "things that inherently are". Basically, the conflict between utilitarianism and deontology (latter is my personal estimation of your views - I am likely wrong about it). Correct me if I'm wrong again; you argued that there are certain concepts that are just the way they are - set in stone, so to speak. An unspoken rule about what is 'good' or 'bad' - objectively.
I respectfully disagree with that. By my perspective, I would think the 'objective' definition of what is 'good' or 'bad', that you spoke of, isn't so much objective as it is generally agreed upon. The so-called 'concepts' that you brought up, or the way 'things actually are'; those are also man-made to me, not natural law. They're artificial 'concepts' that people created in order to establish a certain social order, to create an environment that would be conducive towards survival. As such, these concepts would never be set in stone. They would always remain up for debate to anyone willing to take up the intellectual arms. People in general agree that certain actions are 'bad' (or 'good') and thus, that becomes the common sense. To me, it isn't so much that certain 'concepts' are just 'how things actually are' than it is about simple majority rule. I share the utilitarian perspective in that regard, it is about the greater good.
However, where I depart from utilitarianism (and deontology as well) is when it comes to the perspective. Your example also illustrates another key difference between our perspective. You seem to be suggesting that the psychopath's actions are objectively 'bad' regardless of his belief. Amusingly, here, I agree (minus the 'objectively'). It's 'bad'. But can the action be 'good'? I think it can - and it is from the perspective of the psychopath. Taking what I mentioned above back here once more, I believe that such 'concepts' being man-made means that there will always be room for alternative interpretations. In the same way that social progress happens, certain 'concepts' - or norms and values - have to be open to being renegotiated to suit the needs of the present. As such, I am of the firm opinion that certain actions, no matter how 'objectively' or 'generally agreed to be' 'bad' it may be, it could still be 'good' depending on the individual.
Also, there's a reason why I never deal in absolutes (not because I'm a Jedi). I used 'most' in my original answer to acknowledge that there might be exceptions such examples like the one you cited - which is a rather extreme example that should be 'bad' by most standards.
TL
R: There is really no disagreement as far as I'm concerned. I was suggesting an answer to the thread starter about why people did 'bad' things and not focusing on 'the way things are'. However, for the sake of argument, I believe (and I might have misconstrued your views) that our 'disagreement' fundamentally comes down to a difference in ethical paradigms and also a difference in the importance of agency. I do not believe that either of us are wrong and I don't know if either of us are right - but I know I believe in what I have said and that makes it right to me.
Obsessed
Braiiness
Because they get depressed and their confidence gets trampled. They'll think: no one cares about me anyway so I'll do whatever I want. I do not care.
Swindle
Ozoi
There's probably a wide variety of reasons why people do "bad" things. A poor domestic life, including abuse in the home and out of it can create feelings of hatred and resentment towards certain people or people in general. This could lead to "bad things" taking place as a result of those emotions. I'd wager that serial killers, rapists, and other types of "bad people" emerge from maladjusted domestic and social lives.
Poverty and the feeling of hopelessness that comes with it is also a major factor - people in poor areas don't steal and kill from eachother because it's fun or something like that. And then those poor people will have vengeance brought on them either by their compatriots or by law enforcement, which will only make things worse by setting those disenfranchised people back further. You can think of it as the criminal's fault if you like, however I am of the mind that it is not entirely their fault, since people can't control in any genuine fashion the direction their lives take.
As for people along the lines of terrorists, a combination of horrible war-torn living conditions and a sense of betrayal at other cultures could probably be a cause for their actions.
The prior mentioned social maladjustment also includes growing up in a racist or otherwise prejudiced household, which can lead people to act on those feelings of superiority and/or inferiority in a malevolent fashion.
Of course, the problem in calling something a bad thing is that morals and the like are fairly fluid. What is justified to one is abhorrent to another and although I can say that I think it's better that most people collectively think that murder/rape/exploitation/etc. is bad, not everyone else does.
Poverty and the feeling of hopelessness that comes with it is also a major factor - people in poor areas don't steal and kill from eachother because it's fun or something like that. And then those poor people will have vengeance brought on them either by their compatriots or by law enforcement, which will only make things worse by setting those disenfranchised people back further. You can think of it as the criminal's fault if you like, however I am of the mind that it is not entirely their fault, since people can't control in any genuine fashion the direction their lives take.
