There is some bad language used.
7nine
How better to see "evil" people
7,260 Views |
147 Replies |
Last: 5 yr ago by dermdoc
thanks for sharing. I enjoyed it. is there much of substance on either side of this clip on the topic?
Specifically on Harris' take on free will? Not that much. It was a great episode though. As is every Harris on Rogan podcast. His previous podcast with Rogan I think he goes much more into it. And Harris' own podcast is also great with many episodes that talk about free will and consciousness.
7nine
I've tried his own podcast, but it's not very engaging for me. I like him on others' shows. I might make time to listen to the full episode later.
He certainly isn't the most engaging of hosts, and he can feel a little full of himself, especially when he talks politics, but when he discusses consciousness and other philosophical things I really enjoy him.
I used to absolutely hate the guy several years ago.
I used to absolutely hate the guy several years ago.
7nine
So is the idea that when we see someone who is "evil" we need to figure out the cause rather than just call them "evil"?
It's more about addressing our own emotional approach to how we see people that do "evil" things.
If you see a lion being abused at some foreign zoo, even though you know that most likely if that lion were to be in the same room with you, it would kill you in a heartbeat, you still would have compassion for it regardless.
Christians found a way to take this approach with using satan and demons but there still was an air of disdain for the person for allowing such demons to enter their life through sinning.
If you completely see that everyone truly is a victim of circumstance then you can no longer hold grudges. You can no longer hold anger and desire for retribution on those that do wrong. Only a desire to help them get better.
If you see a lion being abused at some foreign zoo, even though you know that most likely if that lion were to be in the same room with you, it would kill you in a heartbeat, you still would have compassion for it regardless.
Christians found a way to take this approach with using satan and demons but there still was an air of disdain for the person for allowing such demons to enter their life through sinning.
If you completely see that everyone truly is a victim of circumstance then you can no longer hold grudges. You can no longer hold anger and desire for retribution on those that do wrong. Only a desire to help them get better.
7nine
Nobody is going to just act like we are all victims of circumstance and give everyone a pass. We are responsible for our actions regardless of the circumstances that led to them.
I do think it's a good activity to try to get to the root of the evil action and understand how the person got there. It's good to have compassion on the prisoner as well as forgive those who have wronged us.
I do think it's a good activity to try to get to the root of the evil action and understand how the person got there. It's good to have compassion on the prisoner as well as forgive those who have wronged us.
Did you watch the whole video even?
No one is saying give everyone a free pass when they do something bad.
No one is saying give everyone a free pass when they do something bad.
7nine
It doesn't seem like it.
I did watch it but I admit my attention was divided. That's why I asked the question. I was responding to what you said in your post.
The only reason to hold people responsible, is because by doing so, it helps to make people more responsible.
It is a stimulant. And ends to a means, of better behavior. If they do not respond and remain irresponsible, it is not truly because they ultimately chose to be that way. It is a result of how they simply are combined with their environment.
So too is punishment not something someone ever "deserves" but rather it is a means to bring about better behavior. No one deserves anything bad ultimately as they never truly chose the behavior that you would want them punished for.
It is a stimulant. And ends to a means, of better behavior. If they do not respond and remain irresponsible, it is not truly because they ultimately chose to be that way. It is a result of how they simply are combined with their environment.
So too is punishment not something someone ever "deserves" but rather it is a means to bring about better behavior. No one deserves anything bad ultimately as they never truly chose the behavior that you would want them punished for.
7nine
Thanks for clarifying. I do disagree although I may not fully understand the position still.
For instance El Chapo going to prison for life. He isn't there to improve his behaviour. You could say it's to discourage others from repeating this behaviour. But I would say he is there to serve justice.
For instance El Chapo going to prison for life. He isn't there to improve his behaviour. You could say it's to discourage others from repeating this behaviour. But I would say he is there to serve justice.
It's also to prevent him from continuing his crimes.
Very true. Maybe a better example would be priests or pastors who sexually abused kids many years ago. Many are old or dead now. Why go after them now? Justice. The wrong needs to be righted. The sense of justice is innate in us.
I don't think these concepts can fully be explained materially.
I don't think these concepts can fully be explained materially.
To expound on that, I believe the sense of justice is given to us by God as it is in His nature and we are made in His image.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
I think the only utility provided by "justice" in a case like that is satisfaction of the feelings of retribution and perhaps a deterrence to others. but if what sam harris is talking about is correct, then the effect as a deterrent is much over-stated, because these people then aren't acting fully of their own "agency". which leaves us with satisfaction of our personal feelings that "they didn't get away with it".Frok said:
Very true. Maybe a better example would be priests or pastors who sexually abused kids many years ago. Many are old or dead now. Why go after them now? Justice. The wrong needs to be righted. The sense of justice is innate in us.
I don't think these concepts can fully be explained materially.
I think it's interesting to contemplate if "justice" is so noble if that is all it accomplishes. (setting aside other situations where there is a real risk of recidivism)
Justice isn't the same thing as revenge. Revenge is emotional and often violent or destructive. Justice is about closure and restoration.
With Chapo, yes it is about setting an example to others that are or might want to become drug lords and it is to keep him from civil society so he cannot harm any more people.
