Born Evil?

Due to going off topic in another thread I thought i might ask the question in here. What do people think? Are some people born evil? After doing a bit of Googling I found a good assessment which aligns to what I believe:

Philip Zimbardo, Ph.D.,
President, American Psychological Association

It is easy to identify individuals who willfully degrade and destroy other human beings as "evil." Starting with the Biblical characterization of Lucifer as God's favorite angel transformed into the dark force of the devil and cast into hell, scores of evildoers fill history's hall of shame. In recent times, Hitler, Stalin, Mao and many others stand out as mass murderers. However, as a social psychologist I prefer to identify situational conditions that can facilitate or seduce good people into becoming perpetrators of evil, such as adherence to destructive ideologies, rules, roles, uniforms, group norms, along with processes of dehumanization, deindividuation and moral disengagement.

So... I don't think I believe in Demon seeds as such... but who really knows I guess.

Mods: if this subject is too volatile please feel free to remove. It might not be appropriate in this forum. I hope people can post thoughtfully on the issue. It's a subject that has been raised in several threads in BB over the years i have been a member but always been OT.

THANKYOU Bath! I was just wondering if and where to put this myself. ;)

I think "evil" needs some definition before we can decide if some people are born that way. I do not think a person can be evil, but i believe they can commit evil acts. I also think it is natural (if not fair) to describe a PERSON as evil if they have committed a great many evil acts and show either no remorse or insufficient remorse given their crimes.

Your use of the word "seduce" interests me. It implies evil is the attractive option, the one which we must resist, rather than the deplorable which we must steel ourselves to do.

Also, i wonder if others would think a mass murderer differs from a serial killer? To me the evil of Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Polpot, was the evil of reading and understanding and giving the order anyway. But a serial killer commits the crime him/her self. That is a different kind of evil.

So, what is "evil"?

Bec

To me "evil" means, anyone who commits harmful acts towards others to feel pleasure without feeling any sense of hesitation or remorse. And yes i do think some people are born without the gene or brain receptors which would prevent most people from committing a harmful act. I don't think they are "demons", i think its more scientific than that - simply something gone wrong in their brain.

Based on that definition Ourlux i agree, i think some people are born with genetics/chemistry/physiology which predispose them to sociopathy or pyschopathy. BUT i also know there are people apparently without either of those personality disorders who commit evil acts, so i would imagine both nature AND nurture play their part. Enough pedisposing nature, and nurture can't make a difference, enough predisposing (abusive etc.) nurture and nature is over-ridden?


Bec

Yep true, do enough awful things to an innocent and mentally healthy child and there's no doubt their brain becomes re-wired.

I don't think people are born evil, but rather can be predisposed to it, whether that be due to genetic traits or upbringing. I think in the right circumstances anyone can become evil.

I would define evil as being without the capacity for kindness, empathy or love. This means that "bad" things can be done without any remorse, or care for others.

Personally, I also think it is a combination of nature and nurture. I think the way in which people react to things starts with their genes, and is adjusted by their early experiences. So two people can experience the same events in their lives but have different responses. This could be because they have different capacities for stress, or because they have a different ability to empathise, or a differnt perception of things. It could be a greater or lesser ability to handle emotions. Much of this is, I believe, shaped in early childhood. But I think there is a genetic basis to it. Then, if traumatic events happen throughout the person's life, it CAN, depending on the other factors, "push them over the edge" so to speak. This is why abuse CAN cause abuse, but doesn't necessarily.

This is such an interesting topic.

I would go further i think MelanieR, i think that if the predisposition is strong enough even what would be thought of as a relatively "normal" childhood can be enough to tip the balance, whereas without that predisposition there would probably need to be more extreme trauma to bring on an absence of empathy, etc.

So if a person were pre-disposed simply not abusing might not be anywhere near enough to prevent the switch being flicked.

Bx

This has gotten me thinking (hooray, my brain didn't come out during birth!!). What about people who are ill, like have mental illnesses or something, therefore the capacity to think 'normally' is skewed, would you define them as evil, or rather their acts as evil?