As for people along the lines of terrorists, a combination of horrible war-torn living conditions and a sense of betrayal at other cultures could probably be a cause for their actions.
The prior mentioned social maladjustment also includes growing up in a racist or otherwise prejudiced household, which can lead people to act on those feelings of superiority and/or inferiority in a malevolent fashion.
Of course, the problem in calling something a bad thing is that morals and the like are fairly fluid. What is justified to one is abhorrent to another and although I can say that I think it's better that most people collectively think that murder/rape/exploitation/etc. is bad, not everyone else does.
Last edited by a moderator:
Fable
₮ⱧɆ ₥Ɏ₮Ⱨ, ₮ⱧɆ ⱠɆ₲Ɇ₦Đ, ₮ⱧɆ ₣₳฿ⱠɆ
Tiny font is tiny... and for those with large monitors kills my eyesight.
On topic: I wish my ethics class could have explained why people do bad things. Sometimes bad things are just mistakes or accidents, what I think you are asking is more towards purposefully harming others in some way. There is no single answer; some do it to feel more powerful or have control. Others enjoy harming others because it gives them that feeling of power over someone else in some way.
On topic: I wish my ethics class could have explained why people do bad things. Sometimes bad things are just mistakes or accidents, what I think you are asking is more towards purposefully harming others in some way. There is no single answer; some do it to feel more powerful or have control. Others enjoy harming others because it gives them that feeling of power over someone else in some way.
dva
are you even trying?
i tend to try to see the good in people. there are some cases where i just can't, but i know that thieves don't steal just to steal. they're risking their freedom to eat or to have money. obviously they must be desperate to put such a thing on the table. and some people do the wrong thing thinking that they're doing the right thing. this doesn't make them a bad person - maybe they were raised in a weird way or maybe they just miscalculated.
i will admit that there are people in my life that i would in no opportunity label as a "good" person. people who i thought were good have been bad the whole time. even after the betrayal, i was trying to make excuses for them. i always try to think what made them that way. of course, senseless murders, rape, abuse ... these are unforgivable and in a lot of cases, irredeemable. but i always think of their family, and how they are grieving for the person who they thought they were. they must have been good, and something turned them bad. whether it be another person, a traumatic event, a mental illness that twists reality ... and honestly, i kinda grieve for them too. no one is born evil. pain can just shape us to be evil. you can say that evil people deserve pain, but a lot of them have been through a lot already - of course that in NO WAY justifies their bad actions. it's just weird to think about the person they could have been before they "turned" bad.
i knew someone who i had trusted for a whole year and a half. i'm not necessarily great at making friends - i have a TON of friendly acquaintances, but i'm kinda picky about who i strongly associate myself with ... this girl had been "left" by all of her friends on multiple separate occasions (...which should have been a red flag, really), and i honestly felt bad for her. we had been friends for a while when she manipulated and abused my friend while he was suicidal. he ended up in the ER for being hysterically suicidal, and was checked into a psych ward the next morning. the night i got the text that he was in the ER, i sobbed. i knew that the whole week he was fuming about how she was judging him and how she was making him feel trapped, and even when he admitted to her that he had thoughts about taking his own life, she accused him of being "fake deep" and "trying too hard to be psychological." i texted her the next day saying that if she gave him a whole hearted apology with no but's or conditions (she never gave an unconditional apology to ANYONE in our relationship and believe me - people deserved them from her), then maybe i would CONSIDER speaking to her again.
of course, she didn't apologize.
i then found out that throughout the year and a half, she had been complaining about me and talking just pure shit about me behind my back. it broke me. i felt so betrayed and i was so insecure for weeks. the only one i really trusted was my friend in the ward, since he told me all this, but he was in the ward so i couldn't talk to him unless i was visiting him with his family (and i'm definitely not gonna talk about friend drama to a suicidal person hell no). but i learned that she did this because i was basically the matriarch of our friend group, and she hated that. i remember a girl moved here from london, and she hung out in our group. the boys were FASCINATED by her! she is so cute and her voice is beautiful. my friend loathed this. of course she acted all buddy-buddy with her to her face but only spoke shit when she left. i remember her telling me about how shallow she thought she was because she likes tan guys (she's from britain lol she just moved to california and is probably fascinated?? i would be lol), and judged her for wanting to go to college in australia. like. who cares?? i got so sick of it that i started to yell at her whenever she started to be mean about her. i knew it was about jealousy but i knew it would devastate her if i accused her of being envious... in retrospect i should have, lol.
