[ENFP] enfps are evil

[Opal]

I'm certain that you can construct a framework that omits such concepts. At which point, you would have to write essays to convey even a single idea to others who don't share that framework.

One of the things I've learned is that it is better to use the language that already exists between people to share concepts, than to laboriously insist that the existing language is wrong/useless and impose one's own version of "language" that is personally palatable. Such efforts almost always impede communication.

Another way to look at it: there is kind of an "uncertainty principle" of language. The more precise you are, the less understandable you are, and vice versa. Real communication is always a trade-off between precision and clarity. And "clarity" implies using common words with loaded meanings that are often very imprecise.

In regards to "good" and "bad," I wholeheartedly disagree, but I suspect we'll write past each other. Brevity is deeply under-appreciated...

What constitutes "good" and "bad" differs greatly from one person to another, so while the meaning of those words is widely known, what they describe is totally variable. I prefer to focus on the question at hand, use my mind to process each unique situation in all its complexity, and resolve whatever conflict prevents health and happiness. The words "good" and "bad" are useless in real problem solving, if you ask me.

 

[uumlau]

In regards to "good" and "bad," I wholeheartedly disagree, but I suspect we'll write past each other. Brevity is deeply under-appreciated...

What constitutes "good" and "bad" differs greatly from one person to another, so while the meaning of those words is widely known, what they describe is totally variable. I prefer to focus on the question at hand, use my mind to process each unique situation in all its complexity, and resolve whatever conflict prevents health and happiness. The words "good" and "bad" are useless in real problem solving, if you ask me.

Good and bad are patterns. If the patterns are agreed upon, they're remarkably useful in problem solving. The problem that you are pointing out is that disagreements abound. That still doesn't negate the value of discussing such things when the terminology is agreed. Without such terminology, then you have to explain WHY something is good or bad, every single fucking time. Not all moral dilemmas merit such excruciating attention.

 

[violet_crown]

Is destroying a destructive force constructive? Can you extrapolate one's potential from one's past, or do our worldviews and behavioral patterns have potential to transform? If the infant that was beaten, or the four-year-old that was raped, grows into a sadist, is he or she evil?

Are "evil," "good," and "bad" even words worth using?

Great questions. I'm gonna attempt them out of order.


Are "evil," "good," and "bad" even words worth using?


Yes. Certain things are objectively harmful. I don't mean in a "church lady suing all the homosexuals kind of way", because frankly I find questions of morality to be tedious. Morals, which I think are the thing that folks around here are getting their back up about, are about codes of behavior that help society to perpetuate itself. Those kinds of social mores are frequently meaningless to me because I'm skeptical of any value set that The Man says is Good for Everybody.

But let's leave evil aside for a moment, what about good? Do you, Opal, agree that feeling loved, supported and respected is a good thing to experience? Do you think anyone would disagree with you? And if you can agree to that, isnt' it possible that just as surely as their are things that can be considered universally beneficial, there are likely things that could be considered universally destructive as well? And if these two categories of action can be designated, is it not also valuable to distinguish what they have in common? Or should everyone have to kill someone at least once to double check that it sucks?

If the infant that was beaten, or the four-year-old that was raped, grows into a sadist, is he or she evil?

Again:

When I was a kid, my Papa used to say to me, "Rex, you're not bad, you just do bad things sometimes."

That logic has always been something of a guiding principle when evaluating human goodness while avoiding some kind of attribution error. That is because it allows for the ability to parse out an individual and whatever their circumstances may be from certain actions which by all means should and be considered evil.

Just to be more explicit: I don't feel comfortable judging a person for their actions. I've done enough fucked up shit in my life that if someone to write me off as "evil", while probably justified, it wouldn't exactly be fair. People are just people. I honor the fact that any of us are far too complex and valuable to be capture in such a reductionist manner.

That said, action, on the other hand, I feel a lot more comfortable calling an action what it is. Saying that an action is evil doesn't speak to the motivations that compelled it, nor the greater good that may be obtained from it, it just calls a spade a spade. Let's take a more neutral example just to illustrate this:

Say you have an axe. The purpose of an axe is to chop shit up. Whether that axe is chopping wood for some little old lady to keep her warm living on her farm in the dead of winter, or that axe is chopping up someone into little piece to chuck 'em into the Hudson, the axe is doing what it was intended for. It is chopping shit up.

