What if science could eliminate evil?

[Robert Z]

There is growing evidence that what we perceive as extreme "evil" will one day be correctable through medicine. Assuming this day will indeed come, how will this affect religion?

 

 

Where does the line between evil and mental illness lie? How can you tell the difference ?

[carhill]

The issue which remains is free will. Those whom we incarcerate and kill have had their free will adjudicated away by the state. If science finds a 'cure', the imprisonment could/would transition from the physical and functional to the pharmacological. Otherwise, evil would still have free will and, IME, compliance with/to medical regimes for existing and treatable mental illnesses is quite variable.

 

As long as death, as in taking, remains a human inhibition and statute of law, humans have only their free will to rely upon to make decisions regarding themselves and others.

 

How about genetics? Can we 'grow' more peaceful people through selective genetics or genetic manipulation? Again, the free will thing comes in. As long as free will exists, and evil people exist, they will propagate and multiply. I need only look a couple dozen miles to the south of me for one marked example, the now 79 yo father of three (or more, depending on reports), Charles Manson. I do know his namesake committed suicide in the early 90's. I mention his case because he and a number of his 'family' have been incarcerated in my area off and on for many years.

 

Imagine if he had been imprisoned pharmacologically after his first iteration of 'evil' back in the 1950's..... a whole timeline of events could have been changed. The sticky wicket is the specifics of pharmacological imprisonment, since Charles, like many intrinsically evil people, is decidedly not going to 'take his meds'. We could kill him, but that would be inhumane, or so it was decided in my state back in the 70's. Hence, we support him until he dies of old age behind bars at Corcoran.

 

Hard to know. Nice thought though, eliminating evil.

[M30USA]

Why is it okay for science to force people into doing the right thing through psychoactive drugs, yet if God were to do it ("every knee shall bow"), he would be considered a tyrant?

[Keenly]

Were drifting into mind control land. Without evil, there can be no good.

[M30USA]

Were drifting into mind control land. Without evil, there can be no good.

 

Good can exist without evil. It is evil which cannot exist without good.

[InnocentMan]

All humans are capable of evil, depending what you define 'evil' as. In that regard, science probably could eradicate it, by killing all humans. I don't see the correlation between evil and mental illness. Not all serial killers have a mental illness, and very few with mental illness become serial killers or commit evil acts. If you start going down that road, then you have to consider all humanity as being 'mentally ill'.

[pureinheart]

There is growing evidence that what we perceive as extreme "evil" will one day be correctable through medicine. Assuming this day will indeed come, how will this affect religion?

 

 

Where does the line between evil and mental illness lie? How can you tell the difference ?

 

You bring up a good point. IMO it's difficult to tell the difference due to how I believe and what I'm currently learning. There are certain thought processes that can lead to mental illness and possible brain damage.

 

Like the serial killer for instance. This individual started out with a certain line of thinking. Of course there are environmental factors, experiences and such, but ultimately, no matter how the individual got "there", it originated as a "thought".

 

I don't believe there could ever be a pill to cure this, and let's say I'm completely off and this was possible, thinking it would be "pulled off the shelves" immediately as incarceration is big business.

[pureinheart]

All humans are capable of evil, depending what you define 'evil' as. In that regard, science probably could eradicate it, by killing all humans. I don't see the correlation between evil and mental illness. Not all serial killers have a mental illness, and very few with mental illness become serial killers or commit evil acts. If you start going down that road, then you have to consider all humanity as being 'mentally ill'.

 

LOL, I hadn't read your response…so it appears we are on the same pass as far as "serial killers".

 

I would tend to disagree because of seeing serial killers as extreme. If you have an example (or thought) would you mind sharing it- I'm very interested in this topic:) and want to understand.

 

Definitely agree that those with mental illness turn into serial killers though, or do anything that would require incarceration.

 

You do have such a good point though- all humanity would be considered mentally ill under certain criteria.

[carhill]

What appears to be proposed is a pharmacological 'filter' to be inserted into the datastream between the more primitive id (using Freud's model) and the resultant behavioral choices the conscious mind makes. People who do not commit evil acts apparently filter the id with the superego in a socially acceptable manner. By 'id', I'm referring to the part of psychological makeup which impels our survival and self-interest and 'selfishness' (wants, desires, etc).