anyway, when the girl found out that the friend had been doing nothing but stabbing her back when she wasn't around, she cried in the nurse's office for two whole hours. i felt so terrible i didn't tell her sooner. it broke my heart to hear. the girl was truly sweet and caring - she in no way was anything that was said about her. i messaged her later, apologizing to her that she had to go through it, and that i was too much of a coward to bring it up sooner. the girl said that she knew the whole time that i was genuine, but felt insecure about the others. and that's exactly how i felt when i was around the same girl who had hurt us both. she betrayed us both because she wanted to be in control - because she was jealous that we were getting most of the attention. looking back, she did tell me that her father had neglected her for a lot of her childhood. but i just couldn't forgive her, since i knew she wouldn't learn.
i know that people have their reasons for "turning" bad, but it is up to the victim of their wrong doings if they want to forgive. no one has to forgive anyone. no one has to give more and more second chances - and refusing to let someone back into their life doesn't make them a bad person. it makes them self aware.
i've thought about this subject a lot. some people do bad things as coping mechanisms (my friend who was in the psych ward manipulated some of us because he felt so out of control of himself that he needed to be in control of others - i understood this, and after learning the severity of his mental state, i held my arms open for him and gladly accepted his apologies. since then he has been so, so careful to not manipulate others), some people do bad things to fill gaps that they just can't fill by living their life with the standard morals that we all have. through an objective lens, i can understand and forgive, but through a personal lens, i just can't forgive some.
the psychology of both the wrong-doer and the victim is so fascinating. it's probably one of the coolest aspects of the conscious human mind!!
i could probably write like 7 more paragraphs but i'm gonna stop now because i've written so much ... omg ..
i will admit that there are people in my life that i would in no opportunity label as a "good" person. people who i thought were good have been bad the whole time. even after the betrayal, i was trying to make excuses for them. i always try to think what made them that way. of course, senseless murders, rape, abuse ... these are unforgivable and in a lot of cases, irredeemable. but i always think of their family, and how they are grieving for the person who they thought they were. they must have been good, and something turned them bad. whether it be another person, a traumatic event, a mental illness that twists reality ... and honestly, i kinda grieve for them too. no one is born evil. pain can just shape us to be evil. you can say that evil people deserve pain, but a lot of them have been through a lot already - of course that in NO WAY justifies their bad actions. it's just weird to think about the person they could have been before they "turned" bad.
i knew someone who i had trusted for a whole year and a half. i'm not necessarily great at making friends - i have a TON of friendly acquaintances, but i'm kinda picky about who i strongly associate myself with ... this girl had been "left" by all of her friends on multiple separate occasions (...which should have been a red flag, really), and i honestly felt bad for her. we had been friends for a while when she manipulated and abused my friend while he was suicidal. he ended up in the ER for being hysterically suicidal, and was checked into a psych ward the next morning. the night i got the text that he was in the ER, i sobbed. i knew that the whole week he was fuming about how she was judging him and how she was making him feel trapped, and even when he admitted to her that he had thoughts about taking his own life, she accused him of being "fake deep" and "trying too hard to be psychological." i texted her the next day saying that if she gave him a whole hearted apology with no but's or conditions (she never gave an unconditional apology to ANYONE in our relationship and believe me - people deserved them from her), then maybe i would CONSIDER speaking to her again.
of course, she didn't apologize.
i then found out that throughout the year and a half, she had been complaining about me and talking just pure shit about me behind my back. it broke me. i felt so betrayed and i was so insecure for weeks. the only one i really trusted was my friend in the ward, since he told me all this, but he was in the ward so i couldn't talk to him unless i was visiting him with his family (and i'm definitely not gonna talk about friend drama to a suicidal person hell no). but i learned that she did this because i was basically the matriarch of our friend group, and she hated that. i remember a girl moved here from london, and she hung out in our group. the boys were FASCINATED by her! she is so cute and her voice is beautiful. my friend loathed this. of course she acted all buddy-buddy with her to her face but only spoke shit when she left. i remember her telling me about how shallow she thought she was because she likes tan guys (she's from britain lol she just moved to california and is probably fascinated?? i would be lol), and judged her for wanting to go to college in australia. like. who cares?? i got so sick of it that i started to yell at her whenever she started to be mean about her. i knew it was about jealousy but i knew it would devastate her if i accused her of being envious... in retrospect i should have, lol.