Let's say now we're talking about murder. Whether I'm killing the guy that I mentioned earlier who likes to post-game toddler murder with a Nachos del Grande on death row, or I'm the murderer himself--we're still talking about the same fundamental action. You're taking a human life. No circumstance is going to make that action less intrinsically horrible even if some folks do kind of need killing (ie, it is justifiable). The rationale that proceed an action and the benefit that can be derived from an action don't alter the inherent moral value of that action, it just alters the calculus of the cost-benefit of justified you are in choosing to undertake it.

Is destroying a destructive force constructive?

Nope. Killing the child murder on death row is destructive, even if it is justifiable.

Can you extrapolate one's potential from one's past, or do our worldviews and behavioral patterns have potential to transform?

Patterns of behavior do exist and depending on the factors that brought them into being can make them deterministic in some cases. BUT! Again, people aren't their patterns. They're people. People possess the capacity for reason which grants them free will. Each choice we make presents us the opportunity to make a different choice than the sort we might have made in the past. Whether we choose to take it is entirely up to us.

 

[Cygnus]

You guys are taking this thread way too seriously.





I, for one, feel personally validated to be classified as a force of evil.

 

[Mademoiselle]

Yes, evil..
The kind of person that will destroy the world because you're mother called your sibling to eat before you.
Not to mention there were less than 30 seconds delay calling you later.

I say you're kids.

 

[Frosty]

Things people do are evil, people are not. Do they have the potential to do awful things to each other, sure, and are some of those things completely unforgivable, I would say so, but does that make them 'evil'... I would say no.

Evil seems like an absolute, as does good. Everyone has done a balance of both, and while some may tip more dramatically to one side, the fact that the other side exists at all keeps the seesaw going. Now, past actions almost certainly should be included in predicting future actions, and if something is persistant or horrific enough measures should probably be taken to prevent future incidents.

I could see though, if someone were to damage something another held valuable, that person being colored as evil. As it is probably easier to place blame, hate, and declarations, on what is immediately recognizable as the source of your issues, as to try to gain some sort of understanding as to why, but casting the person as evil ignores anything and everything else behind it.

 

[Poki]

Is destroying a destructive force constructive? Can you extrapolate one's potential from one's past, or do our worldviews and behavioral patterns have potential to transform? If the infant that was beaten, or the four-year-old that was raped, grows into a sadist, is he or she evil?

Are "evil," "good," and "bad" even words worth using?

Yes construction is created from destroying a destructive force, you must sometimes take a step back to take 20 steps forward. Just make sure the step back allows 20 steps forward and you don't end up tripping when walking backwards. That would suck and be ironic. Or possibly Karma stepping in and saying, wrong step.

As mean as it sounds, some things are unforgivable. Period.

I have been here twice. First time was molestation and abuse of my niece. Police got him first. Second was stealing tens of thousands from family members. I had a child that is dependent on me, that's the only thing that stopped me. Second one also has several life sentences as well. Dark side of ISTP. Don't screw with someone who's feelings have just been ripped out of them. The only thing worse then anger is someone who feels dead. Atleast with Anger you can scare the crap out of it and reverse it. Anger cant even look death in the eyes.

 

[Avocado]

That's bull and you know it. Some shit is just evil. Example:

Let's say some dude breaks into your house, fucks your 4yr old kid, and then breaks her neck afterward. He then blithely saunters off for a delicious fourth meal at Taco Bell and sleeps soundly afterwards.

Would you call this person evil or just misunderstood?

Mentally ill. I've always believed evil is relative, in that what one person calls "noble," another person finds hideous. I've often wondered if criminals are evil or are just doing what they have to do.

 

[Redbone]

Mentally ill. I've always believed evil is relative, in that what one person calls "noble," another person finds hideous. I've often wondered if criminals are evil or are just doing what they have to do.

Not mentally ill. Doing what they want to do.