 

I faced the pain of watching the superego erode and the more primitive id surface through mental illness in someone I loved and, experiencing that process as a caregiver and interfacing with medical professionals about it, taught a lot of lessons about the process and the 'pharmacy' of the brain and personality.

 

Still, short of what we called '5150' (danger to self or others) and/or criminal acts, free will ruled the day. How does one eliminate evil in another person while retaining that person's free will? In my case, it was through guile and deceit and that was effective but that's but a spec of sand on the beach of potential processes and outcomes and the question begs was such methodology equitable, even if efficacious. Tough situation.

[pureinheart]

What appears to be proposed is a pharmacological 'filter' to be inserted into the datastream between the more primitive id (using Freud's model) and the resultant behavioral choices the conscious mind makes. People who do not commit evil acts apparently filter the id with the superego in a socially acceptable manner. By 'id', I'm referring to the part of psychological makeup which impels our survival and self-interest and 'selfishness' (wants, desires, etc).

 

I faced the pain of watching the superego erode and the more primitive id surface through mental illness in someone I loved and, experiencing that process as a caregiver and interfacing with medical professionals about it, taught a lot of lessons about the process and the 'pharmacy' of the brain and personality.

 

Still, short of what we called '5150' (danger to self or others) and/or criminal acts, free will ruled the day. How does one eliminate evil in another person while retaining that person's free will? In my case, it was through guile and deceit and that was effective but that's but a spec of sand on the beach of potential processes and outcomes and the question begs was such methodology equitable, even if efficacious. Tough situation.

 

What an experience you had CH. Thinking you are speaking of your mother? I watched this also with my mother, except she had passed the Id portion and went straight to giving up. Survival was worse than her current circumstances..

 

I believe this can be done (your description in the first paragraph) without pharma by simply changing thought processes via "good" methods that change the pathways of thought. I believe our minds to be a road map.

[Grumpybutfun]

Therein lies the issue with Psychologists trying to define mental illness, we are fallible in that regard. Some of the things that have been defined as mental illness are defined because we don't want to believe there are people who are truly evil, the idea of it make people uncomfortable. Serial killers, mass murderers and especially sexual predators and pedophiles come to mind...some are so perverse they get their own mental illness definitions. The truth of the matter is that many people have extreme mental illnesses who never commit any sort of aberration, the same mental illnesses or disorders that are given to the Adam Lanzas or the Chalres Mansons of the world.

 

This is all about free will, choice and personal responsibility. We are quickly becoming a society that would rather blame evil on mental illnesses rather than accept that evil exists because we do not assign people personal responsibility for their actions anymore. This begins with our children, carries through our life choices and extends to our bad behaviors.

Personal responsibility has gone the way of the dodo bird. We want none of it because we want instant gratification, self medication, and the freedoms to be able to blame our failures and our bad behavior on anyone, everyone else.

Good thread,

Grumps

[carhill]

What an experience you had CH. Thinking you are speaking of your mother? I watched this also with my mother, except she had passed the Id portion and went straight to giving up. Survival was worse than her current circumstances..

 

I believe this can be done (your description in the first paragraph) without pharma by simply changing thought processes via "good" methods that change the pathways of thought. I believe our minds to be a road map.

Fortunately, I had the professionals who could map and describe the organic damage which impelled the psychosis which ensued and explain the processes to me in layperson's terms as well as how their methods could address those processes. What we did was right on the edge of what I call 'chemical restraints', an allusion to prior use of physical restraints in such cases.

 

The scary version is that some people are born with an antisocial organic makeup or are organically wired in a way which is vulnerable to specific physical or environmental factors which create the brain pathways we generally ascribe to 'evil'.

 

As the science of the brain is still in its infancy, much remains to become understood and, indeed, science may one day find an equitable solution to what we currently view as 'evil'.

 

I experienced something recently which underscores such variability. A female friend had experienced, most markedly, speech changes, where her speech had become disjointed. I also noted, over a few month's period, her emotional state had become much more variable than was usual for her during the 10-15 years I've known her and her H. Finally, after much trying, she got a dx. The cause was a cancerous tumor pressing on one of the lobes of her brain. She had that removed a couple of weeks ago and the changes were immediate. Her speech is back to normal and she's back to her usual neutral self, even while dealing with radiation and chemo. That's one way science affected process and personality, in one quick action. The key was in change. In my mother's case, the change was permanent and could not be reversed, so 'evil' came to rule her and would ultimately kill her, as much through natural process as the pharmacy of restraint. Mixed bag, currently. What the future holds, nobody knows.

