forums.rs

Forums

Power - Apparently, it's Evil

Quick find code: 341-342-139-65879726

of 6
Hguoh

Hguoh

Posts: 7,581 Rune Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
AttilaSquare said :
This discussion strikes me as a little silly. All the argument lies in the definitions - of good, evil, selfish, flawed, nature, nurture, but there has been little attempt to define any of these explicitly. That would cut to the heart of the matter - otherwise there's no progress being made.

No, I don't think it does, nor do I think attempting to define them would aid this discussion at all. All it would do is lead to a fruitless discussion as to what exactly each of those terms are (as discussion of this type has been since the question was first brought up), which would ultimately not actually answer the proposed question.

When it comes to my answer, I'll try to explain it better. People are not omniscient. We can predict what effects our actions will have, but we do not know for certain what will happen. This leads to occasions where the outcome does not correspond with our intent.

On the topic of intent, I am of the belief that the main influence power has on intent is the facilitation of it. This leads to the situation where people with power (regardless of intent) can do bigger things with greater effects, but also opens the opportunity for bigger screw ups. These screw ups, in turn, leads to more opportunities to cause resentment for people with power.

13-Feb-2017 21:00:05 - Last edited on 13-Feb-2017 21:05:44 by Hguoh

AttilaSquare

AttilaSquare

Posts: 1,792 Mithril Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
Hguoh said :
AttilaSquare said :
This discussion strikes me as a little silly. All the argument lies in the definitions - of good, evil, selfish, flawed, nature, nurture, but there has been little attempt to define any of these explicitly. That would cut to the heart of the matter - otherwise there's no progress being made.

No, I don't think it does, nor do I think attempting to define them would aid this discussion at all. All it would do is lead to a fruitless discussion as to what exactly each of those terms are (as discussion of this type has been since the question was first brought up), which would ultimately not actually answer the proposed question.

When it comes to my answer, I'll try to explain it better. People are not omniscient. We can predict what effects our actions will have, but we do not know for certain what will happen. This leads to occasions where the outcome does not correspond with our intent.

On the topic of intent, I am of the belief that the main influence power has on intent is the facilitation of it. This leads to the situation where people with power (regardless of intent) can do bigger things with greater effects, but also opens the opportunity for bigger screw ups. These screw ups, in turn, leads to more opportunities to cause resentment for people with power. That is fair. From the start your argument did not require any further definitions, but it's the other arguments and the concepts they use in which I'm most interested.

14-Feb-2017 15:35:28

Derack
Jul Member 2013

Derack

Posts: 3,066 Adamant Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
"The love for money power is the root of all evil."

Power all ways changes a person, for better or worse.

"Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power. (or a very slow internet connection.)"
"If you believe you can distance yourself from the harm you cause, you're deluding yourself. You're not some mindless tool. You're accountable. Your actions will catch up with you eventually." -Jedi Master Jun Seros; Swtor Bounty Hunter storyline.

14-Feb-2017 15:50:56 - Last edited on 14-Feb-2017 15:51:08 by Derack

Summerleaf
Nov Member 2012

Summerleaf

Posts: 3,313 Adamant Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
TryflBane said :
Maiden China said :
oh, I just talk in a weird way :p
I would say 'don't let it bother you' but you'd Thatds said :
get the sense that you're talking down to me

jokes :p

but anyway, an explanation.
most people won't shoot you in the face, yes
but the reason for that is because there's very little gain in doing so and a great deal of inconvenience (what with law enforcement and people not liking you that much)
Only somebody who is mentally broken would be so remorseless that they could murder people without feeling guilt. Video games make killing seem so trivial but the actual act of taking a life will haunt all but the insane

This is true, but humans have a habit of not thinking ahead, so you'll still be dead. Sure you'll haunt his dreams for decades to come, but... You're still dead.

15-Feb-2017 02:24:04

Cthris
Dec Member 2023

Cthris

Posts: 5,206 Rune Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
TryflBane said :

Only somebody who is mentally broken would be so remorseless that they could murder people without feeling guilt.... the actual act of taking a life will haunt all but the insane
If you don't mind, could you please tell me the source of how you came to this conclusion. I'm currently majoring in criminology, and this seems to be completely contrary to the empirical evidence recorded by some major studies.

Based on my own studies on a famous study by Stanley Cohen called States of Denial (You can probably look up this study on your university library if you want) which admittedly was more focused on rapist than strictly on murderers though lots of the rapists murdered their victims, many of the felons constructed intricate justifications for their crimes. (Basically, most people just blame their victims)

Very very few of the felons actually felt their crimes were unjustified, and thus didn't feel guilty. Now you might be tempted to questions these men's sanity, but that would be in vain. The rapists weren't insane, and many weren't even suffering from mental conditions or disorders. As far as their mental states go, most were normal.