I think sometimes I dig a little too deeply into why so-and-so would do such a thing. How about simply because they wanted to? Not denying that actions can have some complex things driving them but quite often, "I wanted to/I want it" is the main reason. I think it gets rejected as a reason because it seems so god-awful. We seem to crave some complex pathology (well...I know I often do!) but I had to learn (the very hard way) sometimes people simply do ugly, brutal, cruel and yes, evil shit because they want to and they feel entitled to do so.

 

[Avocado]

Not mentally ill. Doing what they want to do.

I think sometimes I dig a little too deeply into why so-and-so would do such a thing. How about simply because they wanted to? Not denying that actions can have some complex things driving them but quite often, "I wanted to/I want it" is the main reason. I think it gets rejected as a reason because it seems so god-awful. We seem to crave some complex pathology (well...I know I often do!) but I had to learn (the very hard way) sometimes people simply do ugly, brutal, cruel and yes, evil shit because they want to and they feel entitled to do so.

That's a bitter pill to swallow, but it's probably true based on what Insee when I look right at people. I've done "evil" things, but the last few years, I've made effort to be "good." That scale may be going back the other way, though, as I learned I need to step on others toes sometimes to take care of business...but...you know, it's life.

 

[Cygnus]

I'm certain that you can construct a framework that omits such concepts. At which point, you would have to write essays to convey even a single idea to others who don't share that framework.

One of the things I've learned is that it is better to use the language that already exists between people to share concepts, than to laboriously insist that the existing language is wrong/useless and impose one's own version of "language" that is personally palatable. Such efforts almost always impede communication.

Another way to look at it: there is kind of an "uncertainty principle" of language. The more precise you are, the less understandable you are, and vice versa. Real communication is always a trade-off between precision and clarity. And "clarity" implies using common words with loaded meanings that are often very imprecise.

It just means the idiot reading it is too impatient to learn or try and understand anything.

 

[Frosty]

Not mentally ill. Doing what they want to do.

I think sometimes I dig a little too deeply into why so-and-so would do such a thing. How about simply because they wanted to? Not denying that actions can have some complex things driving them but quite often, "I wanted to/I want it" is the main reason. I think it gets rejected as a reason because it seems so god-awful. We seem to crave some complex pathology (well...I know I often do!) but I had to learn (the very hard way) sometimes people simply do ugly, brutal, cruel and yes, evil shit because they want to and they feel entitled to do so.

But couldn't their wanting to do something be caused by what someone wanted to to do to them? If they were pushed in the wrong direction as a kid, and the hole was dug deeper and deeper until you could only see down and not up, it might be easier for you to do 'evil' things.

That isn't to justify anything, because I am pretty sure my cousin in law is a sociopath and a dangerous one at that, but there are even things to him that are... Tolerable. But even though the past should not be used as a measure of which to absolve the need for punitive action, it can be used to understand reasons and motivations for behaviors.

Horrible actions can be caused by a horrible childhood, or they could just be the result of a heavily disturbed individual, but fighting fire with fire just causes more fire, blaming the fire doesn't help, but understanding from where the fire originated and what it involves can help to put it out.

 

[BadOctopus]

Ooh, this thread has gotten deep. I love it.

I may be out of my depth here, but I believe that evil is very real. It's a human construct. By our deciding what is good and bad, we have created the concept of evil. And trying to dismiss evil actions as the product of a bad upbringing or a lack of conscience doesn't negate the existence of evil itself. It just provides an explanation for it.

 

[Frosty]

By creating the solid definition of good vs. evil, we have begun to categorize people in black or white, when I think everyone is made up of various shades of gray. Darker in some places, lighter in others, but no one is completely one color. I would think that we define things often based off of the particular values of our society, in some places things such as eating the flesh of the dead or marrying off children young, are common place, yet many may judge these actions to be evil while simultaneously disregarding things in thier country that could also be defined as a potential evil. (Not going into specifics, don't want this derailing politically, though if that happens, I guess whatever)

I think evil is more of a feeling cast upon an action rather than the action itself. You see what someone else does, you accept it deep into yourself, and it grows to color your perception. Actions can be sick, perverse, unjustified, and can turn your world from the inside out, tearing you apart by tearing apart those around you, but evil is just IDK.