anyway, when the girl found out that the friend had been doing nothing but stabbing her back when she wasn't around, she cried in the nurse's office for two whole hours. i felt so terrible i didn't tell her sooner. it broke my heart to hear. the girl was truly sweet and caring - she in no way was anything that was said about her. i messaged her later, apologizing to her that she had to go through it, and that i was too much of a coward to bring it up sooner. the girl said that she knew the whole time that i was genuine, but felt insecure about the others. and that's exactly how i felt when i was around the same girl who had hurt us both. she betrayed us both because she wanted to be in control - because she was jealous that we were getting most of the attention. looking back, she did tell me that her father had neglected her for a lot of her childhood. but i just couldn't forgive her, since i knew she wouldn't learn.
i know that people have their reasons for "turning" bad, but it is up to the victim of their wrong doings if they want to forgive. no one has to forgive anyone. no one has to give more and more second chances - and refusing to let someone back into their life doesn't make them a bad person. it makes them self aware.
i've thought about this subject a lot. some people do bad things as coping mechanisms (my friend who was in the psych ward manipulated some of us because he felt so out of control of himself that he needed to be in control of others - i understood this, and after learning the severity of his mental state, i held my arms open for him and gladly accepted his apologies. since then he has been so, so careful to not manipulate others), some people do bad things to fill gaps that they just can't fill by living their life with the standard morals that we all have. through an objective lens, i can understand and forgive, but through a personal lens, i just can't forgive some.
the psychology of both the wrong-doer and the victim is so fascinating. it's probably one of the coolest aspects of the conscious human mind!!
i could probably write like 7 more paragraphs but i'm gonna stop now because i've written so much ... omg ..
Saccharine Cyanide
One part sweet, two parts poison
I actually learned a little about the psychology of why people do bad things when I was in college, so I think I can give a pretty concrete answer.
There are a few different ways that people justify doing bad things. Actually quite a few different ways.
Dehumanization
This is the justification for any violence against large groups of people ever. If you strip a people of their humanity, then violence against that group becomes "justified." It's no longer "murder" or "genocide," because they are no longer "human beings." Think about how Jewish victims of the Holocaust in concentration camps were reduced to a series of numbers tattooed on their arms.
Obedience to authority
It's almost scary how hard-wired we are to obey figures of authority. Simply putting on a uniform can give you an incredible amount of power. And, as the Stanford Prison Experiment demonstrated, people are very quick to abuse that authority. Check out this experiment to see how easily ordinary people fold under autoritarian pressure.
Environment
People who are consistently told that they're "bad people" (self-fulfilling prophecy) or live in an area where they see a lot of crime happening around them are psychologically conditioned to be criminals. People who have no other choice but to commit crime will obviously take that last resort, but if people feel that crime will give them just an increment of happiness compared to their current lifestyle, they'll often turn to it.
Power and control
Certain acts of evil give people who feel powerless a sense of power, the big one being sexual assault. It's total control over someone else's body. It's then justified by turning it around and saying the victim wanted it or deserved it.
Social blindness
If you can't see for yourself how something you know is wrong is hurting someone, you're more likely to do it and less likely to care about the consequences. Sometimes people actively work to keep themselves blind, often by pretending victims don't even exist.
Separation by degrees
You only work for the company that hires slave labor. You didn't know the meat you bought was from a company that mistreats their animals. When many people are partially responsible for evil, it's hard to assign blame. Sure, you can point the blame squarely at the CEO, but that brings us to the next point.
Utilitarianism
Think of the train conundrum. You see five people off in the distance tied to tracks, and a train is approaching. Another person is tied to the diverging tracks. Do you let five people die? Or do you pull the lever to divert the train and let one person die? If you, like the majority of people, chose to pull the lever, you've just committed an objective act of murder.