I don't think i'd ever define a PERSON as evil. Mental impariment is VERY difficult to diagnose. It's one thing when someone says God told them to kill, or "the voices" told them to kill, but what about people who kill "because i felt like it" or "because it was Wenesday and i always feel like it on a Wednesday" or "because i wanted the insurance money"? Clearly their thinking is skewed, not normal, but is it an impairment?

One could say that only someone who is not thinking straight would deliberately kill another person, so where does that leave us?

Bx

That's what I ws thinking too, Bec. Surely anyone who actually WANTS to harm another living thing couldn't be thinking clearly. They would have to be in a state of psycosis or something. But would that make them evil? Some people have illnesses which are intermittent, making them think one thing at one time and another at a different time. I don't think that kind of person would be evil, just sick (as in ill!).

But say for instance a person insures their partner and then kills them, that means they were "ill" both when they took out the insurance, every time they paid the premium at the time of the killing and afterwards when they pretended not to have killed and collected the money. Is that illness or evil?

Or say a woman has a boyfriend and kids from a previous marriage. The boyfriend leaves her, stating her family is "excess baggage" and he doens't want to have to raise kids, his own or anyone else's. She then kills her kids. Is that illness or evil?

Or if the perpetrator states they have no memory of the crime? Can we know if the crime was a result of illness or an act of evil if that is the case?

Bec

I've been mulling over this for a few days and I still find it hard to believe that a person can be born with the predisposition to behave in an evil manner for the rest of their lives regardless of upbringing or early experiences. If this predisposition was hardwired then that person would not have the ability for kindness and any kind of empathy. You would also see it run in families. Maybe there are some "evil" families :dunno: but I still strongly feel that if a child, if it had the 'evil' gene was raised in a loving family in a loving community would not all of a sudden turn on this family/community. I don't believe there are children like Damian from the The Omen. Nearly every case where children have harmed other on done 'evil' there has been a reason in their 'nuture'... or it has a mental illness... i don't think there is a third reason; that the child is simply evil.

Maybe it's just my spiritual beliefs but my God clearly states that every child is born innocent. If we start to believe otherwise then that gives us the right to suspect certain people of being born evil (with an evil gene) and therefore 'write them off' as hopeless cases that need to be removed from society, locked up and key thrown away. This also makes us dismissive of the reasons why they committed their crime/s. We can tell ourselves that it doesn't matter why they did it.... they did it because they were evil... and if we go down that path, I think, a lot of opportunities for preventing further tragedies will occur.

I also agree with Kellieem that many evil acts are the result of mental illness. The examples such as killing for insurance money etc, I think, are a nuture issue. Rarely do people do those type of things out-of-the-blue. We might only hear of that extreme act in the news but i think with examination you would find the person had a history of not thinking through consequences, being selfish etc.

I think it would be more beneficial for our society to recognise the anti-social tendencies of some children (which I do agree exhibit early) and provide them with the necessary therapy, medication etc. However this should, I think, always be done with HOPE for the child's future. Hope that the child's soul has the potential for good. We can't deny responsibility for children. We can't write them off. And if children like these progress to adulthood without diagnosis then we still can't write them off as evil without first analysing their histories. This is a human right. To 'write off' a human without first trying to understand them is denigrating them as less than human.... and this in itself is something that so-called evil people often do: eg Hitler. If we the "good" start to take on traits of those the "evil" then it is a very slippery slope.

I dont think people are born evil but rather that it is learnt. Alot of bad people see things or have horrible things happen to them as a child, I say most becuase I know its not all. But I also believe that people can be possesed as well, from lower energies, not like that off the movies like the excorist or anything that evil.


I what a horrible subject, gives me the creeps, love and light, love and light, love and light runs away chanting those words!!!!!

I agree Bath that even for those very much predisposed in nature to become like this there STILL has to be something in their nurture which is the trigger. But i think that the trigger could be hard to find with some. I think a child without the predisposition could go through a lot of abuse, trauma and pain and not become like that, but for the predisposed child something as simple as a poorly handled birth of a new sibling, difficult first day (year/whatever) at school, off-the-cuff-remark by a choice adult, could be enough. I do not believe that every person who does evil can be found to have such terrible trauma we can understand the extremism of their actions.