Wanting him to be there so he "pays" for all the people he has hurt, really makes no sense if you understand how the brain works. For example, if like Sam mentioned, we could give him a pill that suddenly gave him the moral insight we have and made him horrified and ashamed of all he had done, leaving him with no desire or mental issues that would cause him to do the same things again, there would be nothing wrong with releasing him to live a free life. He doesn't owe his victims time in jail because he never truly made the decision to do the things he did.
The same could be said for even Hitler or Stalin or any of the horrible people of history.
Like Harris said, this notion makes people uneasy and angry. Because if people don't truly "deserve" the bad things for the wrong they have done, because it wasn't truly their fault, neither does anyone "deserve" the good things for doing the right things in life, because that was not their fault either.
We carry too much pride with us when good things happen in our lives. We like to think that we distinctly used willpower and chose to do the right things in life.
I really started thinking about this when I was posting on a thread on the Pol board about how the top 400 richest Americans have like 60% of the wealth of America.
As I was defending Capitalism and saying that the top 400 should have that much money because that means, as a group, they were that much more productive for our economy than 60% of the people in it as a group. Of course a few posters take offense to such notions. However, I was not saying that the top 400 people "deserve" to be that much more rich. I was not saying they are that much more better people than everyone else.
I don't support Capitalism because it gives people what they "deserve". I support it because it incentivizes people to be more productive and is the most effective system to grow wealth for everyone.
Ultimately we are all victims of our genetics and environment and are just here along for the ride, but because our decision making is so malleable we must treat everyone as if they are capable of directing their own life.
Wanting him to be there so he "pays" for all the people he has hurt, really makes no sense if you understand how the brain works. For example, if like Sam mentioned, we could give him a pill that suddenly gave him the moral insight we have and made him horrified and ashamed of all he had done, leaving him with no desire or mental issues that would cause him to do the same things again, there would be nothing wrong with releasing him to live a free life. He doesn't owe his victims time in jail because he never truly made the decision to do the things he did.
The same could be said for even Hitler or Stalin or any of the horrible people of history.
Like Harris said, this notion makes people uneasy and angry. Because if people don't truly "deserve" the bad things for the wrong they have done, because it wasn't truly their fault, neither does anyone "deserve" the good things for doing the right things in life, because that was not their fault either.
We carry too much pride with us when good things happen in our lives. We like to think that we distinctly used willpower and chose to do the right things in life.
I really started thinking about this when I was posting on a thread on the Pol board about how the top 400 richest Americans have like 60% of the wealth of America.
As I was defending Capitalism and saying that the top 400 should have that much money because that means, as a group, they were that much more productive for our economy than 60% of the people in it as a group. Of course a few posters take offense to such notions. However, I was not saying that the top 400 people "deserve" to be that much more rich. I was not saying they are that much more better people than everyone else.
I don't support Capitalism because it gives people what they "deserve". I support it because it incentivizes people to be more productive and is the most effective system to grow wealth for everyone.
Ultimately we are all victims of our genetics and environment and are just here along for the ride, but because our decision making is so malleable we must treat everyone as if they are capable of directing their own life.
7nine
If you require someone that harmed you or someone you love to be punished in order to have closure, then you are no different than the people in Harris' story that lynched the elephant.
7nine
I believe in free will and personal responsibility so I do not agree with Sam Harris. And without the concept of God and justice, how can anyone define right or wrong? Everything becomes moral relativism.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
As Sam likes to point out often. If we can all agree that there is an ultimate bad for everyone, that being everyone in pain and misery at all times, then we can all agree on an axiomatic good and bad were bad is anything leading to that ultimate bad and good is anything leading us away from it.
7nine
Quote:
He doesn't owe his victims time in jail because he never truly made the decision to do the things he did.
Sure he did. We have choices to resist evil and choose good. Many people in his similar situation did not make the same choices. But I get it, if we are nothing more than material bouncing around then there is no free will. This sounds like atheistic calvinism.
With me, it is not about closure or revenge. It is simply justice.Texaggie7nine said:
If you require someone that harmed you or someone you love to be punished in order to have closure, then you are no different than the people in Harris' story that lynched the elephant.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
I'm more deist than agnostic and I believe free will is an illusion.
I don't think anyone is here to be "judged" by god because we really are not capable of making decisions based on anything other than genetics and stimuli. If someone made a different choice in the same situation, it is because they have different genetics and experienced a different environment. Even if it was a twin, they still experienced a different past that lead them to make a different decision.
I don't think anyone is here to be "judged" by god because we really are not capable of making decisions based on anything other than genetics and stimuli. If someone made a different choice in the same situation, it is because they have different genetics and experienced a different environment. Even if it was a twin, they still experienced a different past that lead them to make a different decision.
7nine
But what is "justice"? An eye for an eye? If you cause someone pain, then you need to experience pain?
If someone slighted the great and mighty "you" then they must pay with suffering?
That is the justice most see the god of the bible advocating for.
That is all ego driven and I would never follow a god with such ego.
If someone slighted the great and mighty "you" then they must pay with suffering?