 

[SD45T-2]

Not mentally ill. Doing what they want to do.

I think sometimes I dig a little too deeply into why so-and-so would do such a thing. How about simply because they wanted to? Not denying that actions can have some complex things driving them but quite often, "I wanted to/I want it" is the main reason. I think it gets rejected as a reason because it seems so god-awful. We seem to crave some complex pathology (well...I know I often do!) but I had to learn (the very hard way) sometimes people simply do ugly, brutal, cruel and yes, evil shit because they want to and they feel entitled to do so.

I was just discussing this with another member: Chiron: CofV6: Self-Actualized Violence

Rory Miller is a retired corrections sergeant (17 years with Multnomah County) and has a degree in psychology.

 

[uumlau]

Ooh, this thread has gotten deep. I love it.

I may be out of my depth here, but I believe that evil is very real. It's a human construct. By our deciding what is good and bad, we have created the concept of evil. And trying to dismiss evil actions as the product of a bad upbringing or a lack of conscience doesn't negate the existence of evil itself. It just provides an explanation for it.

Well, if we want to get deep about it, I can. (But it was worthwhile posting a BOX OF KITTENS! )

I would characterize the understanding of good and evil as being the collective knowledge of a society. As such, they are very real things, very real categories, but also as such it is possible to disagree with specific instances of categorization.

For instance, the reason that things like murder, stealing, etc., are almost universally regarded as evil is because such things make it very difficult for large numbers of people to live together. Similarly, the kinds of things that are considered good (protecting the innocent, taking care of others in need) are those that bind us together as a society.

The problem comes in when people start getting a bit nihilistic and say that good and evil don't really mean anything, that it's all just opinion, or at best it's all just shades of grey. These sorts of analyses are seductively true: they aren't wrong in and of themselves, but they are wrong in that they conclude that one can substitute one's own personal moral code - or even substitute "pragmatism" for morality - and that is "just as valid" as archaic concepts like good and evil. What gets lost in translation is that our society(ies) has spent millennia evolving these principles of good and evil in a "self-organizing" sort of way. That is to say, those societies with bad self-organizing principles (e.g., it's OK to kill people you don't like) tend to die off, while those with good self-organizing principles tend to thrive. (This explains why it is possible to send more than enough food to feed people in a starving country, and the country remains starving: there is something systematically wrong with that country's self-organizing principles that prevents actually getting food to people. But of course, people get upset if we start using words like "evil" to describe this systematic wrongness.)

What I see happening, when people dismiss good and evil as "only opinion" or "useless" is that they're dismissing a huge amount of collective knowledge that they don't even begin to understand, in the name of "understanding things better". In other words, they're essentially replacing collective wisdom with their personal "wisdom". Individuals are generally unable to discern what is truly right and wrong from first principles. Such thought either leads to "pragmatism" (whatever is convenient and appears to work at the time) or to a naive idealism that has little chance of surviving actual practice in the world.

The reason for the lack of clarity is precisely because individuals are generally not wise enough (I would argue "always" not wise enough, but that's a different thesis) to decide what is good/evil from first principles. Thus there is almost always some sort of moral authority (religion, custom) that has blanket statements about what is good and bad, in order to keep things simple enough for most individuals to understand. The problem is that such simplifications are "lossy". You have a set of rules without a "why" behind it, and naturally clever people will tend to question such rules, and be frustrated when told that they don't get to change the rules when they "don't make sense".

In short, we need the simplistic concepts of good and evil in order to communicate that cultural self-organizing knowledge generally, as most people aren't moral philosophers. But then we have amateur moral philosophers come in and insist that good and evil are invalid because they're too simplistic.

Yes, the concepts of good and evil are often too simplistic and easily abused. The problem is that we cannot organize society in general as if everyone were some sort of Confucius or Bhudda or Jesus, able to discern moral truths for themselves in every conceivable case.

 

[Frosty]

But couldn't good and bad be relative based on the values of a society. If a country were to be able to function using practices that individuals can view negatively from an outside perspective, does this necessarily make them evil?