I think what i'm basically asking is, if something either works well or does no harm to 99.9% of people, do we change it because it *might* cause some terrible reaction in 0.1%? If someone says "i was bullied, that's why i was driven to kill" do we start to use the citation of bullying in the past to mitigate crimes? To me mitigating circumstances must be immediate - if a battered wife (or husband) accidentally kills their spouse while trying to defend themself against a violent attack, that is mitigating circumstances. If a battered wife (or husband) waits until their spouse is asleep before putting a knife into their chest that is cold-blooded murder.

I mean, the sort of trauma we would consider terrible is normal for some. Imagine a child who is never fed properly, is in constant and real danger of starvation in fact, is not clothed properly and is cold and miserable often. Who has to work at hard, heavy labour and is not allowed to go to school or play. With many siblings and busy parents without the resources to look after each child well. There may be illness too, both in the community and in the family, so that the child is exposed to the sickness and death of close relatives, friends, neighbours. We would consider this a severely traumatic existence, yes? But many people in the countries of North Africa grow up this way and they do not all turn into serial killers.

The richest country, with the lowest levels of socioeconomic suffering (internationally-speaking), the US, has some of the highest murder rates in the world.

I know my attitude is hardlines and purist, but i cannot reconcile ANY amount of suffering with murder. Thou shalt not kill. There is no excuse. There is no amount of suffering one may stand behind and cite as the reasoning. When one crosses that line and kills another human being, for me (i know, i sound like a conservative lunatic! :)) one has crossed the line which is the edge of society. Once outside society due to one's actions, one is no longer subject to its rules, but one no longer has its rights. So you don't have to pay tax but you can't go wandering out among the people either.

So for me, finding out what the killer thinks their reasons were is only relevant in prison, where rehabilitation is needed before they should be released into society again. But for court, for deciding their punishment, no, sorry, only the crime they commited is relevant.

Bec

ETA - for an example of a killer who came from a background without particular violence or abuse and killed without aggression or rage, and did not understand the enormity of his crimes, google Denis Nilsen.

I think alot of "evil" behaviour can be attributed to the environment they are subject to in their early years of life. If children see love, kindness and respect they are more likely to think this is the norm and follow it's lead whereas if a child sees hate and destruction then that then becomes normal and they are more likely to follow that path. Children (which become adults) are like little sponges and are very easily mislead and influenced which is why I believe society needs to protect it's children at all costs and try to provide a strong moral role model for them to follow as they take our place as the worlds adults and future decision makers.

Bec :) I'm not sure you understand... I am not seeking to excuse those who murder, merely understand how it happened. To excuse and to understand are different.

I still stand by my beliefs that people do evil things due to two reasons: mental illness/faulty brain chemistry or due to their upbringing/environmental influences. I really doubt that there is is a third unrelated ingredient: an evil 'gene' or 'possession' etc. I agree that what might trigger an evil act for one person will not do so for another and for that I have no answer.

Imagine if you were a child who somebody was convinced you had an evil gene :( Imagine how that would affect you. I think labelling someone from birth as evil or capable of evil is very wrong. Children become what they are told.

I agree that yes, it is right to remove the benefits of society from a wilful murderer but not their human rights. No act of another should justify treating humans like animals no matter how heinous their crime. Punish but don't degrade. When you take away another human's dignity you compromise your own.

I think what i'm basically asking is, if something either works well or does no harm to 99.9% of people, do we change it because it *might* cause some terrible reaction in 0.1%? If someone says "i was bullied, that's why i was driven to kill" do we start to use the citation of bullying in the past to mitigate crimes?

I am not suggesting we mitigate or excuse crimes but if it becomes apparent that for example, childhood bullying is contributing to many cases of adult crime then yes, it should lead to measures of crackdown in schools (which is what is happening here in Victorian schools ATM). But if we just threw criminals in the slammer without taking the time to research their histories we would lose this opportunity to see PATTERNS that lead to crime.

Darn, I had something I really wanted to add here and I can't for the life of me remember what it was :( .