That is the justice most see the god of the bible advocating for.
That is all ego driven and I would never follow a god with such ego.
7nine
So the individual has zero responsibility?Texaggie7nine said:
As Sam likes to point out often. If we can all agree that there is an ultimate bad for everyone, that being everyone in pain and misery at all times, then we can all agree on an axiomatic good and bad were bad is anything leading to that ultimate bad and good is anything leading us away from it.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Well if an individual does something that contributes to moving us to the ultimate bad then they are being immoral.
7nine
I do not see it that way at all. I see it more that there is absolute right and wrong and therefore justice would mean consequences for wrong behavior. Not to appease "me".Texaggie7nine said:
But what is "justice"? An eye for an eye? If you cause someone pain, then you need to experience pain?
If someone slighted the great and mighty "you" then they must pay with suffering?
That is the justice most see the god of the bible advocating for.
That is all ego driven and I would never follow a god with such ego.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Quote:
I do not see it that way at all. I seemit more that there is absolute right and wrong and therefore justice would mean consequences for wrong behavior. Not to appease "me".
To appease who then? Who is not appeased if someone does something wrong and gets away with it?
7nine
Quote:
But what is "justice"? An eye for an eye? If you cause someone pain, then you need to experience pain?
If someone slighted the great and mighty "you" then they must pay with suffering?
That is the justice most see the god of the bible advocating for.
That is all ego driven and I would never follow a god with such ego.
Social conformity usually comes with an element of personal liberty loss. The justice you talk about is what people want because they conformed and lost liberty and someone else did not. They want their choice to matter. If it doesn't, then they were stupid for giving up that liberty.
by the way, isn't your last sentence strange...as in that sentence is very ego driven. You blame god for that which you display?
So jealousy then? If I suffered for making a mistake, then dammit you should too!? Or if you caused me loss of liberty, then dammit you should suffer that too!?
Of course I suffer from ego driven emotion. I would never follow me as a god. I would expect the creator of all things to be superior to me in that if I were to follow them.
Of course I suffer from ego driven emotion. I would never follow me as a god. I would expect the creator of all things to be superior to me in that if I were to follow them.
7nine
Quote:
So jealousy then? If I suffered for making a mistake, then dammit you should too!? Or if you caused me loss of liberty, then dammit you should suffer that too!?
Essentially. You don't think this is true? People want to know that their falling in line was the right thing to do.
Quote:
Of course I suffer from ego driven emotion. I would never follow me as a god. I would expect the creator of all things to be superior to me in that if I were to follow them.
I know. To me, to even desire to create a world would demand a large ego to start with (one without it wouldn't bother to start one), so I am not bothered or surprised that God would have one. I'm not viewing ego as necessarily a good or bad thing. I don't think he lack superiority due to ego.
dermdoc said:So the individual has zero responsibility?Texaggie7nine said:
As Sam likes to point out often. If we can all agree that there is an ultimate bad for everyone, that being everyone in pain and misery at all times, then we can all agree on an axiomatic good and bad were bad is anything leading to that ultimate bad and good is anything leading us away from it.
I think that maybe 'responsibility' becomes more nuanced in Harris's argument.
Can someone be held responsible for an action while also acknowledging that their actions, either in large part or in their entirety, are the result of a circumstance and biology they do not have control over? Even if you hold on to the idea that you have free will and that you have agency to choose good or evil, the influence of biology and environment is enormous and undeniable.
Robert Yates was a sociopath that murdered prostitutes. He didn't ask to be born a sociopath. He committed those crimes and his removal from society was warranted. Insomuch as the person we call ,Robert Yates' committed those crimes, he is responsible and the person we call 'Robert Yates' should be removed from society. The acknowledgement that he did not choose the mental order he was born with allows us to have a level of empathy for him and humility in our own condition.
I don't think Harris's point is to say that Robert Yates is not responsible. I think its that we should say "That sucks that Robert Yates had this disorder." instead of "Lets torture and kill that mother *******!"
For that matter, I think we should accept the 'goodness' in our lives with a level of humility and recognition that much of that goodness is not 'earned'. No one here earned their brain or their intelligence. No one earned being born in the most successful and safest country in the world at the safest time in history. I think taking too much responsibility for our successes is very dangerous.
Quote:
Essentially. You don't think this is true? People want to know that their falling in line was the right thing to do.
This is true for those that are ruled by their emotions and ego yes. But it is wrong to feel that way when people are not ultimately responsible for their actions.
What do you lose to acknowledge that we are all victims of genetics and circumstance? You lose your ego that says, "hey look what I did because I'm responsible and make good choices."?
Perhaps that is a bad thing. Perhaps losing that notion would cause many people to lose the incentive to do the right things in life.
I think, though, that we do more damage to others and ourselves by holding grudges and wanting revenge and for people to suffer for their wrong doings. I think our society would be much more healthy if when people do bad things, we have empathy for them and work to help them get better instead of hate them and want them to suffer for hurting others.
I think Jesus of the bible said one of the most profound things in this world. "Forgive him for he knows not what he does". That should apply to everyone, especially those that wrong you. Not just for their sake, but for your own as well.
7nine