Individuals are probably not able to discern absolute right and wrong for themselves, but does going along with a principle, or ignoring a principle, that they do not believe in for the sake of society cast them as good or as evil, or just as human? Common good does seem to generally take precendence over individual judgement, and it seems as if sometimes those who are incapable of abiding by the values of a society are the first who are cast out. Generally though, probably trying to reform something outwardly, especially if in the minority, will most likely be a long road filled with 'small' sacrifices along the way.

Most people probably wouln't question their actions, especially those of which they view to be just normal parts of life, I generally don't, and they probably do not think that what they are doing today could end up building and interconnecting into other larger issues. Probably also contributing to positive ones as well, but positive doesn't offset negative I just think they add to each other. It would be impossible to judge every effect your actions could have, so generally going by what society values, ie trusting others to make the choices for you, helps to negate any sense of personal responsibility.

Does ignorance make you evil? Does putting on your blinders so that you do not see the long reaching effects of your actions, or the actions your are contributing to, make you bad? Sure certain societies are so... jumbled, that any attempt to fix them before developing a solid core on which to build, would probably just end up creating a false positive sense of relief, but does that mean that you stop trying?

Attempts at revolution can end up resulting overwhelmingly positively, -ending of slavery, or can result overwhelmingly negatively, -the Holocaust. I suppose that is why sometimes it is necessary to have both traditionalists to remind of what was, and activists?, to see what the future could lay ahead. Weigh ending good gained against ending good sacrificed and then decide. Though the sacrifice of the individual for the good of the whole is a... Tricky thing in and of itself.

If you cannot fix a problem, and you know that you cannot fix a problem, looking away seems as if it would be the easiest thing to do. I guess creating standard definitions for behavior towards larger issues is a way to keep everything from collapsing, but intentionally or unintentionally you probably will end up being shades of gray. I wouldn't say I am an ametuer philosopher either, wouldn't even give this that much credit, just dipping my feet into my thoughts, and seeing what comes of it.

 

[uumlau]

But couldn't good and bad be relative based on the values of a society. If a country were to be able to function using practices that individuals can view negatively from an outside perspective, does this necessarily make them evil?

Well, part of the problem here, right from the get-go, is that you are using "evil" in the simplistic sense, while you are in the context of trying to decide between two different sets of self-organizing principles.

In a practical sense, if that other country exists in isolation from the rest of the world, there are no problems to be had. If it has to interact with a country with very different values, there will be a conflict. The winner of the conflict isn't "good" or "evil", but rather simply determines what sets of values are carried forward.

There are also internal cultural debates over what is good and evil. One of the more interesting ones has huge political implications: there is a set of tribal/family values, and a set of civilization values that more or less work together, but are very much often at odds because they often indicate very different conclusions in various matters. These conclusions are usually resolved by each keeping to its own context, but the contexts always leak out, just as you spoke in terms of a country being evil.

At a very (VERY!) simple level, the tribal/family set of values is organized around "share and share alike", while the civilization values are organized around various notions of private property, which is kind of an antithesis of "share and share alike". The tribal values work well when people know each other and are familiar with each other, but tend to work poorly with strangers. The civilization values are particularly good at dealing with strangers in a peaceful and constructive way, but no one would want to live in a family organized under such principles.

So there is a general tendency to impose the tribal/family values into the civilization context, because the tribal/family values are generally more intuitive, closer to what we think of as morally good and evil, and tend to accuse the civilization values as being evil or broken, because the values around private property don't generally account for being kind and generous. But when one naively tries to implement those tribal values on the scale of a civilization, they often don't work, or work but also have awful unintended consequences. The problem is one of scale: without the familiarity with individuals, the tribal values fail to account for the possibilities that the civilization values do. But we'll never get away from this problematic dynamic of values: human beings evolved around tribes/families, and they're suited to our emotional/moral understandings, but we're now being organized on huge scales of hundreds of millions of strangers.

Anyway, that long ramble was intended to say that I sorta-kinda agree with you, but I sorta-kinda don't. There can be competing sets of values both within a society and external to a society. In my opinion, good and evil don't apply at that level. But if you go to the tribe/family level, you'll see the same sets of good/evil values repeated over and over, differing only w/r to traditions and customs, in all countries/nations. And if you go to the civilization level, you'll see a different set of values consistently in play over and over, differing only in terms of traditions and customs. (Yeah, that's kind of vague, but it's difficult to say precisely without writing a book and citing sources, etc.)