But what I will say, is that I see what you are saying Bec, re the children in Africa vs USA. I would take this a step further and say that I believe these horrendous crimes have become more common in recent times (as in compared to a generation ago even). I think that our society has a lot to do with it. I don't know what it is about our society, but it could be the rushed, stressful lives many people lead, it could be having working parents when growing up, it could be chemicals in food - I don't know exactly what it is, but IMO something in our so called Modern Society and First World is making it more likely for someone to be triggered into "evil". This is why it is more common than it was, and why it is more common in rich countries. It might even be just that we, as a society in general, have become the "no responsibility generation" - like you say Bec, I totally agree that people's pasts should not excuse their actions. The fact that people don't take responsibility for, and are not made to take responsibility for their actions, is IMO a HUGE problem and IS a contributing factor to people committing crimes. However, I think that is simplistic to point to any one of these things and say "they are evil (or did an evil thing) because...". Surely it is a combination of things that has taken a person to that point where they have crossed the line.

Regarding the crime in wealthy countries VS the perception of lower crimes rates in poor countries:

I think you can't really compare however i think that in the wealthy countries EXPECTATION has a lot to do with many crimes. Via the media people in wealthy countries can compare their lot in life to the "rich and famous" and of course their lives fall short. In our Western society is is deemed healthy to feed ones ego. Advertisers keep ramming down our throats that we "deserve" this or that. So we pursue things with a sense of entitlement.

In poorer nations people tend to only compare their lot in life with others in their immediate surroundings. And for many this makes them feel fortunate. Also their actions are probably more accountable as they depend on each other more. Wealth tends to bring autonomy; if you have money you don't need the help of others to survive as much.... you don't need to protect your reputation.

Hi everyone, this is great, as I have been following this post lot of questions have formed in my mind.
One thing that I hear alot from spiritaully minded people is that we are put on this earth to learn from our mistakes (so that they can advance on their spiritual jurney and that we will keep making the mistake until we learn the lesson). That sound fine when you talk about a failed relationship, but what about murderers or rapists? Is this just an excuse or are we put on this earth to make mistakes, which would mean we were born to do these things and make the desisions that lead up to the evil act? I tend to believe that we are supposed to learn from our mistakes but have trouble believing that it was all decided upon pre birth and that we were sent to do these things. All things seem to have a reason for being, everthing seems to be linked, if so then evil must have a place in this world, we may not like the people who do these evil acts but it gets us thinking about it and we learn from it and hopefully we learn that it would be a better world if we all tried to love each other and get along, we create laws and rules and forums to help to make it a better world.
I suppose my question is asking whether our spirit and body are one or seperate and then how do external influences such as nurturing, drugs and environment effect the body and sole. I find myself swinging like a pendulum on these matters.

Also bath we perceive there being more crime than their really is due to the media saturation effect. 27 minutes of crime vs perhaps 30seconds for a good will piece at the end. Its all about fear and consumption.

rosehannah excellent question, excellent. Perhaps these evil people are not learning there leassons so keep going over and over it . I do believe also that there has to be balance i thw world so there is good and bad in everything and that includes people, and people in the after life too. So perhaps some of these rotten evil people were not so evil to begin with but maybe thay end up taking subtances of drugs, or they had a mental ilness, and there for at such a weak state in there life had what we call low level energies attacht themselves to them and make them do such horrific things to others. Just a thought! You now how peple say that the "Voices" told them. Not in ever case though, I reckon some just have a brain imbalance. But we can speculate as much as we all want, we will never know the real reason as to why people turn or are evil. Bu to answer your question, yes they have lessons too, they will have to answer to that higher being when they die. Some call him God! And there soul will not involve spiritually till they stop committing evil crimes. The brain is the most powerful tool on this earth! And if there is a imbalance in it can you imagine the danger it could cause? I could go on forever on this but not enough room to discuss it all, but you brought up an excellent question!

Bathsheba, i do understand, i know you seek to understand, but it seems to me that the question "WHY did YOU do THAT?" is better than "WHY did THIS happen?". I feel that responsibility is diminished when understanding is sought. It doesn't HAVE to be this way, but it can be and sadly, in the current climate of therapy-for-all i think it is. That is society's problem though, not yours.