It seems that the human mind has an amazing ability to rationalize any activity it does, including murder and/or rape. Further evidence to suggest this is the many studies into choice blindness (You can also easily look this up). Essentially it shows that the human mind is able to create elaborate justifications for actions that they only think they did, yet didn't even do,.

So yeah, I disagree with the soundness of your claim, but if you can provide evidence or studies for the contrary I would honestly love that.

15-Feb-2017 03:07:28 - Last edited on 15-Feb-2017 03:07:44 by Cthris

Solanumtinkr

Solanumtinkr

Posts: 22,240 Opal Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
Rather than justifying the crime I think they are talking about how humans have evolved to act a certain way after "defeating" a rival and that only a small % could shoot you in the face (while that person is begging for their life or jst in a crumpled terrified ball) and not be bothered by it.

In fact this small % (2%) was the type that did most of the deliberate killing just wars, before Skinnerian training was introduced. A small % of armies was doing nearly half the work. In fact reflexive Skinnerian training, for a shoot to kill reflex where the enemy is dead before they think about the action, would also explain the rise in mental problems from post war trauma as killing not only goes against instinct but the social environment they are in also has it as their greatest taboo giving the effect a double whammy.

Oh and that 2% divides near enough in to 2 groups. Your basic psycho, no need for them to be a rampaging killer, but they can make for war time snipers who can kill relaxing combatants laughing over lunch without any qualms. And then there is the type that tend to have been forced into parental roles at a very young age with that attitude spilling over in later life to their army palls, the type that win medals for heroic acts, I suppose that may work just as well in the criminal fraternity as well.

Most other killing is done under perceived threat of some kind, in the heat of the moment, which is where justifications come in for the vast majority and their thinking. That may not mean that something is not bothering them about the act of killing as that justification may be a rationalisation to help maintain their own sanity. Though environmental factors of social group behaviour may also play a part, as such a think used to soften the effect of killing in battle in olden times as it was see as a virtue back then, and that played an important part in mental perceptions and after effects.

Source: internet and YT Lindybeige The purpose of adventure is to shine light into dark places,
Poke monsters with a sharp stick, Then steal anything that isn't nailed down!
To the Manor Born QFC 185-186-367-65788716

15-Feb-2017 06:01:57

Summerleaf
Nov Member 2012

Summerleaf

Posts: 3,313 Adamant Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
As a former caseworker and current psychologist Cthris and Solanumtinkr are both correct in their own way.

In the end, it's down to the Nature vs. Nurture argument. If you have a genetic predisposition for anything, the environment can "unlock" that sequence of gene's material. In the same breath, they also have the ability to "lock" the sequenced materials as well, as is often done in cognitive behavioral therapy.

So, for Cthris' criminal argument, low SES plays a significant role in what stimuli an individual is exposed to (of course there are numerous other factors that impact this situation, but we don't really have the time to get into those, so I'm using SES as my example). Using Maslow's hierarchy of needs, if you know anything about it, you can conclude that rationalization of crime is natural under said circumstances. Ergo, no feelings of guilt.

In Solanumtinkr's examples, we are presented with individuals who have all of their basic needs met to some degree; specifically, more so than the previous category. (Keep in mind that I haven't worked with Veterans since I worked the suicide line, so I'm a little out of touch with current data). Essentially from what I remember, and information from colleagues, it's a combination of high stress (which too much of over a long period of time, leads to PTSD, obviously), as well as violations of societal social norms, and reintroduction into civilian life really messes with their psyche.

Of course, most of the data taken is from post-industrialized countries, so it may be different in less developed parts of the world with different cultural views towards this kind of thing.

15-Feb-2017 07:25:46 - Last edited on 15-Feb-2017 07:30:05 by Summerleaf

Cthris
Dec Member 2023

Cthris

Posts: 5,206 Rune Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
TryflBane said :
if you want to correct me cthris fine but don't be a smartass about it. Obviously i don't take psychology at a university no need to mock me about it
I wasn't mocking you. I phrased my words very carefully in order to cover my own bases from future arguments. The social science, and science in general enjoys very little to no absolute certainty. I couldn't correct you because I wasn't absolutely certain of the factual matter, thus I could only offer counter evidence to your own evidence, which required me to inquire about your own evidence so that I could compare the two. I also couldn't straight up tell you you were wrong because that would put me in a very compromising position that would be easily to defeat in an argument.

It was also intended as a small courtesy to allow you to get another word in before I decided that you were probably wrong.

It's also was in no way obvious to me that you didn't take psychology at a university, how could I possibly know? Many universities offer contradictory accounts of social phenomenons.

15-Feb-2017 17:49:33 - Last edited on 15-Feb-2017 17:52:17 by Cthris

Quick find code: 341-342-139-65879726 Back to Top