 

[Frosty]

Oh yeah I understood that, I just sometimes have a hard time completely clarifying what I am trying to get across, so that was the reason for that last little bit. Anyways, what I think you are saying now, (and I could for sure be wrong, I am getting a bit out of my depth- uncomfortable and intriguing at the same time), is that individuals/groups generally tend to want to reflect their deepest, most personal values, on to those of which they are less familiar as those values are what THEY are most familiar with, attempting to bridge a gap but ultimately generally dividing things further.

That sort of thing is what causes conflict, even though it usually is an unintentional and rather the result of two partially and naturally opposing viewpoints unsuccesfully trying to both understand and accept the individuality? of the other while also trying to keep true to their ideals by also subtly edging the idea that their way is better. In order to limit as much as possible the conflict that that creates, facades need to be put up, and socialization and expressed concerns need to be put up in only the most general degree. But I do not know of intentions generally matter if the end result is the same, possibly/probably they do, but hmm...

Anyways, if we lived in a bubble, I still think that there would be issues, conflict exists not only as a way to resolve issues but also likely as a means to impose a sense of superiority or fear over the other. As long as anything, anything, exists there will probably end up being conflict, either extrenal over internal, internal over external, internal over internal, or, I guess the obvious last one, external over external.

 

[Poki]

Well, part of the problem here, right from the get-go, is that you are using "evil" in the simplistic sense, while you are in the context of trying to decide between two different sets of self-organizing principles.

In a practical sense, if that other country exists in isolation from the rest of the world, there are no problems to be had. If it has to interact with a country with very different values, there will be a conflict. The winner of the conflict isn't "good" or "evil", but rather simply determines what sets of values are carried forward.

There are also internal cultural debates over what is good and evil. One of the more interesting ones has huge political implications: there is a set of tribal/family values, and a set of civilization values that more or less work together, but are very much often at odds because they often indicate very different conclusions in various matters. These conclusions are usually resolved by each keeping to its own context, but the contexts always leak out, just as you spoke in terms of a country being evil.

At a very (VERY!) simple level, the tribal/family set of values is organized around "share and share alike", while the civilization values are organized around various notions of private property, which is kind of an antithesis of "share and share alike". The tribal values work well when people know each other and are familiar with each other, but tend to work poorly with strangers. The civilization values are particularly good at dealing with strangers in a peaceful and constructive way, but no one would want to live in a family organized under such principles.

So there is a general tendency to impose the tribal/family values into the civilization context, because the tribal/family values are generally more intuitive, closer to what we think of as morally good and evil, and tend to accuse the civilization values as being evil or broken, because the values around private property don't generally account for being kind and generous. But when one naively tries to implement those tribal values on the scale of a civilization, they often don't work, or work but also have awful unintended consequences. The problem is one of scale: without the familiarity with individuals, the tribal values fail to account for the possibilities that the civilization values do. But we'll never get away from this problematic dynamic of values: human beings evolved around tribes/families, and they're suited to our emotional/moral understandings, but we're now being organized on huge scales of hundreds of millions of strangers.

Anyway, that long ramble was intended to say that I sorta-kinda agree with you, but I sorta-kinda don't. There can be competing sets of values both within a society and external to a society. In my opinion, good and evil don't apply at that level. But if you go to the tribe/family level, you'll see the same sets of good/evil values repeated over and over, differing only w/r to traditions and customs, in all countries/nations. And if you go to the civilization level, you'll see a different set of values consistently in play over and over, differing only in terms of traditions and customs. (Yeah, that's kind of vague, but it's difficult to say precisely without writing a book and citing sources, etc.)

Basically good and evil are reference words. They apply with reference to what is believed. Good is on the path towards what you believe and evil is not. So to hitler he was not evil because what he did helped him reach what he believed was right, but everyone else saw him as evil. So in a sense it was Good against Good while at the same time it was Evil against Evil if you wanna play with perception of each side.