Take sexual abuse. We all know sexual abuse damages lives. Abuse changes people. However, what is the USE of knowing a killer was abused? We KNOW abuse is wrong (an evil itself). We have laws to protect against it, counsellors to help deal with it, drugs to suspend the effects of it while victims scrabble to put themselves back together. It still happens sadly. But it is not an excuse for killing. Every abused child does not grow up and kill. MOST abused children do not grow up and kill.

In some ways i think that's about expectation too. Around 70% of women suffer some sort of abuse or sexual crime in their lifetimes. DId you know that? 70%. That ranges from being flashed once to full-scale, long-term abuse or rape. But we do not talk about it, and when women are abused they feel alone and lost and like it must have been something to do with them because it doesn't happen to everyone else. Our expectation is that something like that will never happen because we do not hear when it happens, and in the vast majority of cases it goes unreported. I know many, MANY women who have been raped, date-raped, molested, flashed, and they didn't report it, they just went on with life. Because they were drunk, drugged, out where they shouldn't have been, you name it. I was flashed once and it never crossed my mind to report it - it barely even registered. So in most cases we pretend this is not happening, and then we are emotionally devastated when it happens to us. Perhaps if people knew how common it was and, crucially, that recovery is possible, they would be less damaged by it in the first place.

As for rapists and murderers and their fate... Could it be that without them the fates of their victims could not be fulfilled? Sometimes suffering is required to teach us things we could not otherwise know. If Judas Iscariot had not betrayed Christ for money, humanity could not have been saved by his crucifixion.

Bx

Bec, I think the USE of knowing someone's history has to do with intervention. Sure, I know that to yell at my husband is wrong (just like many people know that murder is wrong), but I'll still do it - unless someone sees the symptoms before hand (me kicking the kitchen drawers and muttering to myself) and then tries to address the problem that's causing those behaviours (like if I need calm down in order to communicate effectively). Then, I still have a choice to make, but if the cause of potential bad behaviour has been removed/I've learned to control it, then I have no reason/motivation to behave badly anymore. So if we know that a person who commits 'Z' crime, experienced or displayed A, B, D, F, and P elements, and this seems to be a trend, then perhaps when others display/experience these things, someone can try to intervene.
It's perhaps also helpful with rehabilitation, sure, an abuser might know they're wrong, and be punished, but if the reason they abuse isn't addressed, then why would their behaviour change? And even still, it might not change, but we have to try.
(Is that kind of what you were getting at Bath? Kind of?)

If evil is to commit an evil act without a conscience, then does it have to be one or the other? Could there be evil by nature and evil by nurture? People who were born without a conscience, and people who have learned to entirely ignore/turn off their conscience? I don't have the answer to that I don't think...

Hi Nelle, i kind of understand what you mean, but in that case is it the cause of the behaviour that's wrong or the behaviour itself? If i'm annoyed at someone and scream at them even though i know it won't help, it is the screaming that's the problem, not the being annoyed. Everyone gets annoyed, it's a fact of life. We cannot control what everyone else does, we can only hope to control what WE do. Why is it up to someone else to see how i'm about to behave and help me prevent it? Why is it not up to ME to control my own actions?

As far as i can tell from reading on the subject psychopathy in children is more common than psychopathy in adults, indicating that it is something which CAN be grown out of/remedied. In many cases the signs are clear and raise concerns but are common enough that no massive intervention is made. In a recent essay i read Mary Bell was compared to Dennis Nilsen.