[writergal]

I believe the book/movie Divergent addresses this very question. Human nature, by all accounts, has the capacity to commit evil; tell a lie, commit financial fraud, eradicate a race (Holocaust), kill each other in the name of politics or religion.

 

Humans are capable of evil because it's genetically programmed into human nature. If you want to get rid of evil, you have to get rid of human nature.

Edited March 29, 2014 by writergal

[Robert Z]

Well, I note that you all reject the premise and fail to answer the question. Very interesting!!! It seems that religious doctrine isn't the only belief in jeopardy.

 

Does anyone care to answer the question? Also, I reject your answers.

Edited March 29, 2014 by Robert Z

[Robert Z]

I didn't plan to really get into this right away, but for starters, psychopaths who become dangerous were almost always abused or suffered some kind of severe trauma as children. On top of that, they were born psychopathic - something they didn't chose.

[Robert Z]

To argue it all comes down to free will is to completely reject the premise that we are a product of our genetics, our environment, our experiences, random chance, our mental capacity, our hormones, blood sugar, brain injury... and our predisposition to successfully manage the challenges of life. And we have different ideas about what constitutes evil.

 

 

How would you define an act to be "evil" without invoking some kind of doctrine of morality that says its evil. In other words, define evil without using circular logic or definitions.

[Robert Z]

Was Hitler evil? Are meth addicts evil? Hitler was probably a meth addict. If the use of this drug drove him insane as it does many users, and this can account for his actions, was he really evil?

[pureinheart]

Fortunately, I had the professionals who could map and describe the organic damage which impelled the psychosis which ensued and explain the processes to me in layperson's terms as well as how their methods could address those processes. What we did was right on the edge of what I call 'chemical restraints', an allusion to prior use of physical restraints in such cases.

The scary version is that some people are born with an antisocial organic makeup or are organically wired in a way which is vulnerable to specific physical or environmental factors which create the brain pathways we generally ascribe to 'evil'.

 

As the science of the brain is still in its infancy, much remains to become understood and, indeed, science may one day find an equitable solution to what we currently view as 'evil'.

 

I experienced something recently which underscores such variability. A female friend had experienced, most markedly, speech changes, where her speech had become disjointed. I also noted, over a few month's period, her emotional state had become much more variable than was usual for her during the 10-15 years I've known her and her H. Finally, after much trying, she got a dx. The cause was a cancerous tumor pressing on one of the lobes of her brain. She had that removed a couple of weeks ago and the changes were immediate. Her speech is back to normal and she's back to her usual neutral self, even while dealing with radiation and chemo. That's one way science affected process and personality, in one quick action. The key was in change. In my mother's case, the change was permanent and could not be reversed, so 'evil' came to rule her and would ultimately kill her, as much through natural process as the pharmacy of restraint. Mixed bag, currently. What the future holds, nobody knows.

 

This topic is beyond fascinating to me for many reasons.

 

It can be rare IMO and experience to have the two major components working in unison, meaning having a good son and good doctors. I found after the fact concerning my mothers situation that her doctors took her off of all meds (she was on several, including antidepressants), this created psychosis IMO. You don't "cold turkey" anyone, and to this day will never understand this.

 

Bold- very profound. A doctor of which I am currently reading her work, believes and has evidence that in short, we are what we think. She also believes that brain cells can be regenerated (which is especially interesting to me given my past).

 

I'm really glad your friend is doing well and and you illustrated the difference between your mother and friend well. I'm truly anxious to see the findings of the future, it could mean the difference between life and death.

 

I still lack understanding as to what we can be "born" with and it's causes or the reasons. Generally speaking I think we are predisposed towards certain types of "evils", it's just a matter if those are fed or staved.

[pureinheart]

Therein lies the issue with Psychologists trying to define mental illness, we are fallible in that regard. Some of the things that have been defined as mental illness are defined because we don't want to believe there are people who are truly evil, the idea of it make people uncomfortable. Serial killers, mass murderers and especially sexual predators and pedophiles come to mind...some are so perverse they get their own mental illness definitions. The truth of the matter is that many people have extreme mental illnesses who never commit any sort of aberration, the same mental illnesses or disorders that are given to the Adam Lanzas or the Chalres Mansons of the world.

