asterisk8 said:
twooffour said:
That's a common cliché, but it isn't accurate - some people's minds ARE wired in a way that drives them to do evil all the time.
If a criminal's mind is just wired that way, can they really be punished for doing something they have no control over? The threat of the death penalty or chemical castration wouldn't be a deterrent to someone "wired" to commit criminal acts, and deterrence is usually the primary reason given for instituting harsh punishments.
The trouble with attributing criminal behavior to hard-wiring is that it puts them in the same class as the mentally disabled. They have a disorder, a "malfunctioning" brain, which forces them to behave in ways they are not capable of changing. They become victims of their own malfunctioning brain, no more responsible for the crime they commit than a person who has a stroke while driving and kills a pedestrian.
Additionally, I don't believe you can call a person hard-wired to misbehave "evil". The word implies a willful/conscious/deliberate choice to disregard moral code and cause harm. Someone hard-wired like you suggest can't help it. Would it be appropriate to call an autistic person an "asshole" for ignoring you? They can't help it either.
Not trying to start an argument, just putting some thoughts out there.
1) Come on, I said it in response to "there are no evil persons, just evil acts".
Obviously, there are different personalities with different "preferences", and someone who wants to do evil all the time and does so is different from someone who couldn't ever do it, at least under "normal" circumstances.
2) However, if you wanna take this into a discussion about free will and responsibility, listening to Sam Harris' "free will" lecture may be of help.
The basic idea being, the reason a person commits evil acts is still that person's central personality.
If someone has a blackout and suddenly realizes he committed a murder on autopilot, this act would be inconsistent with his overall personality, while those of a normal offender would be consistent with it and make "him" more responsible.
So there's no way any of that affects responsibility, but yea, if you wana deny that our personalities and actions result from our brains, then good luck with that.
I just stated the obvious - that someone who shows complete lack of empathy or a strong drive towards sadistic acts, obviously has a brain that causes this, which makes them different from the "normal" person".
If you wanna claim that someone is less responsible for a murder just because his personality makes him derive satisfaction from that, then again, good luck with that.
3) Threats or chemical influences obviously influence our thoughts and actions.
Suggesting anything else would be simplifying the brain.
4) Well, maybe the problem lies with my usage of the word "wired"? I was basically just trying to be a smartass, my main point being that there, indeed, "evil persons", the brain kinda being the obvious place where it's decided.
I'm not talking specifically about mental disorders, nor am I talking about some kind of unalterable brain features that stay there no matter what.
A gullible dumb person may become critical and intelligent, by improving memory, acquiring self-reflection, asking questions, being able to absorb more information etc. (I myself have difficulties to focus on complex texts, and am often too lazy to memorize/write down sources or question them) - and by the end of that process, the brain will be physically different from what it was before, as well.
Same with anything having to do with morality, "moral code", or how much emphasis one puts on empathy, etc. etc.
But yea, again, someone who wants to murder people and would say that it's alright for him unless he gets caught, and I can go fuck myself, is obviously different from, well, you.
Why can't I call such a person evil for all intents and purposes? Or are all supposed to be complete blank states who just go through life "committing acts"?