To tie this in with the last example, greed is a huge motivator for evil, but it's often justified with utilitarianism. The leader of a large company would much rather cut costs with slave labor than put thousands of people out of a job.
Or, a dictator might see it as necessary to stifle dissent by killing journalists because the dictator is working for a vision where their subjects enjoy unity and peace under their rule.
No definite answer
Sometimes we are just absolutely split on whether something is good or evil. The big one being abortion. The people for it see it as a human right and fear that taking it away will lead to women losing more rights over their body. The people against it see it as murdering an unborn child. There is no clear "good and evil" in this case. There is good and bad on both sides and very strong justifications for why people argue for or against. That's why the debate has been raging for decades.
There are a few different ways that people justify doing bad things. Actually quite a few different ways.
Dehumanization
This is the justification for any violence against large groups of people ever. If you strip a people of their humanity, then violence against that group becomes "justified." It's no longer "murder" or "genocide," because they are no longer "human beings." Think about how Jewish victims of the Holocaust in concentration camps were reduced to a series of numbers tattooed on their arms.
Obedience to authority
It's almost scary how hard-wired we are to obey figures of authority. Simply putting on a uniform can give you an incredible amount of power. And, as the Stanford Prison Experiment demonstrated, people are very quick to abuse that authority. Check out this experiment to see how easily ordinary people fold under autoritarian pressure.
Environment
People who are consistently told that they're "bad people" (self-fulfilling prophecy) or live in an area where they see a lot of crime happening around them are psychologically conditioned to be criminals. People who have no other choice but to commit crime will obviously take that last resort, but if people feel that crime will give them just an increment of happiness compared to their current lifestyle, they'll often turn to it.
Power and control
Certain acts of evil give people who feel powerless a sense of power, the big one being sexual assault. It's total control over someone else's body. It's then justified by turning it around and saying the victim wanted it or deserved it.
Social blindness
If you can't see for yourself how something you know is wrong is hurting someone, you're more likely to do it and less likely to care about the consequences. Sometimes people actively work to keep themselves blind, often by pretending victims don't even exist.
Separation by degrees
You only work for the company that hires slave labor. You didn't know the meat you bought was from a company that mistreats their animals. When many people are partially responsible for evil, it's hard to assign blame. Sure, you can point the blame squarely at the CEO, but that brings us to the next point.
Utilitarianism
Think of the train conundrum. You see five people off in the distance tied to tracks, and a train is approaching. Another person is tied to the diverging tracks. Do you let five people die? Or do you pull the lever to divert the train and let one person die? If you, like the majority of people, chose to pull the lever, you've just committed an objective act of murder.
To tie this in with the last example, greed is a huge motivator for evil, but it's often justified with utilitarianism. The leader of a large company would much rather cut costs with slave labor than put thousands of people out of a job.
Or, a dictator might see it as necessary to stifle dissent by killing journalists because the dictator is working for a vision where their subjects enjoy unity and peace under their rule.
No definite answer
Sometimes we are just absolutely split on whether something is good or evil. The big one being abortion. The people for it see it as a human right and fear that taking it away will lead to women losing more rights over their body. The people against it see it as murdering an unborn child. There is no clear "good and evil" in this case. There is good and bad on both sides and very strong justifications for why people argue for or against. That's why the debate has been raging for decades.
BAPE
Live Good Eat Good
stupid people do stupid shit.
determinator
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
There isn't a simple answer to this question.
I was going to respond to this properly, but I'm not joining the armchair psychoanalysis going on here lmao
that turned me off REAL fast
I was going to respond to this properly, but I'm not joining the armchair psychoanalysis going on here lmao
that turned me off REAL fast
Swindle
Ozoi
I mean, instead of acting pretentious you could actually do something to add to the thread, @castigat. Unless you're a professional, I'm pretty sure whatever your response would have been would also be counted as armchair psychoanalytics.
Besides that, it's obvious that there's no simple answers to most of the people who have posted.
Besides that, it's obvious that there's no simple answers to most of the people who have posted.
Karlore
Unofficial Mayor of Wizard Township
I agree with Miracleist. Good and evil are subjective categories. I'd love to get into this more but I have a bad headache and can't focus right now, unfortunately.
I have to respond to this though.