 

This is all about free will, choice and personal responsibility. We are quickly becoming a society that would rather blame evil on mental illnesses rather than accept that evil exists because we do not assign people personal responsibility for their actions anymore. This begins with our children, carries through our life choices and extends to our bad behaviors.

Personal responsibility has gone the way of the dodo bird. We want none of it because we want instant gratification, self medication, and the freedoms to be able to blame our failures and our bad behavior on anyone, everyone else.

Good thread,

Grumps

 

This is undeniable IMO...

[pureinheart]

Was Hitler evil? Are meth addicts evil? Hitler was probably a meth addict. If the use of this drug drove him insane as it does many users, and this can account for his actions, was he really evil?

 

Concerning Hitler, he was evil to begin with long before the meth. Meth just "speeded" up the process.

[pureinheart]

I didn't plan to really get into this right away, but for starters, psychopaths who become dangerous were almost always abused or suffered some kind of severe trauma as children. On top of that, they were born psychopathic - something they didn't chose.

 

I was abused as a child, and the more we hear, most children are/were abused in some form and are not psychopathic. I can't agree with the premise of "being born that way" when used in this form. According to my faith we are all born with original sin- the rest of "sin" is easily learned and actually sought after. Most have to be "taught" to do the right thing and even when taught, most still don't choose to follow it.

[pie2]

There is growing evidence that what we perceive as extreme "evil" will one day be correctable through medicine. Assuming this day will indeed come, how will this affect religion?

 

 

How do you define extreme evil? Murder, rape, abuse? Theft? Adultery? Where do you draw the line? I don't think everyone would agree that extreme evil has been eradicated if the definition is somewhat ambiguous.

 

 

Which religions are you referring to? For example, I'm sure the religion of Satanism would be affected much differently than Buddhism. Many people who have religious beliefs don't outwardly participate in extreme evil. Well, at least they don't act out anything that might be considered extremely evil. And yet, religion still thrives. No matter how many of our needs are met (comfort, safety, etc), many of us still know, deep down, that we are empty beings and attempt to connect with something greater than ourselves. So, I think religion would definitely still be around, even without extreme evil.

 

 

Where does the line between evil and mental illness lie? How can you tell the difference?

 

 

I think the difference lies in intent. Either way, I think the mentally ill can do evil things. But there are times, imo, that there are rare cases when the person really didn't realize the consequences to their actions.

 

 

 

 

But, regarding your question, I think a cure to extreme evil will be found as soon as they find a cure to all illness. In other words, never. As soon as they cure one disease, another one crops up. I think the same would be with evil. They may stop someone from evil thoughts, but before long a new way to be evil would arise. Or, a new more resistant evil brain would develop.

 

 

Ugh, such a sinister topic!

[maturityassets]

We are beyond Good and Evil folks. We don't have any free will in my view of the world. Too much childhood conditioning and genetics involved to say that we freely choose anything. People have a nasty habit to moralize everything. Was Hitler "evil"? He was certainly deranged but he had supporters most of them who were religious. Anti-Semitism was strong in Europe for over two millennia. Also with hoax conspiracies and pseudoscience the Nazi's thought they could make the ideal humans. This isn't the thought pattern of healthy and empathetic individuals.

 

Now will science rid of "evil"? Well if science removes all suffering from the world then sure people will stop viewing things as "evil". But seeing that it isn't possible because nature isn't static and one person's gain or strength comes at another's expense, people will view anything cruel in there favor as evil. Instead its about acceptance. People who are psychologically traumatized or born with impairments clearly act outside social norms and don't understand the things they do. That is key, understanding. In one way or another we could all use a little bit of therapy to understand why we harbor bad feelings about others and ourselves. Some people just need it more than others

[Clair93]

I'm all for something like that. Take some drug or do some brain surgery and you can only do the right thing, we will all live in a better world if something like that happened. Obviously religions have always pushed the idea of free will and this would contradict that, so religions will say "we have a different interpretation now", and that "we've always been saying that anyway".

[Smilecharmer]

Evil can never be eradicated even by drugs because one of the fascinating things about people who are truly evil is that they know exactly how to hide it from the rest of the world most of the time. They can rationalize their actions or snow others to the damages caused by them. If evil was eradicated by some fairy spell, religion would still have purpose because most people are religious because they want to know there is something after death, and even without evil, they would still like to think heaven or reincarnation was an option to simply not existing anymore.