Mary Bell's father was a thief, in and out of prison, who didn't live with his family so that the mother could collect government benefits. Mary Bell's mother was a prostitute who frequently left Mary alone while she went off to "work" in Glasgow (from Newcastle). Mary said as an adult that her mother used to sell her to customers as a very small child too, though when Mary was a child she denied this and all family members asked (many of whom were happy to confirm Betty Bells other misdemeanors as a parent, say they were unaware of it or outright deny it, Mary's brother says he never witnessed it). Mary suffered at least 3 "accidental" drug overdoses as a small child, which probably left her with brain damage. Aged 5 she saw her five-year-old friend killed by a bus right in front of her. Mary's mother frequently dumped her as a baby, leaving her with family members, strangers, anyone, but always going back for her and refusing to fully give up her child. The mother sounds (just IMO) like she had histrionic or narcissistic personality disorder. She was not a consistent or loving mother and Mary was not cared for and protected. When she was 10 Mary, with the company of her friend Norma (who was not convicted of the killings) strangled two little boys, aged 3 and 4, to death. One of them was cut and shaved after death, his genitals cut and an M carved into his stomach with a razor. She then wrote notes saying she was a killer, went to the victims houses and asked to see the babies in their coffins, and followed the parents in the street asking "Do you miss him? Do you cry? Are you sad he's dead?" She was convicted in December 1968 and sent first to a high-security reform school and then to prison. She was released in 1980. She was convicted of "Manslaughter due to diminished responsibility" as the court doctors found her exhibiting the classic psychopathology symptoms. She was offered, but was resistant to, counselling throughout her time in custody. She appears to be reformed but not through external help. She had a daughter in 1984 whom she was allowed to keep. Clearly EVERYTHING about Mary Bell's childhood was dangerous and damaging. Her younger brother, who grew up within the same household, killed no one.

Dennis Nilsen's parents marriage was an unhappy one, his father was a poor provider and he and his 2 siblings lived from early on with his maternal grandparents. Dennis especially loved his grandfather. His childhood was not violent, there was no abuse either rumoured or documented. Dennis himself thinks seeing his grandfather's body after he'd died (when Dennis was 6) was what damaged him. He says his mother took him to see, but didn't explain in advance that his grandfather had died. He never exhibited rage, cruelty to animals or other children, or any type of aggressiveness typically associated with conduct-disordered boys who become killers later in life. In fact, he was horrified by cruelties that he witnessed by others. He and a friend once found the body of a man who had drowned when drunk, while part of a search party looking for said man. He was pretty much a loner, homosexual but single. He joined the army but was discharged for alcoholism. In 1975 he had a boyfriend he lived with for 2 years but eventually asked him to leave. Between 1978 and 1983 he killed at least 15 men. He got them very drunk or drugged, then drowned or strangled them. He then kept the bodies for several days, posed and washed them, then hid them under floorboards, in cupboards, around his home for months. When he ran out of space after several killings, he disposed of a body. He then dismembered and disposed of the bodies, flushing some parts of them down the lavatory, leaving entrails out for wildlife, burning some, burying some. He was eventually caught when the drains, unable to cope, blocked up and a company was called to unblock them. The police were called when human remains were found. Nilsen didn't deny when he realised he was caught. Many of his victims have no names since they were homeless and not missed at the time and Nilsen himself doesn't remember their names or didn't ask them. None of his siblings grew up to be killers.

So we see that from 2 very different beginnings came two similar ends. Surely Mary Bell's mother made criminal errors in the upbringing of Mary, not bonding with her at all, failing to protect her, CAUSING her harm, and leaving her daughter anchorless in a cruel and twisted world. One might almost say Mary had very little chance of being normal, even if she HADN'T become a killer. And then Dennis Nilsen's mother who in fact did her best, did not abuse him or expose him to danger, tried to keep him safe and treat him well. Sure, the final respects to his grandfather could have been handled better, but perhaps her father's death had skewed her own ability to think clearly that day, or perhaps she DID explain and in his distress and sense of los Dennis diesn't remember. Do we find that error, the one to which Dennis attributes his future behaviour, to be a criminal one, and what course of action should be taken? No children to see dead relatives? Professional counselling to be provided to every family?

I think basically we can only ask in retrospect what makes someone do something. Yes, i think we should investigate why people do what they do to some extent, for their rehabilitation. But ultimately we cannot know in advance what will make one person a killer.

Bx

Nelle: yes :"So if we know that a person who commits 'Z' crime, experienced or displayed A, B, D, F, and P elements, and this seems to be a trend, then perhaps when others display/experience these things, someone can try to intervene."

... that was a good way of explaining it :)