I think it's dangerous to say that authoritarianism is hardwired into our psyches, and more importantly it's demonstrably false. This is the problem with any appeal to human nature; you can't observe a phenomenon under very specific conditions and generalize it to humanity as a whole. We're heavily shaped by the society we're raised in. Of course these people reacted this way, they were raised in an authoritarian society and conditioned to accept it's premises, but this in no way proves that they're universal. In the essay 'future primitive' by John Zerzan (I feel obligated to say that I'm not a fan of his, but he makes the occasional good point) he cites the account of a researcher who observed, in a hunter gatherer society, that people who acted bossy and dictatorial were treated with ridicule and hostility. In their society there's no benefit in behaving this way. It's actually a disadvantage since it alienates you from the group which you rely on for survival. It's only at the dawn of agriculture, when society became stratified, that these traits became beneficial.
It's important to note that humans spent the vast majority of their existence as a species in non-hierarchical hunter gatherer bands. the idea that evolution conditioned us to act the way these people did in these experiments over the relatively short period of the last 10,000 years is somewhat hard to swallow.
Regarding the Milgram experiment, the results are usually taken out of context. Milgram ran the experiment a bunch of times with a bunch of different variable, and the results seem to actually indicate the opposite of the generally agreed upon conclusion. He selected the words the "scientist" would use very carefully. The scientist would goad the participants on with specific phrases at specific intervals. Right before they reached the lethal voltage he would say "you must continue", and that's when people would stop. What they found is that people would do terrible things to each other if it was for the greater good (in this case scientific advancement) but as soon as you told them they HAD to do it, that's when they decided they didn't.
Going back to what I said earlier, this doesn't really tell us much about human nature, but the fact that they only stopped when they were explicitly told they couldn't casts doubt on this idea that we're somehow hardwired to obey authority.
I have to respond to this though.
I think it's dangerous to say that authoritarianism is hardwired into our psyches, and more importantly it's demonstrably false. This is the problem with any appeal to human nature; you can't observe a phenomenon under very specific conditions and generalize it to humanity as a whole. We're heavily shaped by the society we're raised in. Of course these people reacted this way, they were raised in an authoritarian society and conditioned to accept it's premises, but this in no way proves that they're universal. In the essay 'future primitive' by John Zerzan (I feel obligated to say that I'm not a fan of his, but he makes the occasional good point) he cites the account of a researcher who observed, in a hunter gatherer society, that people who acted bossy and dictatorial were treated with ridicule and hostility. In their society there's no benefit in behaving this way. It's actually a disadvantage since it alienates you from the group which you rely on for survival. It's only at the dawn of agriculture, when society became stratified, that these traits became beneficial.
It's important to note that humans spent the vast majority of their existence as a species in non-hierarchical hunter gatherer bands. the idea that evolution conditioned us to act the way these people did in these experiments over the relatively short period of the last 10,000 years is somewhat hard to swallow.
Regarding the Milgram experiment, the results are usually taken out of context. Milgram ran the experiment a bunch of times with a bunch of different variable, and the results seem to actually indicate the opposite of the generally agreed upon conclusion. He selected the words the "scientist" would use very carefully. The scientist would goad the participants on with specific phrases at specific intervals. Right before they reached the lethal voltage he would say "you must continue", and that's when people would stop. What they found is that people would do terrible things to each other if it was for the greater good (in this case scientific advancement) but as soon as you told them they HAD to do it, that's when they decided they didn't.
Going back to what I said earlier, this doesn't really tell us much about human nature, but the fact that they only stopped when they were explicitly told they couldn't casts doubt on this idea that we're somehow hardwired to obey authority.
chesirekitten
Less dead than expected
I don't really know. I do know though that most of the people that have walked all over me, just didn't like me. I don't know anything about what those peoples home lives were like though, so I really can't say. (shrug) not a very philosophical answer, is it? 
CupAndCough
Sought Hope Here, Became Blind To It
Don't trust the man who deep fries his butter. He smells like cheese even tho he's lactose intolerant.
What I'm really saying though is that it doesn't matter what you do so long as you don't disappoint me by deep frying your butter, you dirty butt-bandit. That is the bad.
What I'm really saying though is that it doesn't matter what you do so long as you don't disappoint me by deep frying your butter, you dirty butt-bandit. That is the bad.