h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

K: I believe it is spelled 'label'.

Actually, whether these specific cases are of sociopathy doesn't really matter. The relation of sociopathy in regard to morality/ethics could still be worth discussing.

Noggin

"K: I believe it is spelled 'label'."

Thanks for your insightful contribution. I'll watch my typing more carefully in future.

You're most welcome

I wouldn't have mentioned it if your spelling in general was sloppy, or if you hadn't used it so much in some previous posting.

"Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence"

Three times is enemy action.

Ian Fleming
Goldfinger

Chipping back in to labour the point...

novosibirsk's two sociopaths: How could we tell that they were 'born wicked'?

Now...I'm not denying that people can be nasty. Nor am I denying that children can reject all the help that's offered to them. What I'm asking is "What on earth makes us think that children are *born* that way?" There are no pre- or neo-natal tests that I am aware of. It's a hypothetical possibility - but note the strong relationship between poor life circumstances (poverty, poor parenting, neglect, abuse) and offending behaviour. Maybe our presumption should be that children can be raised out of wickedness? Maybe it's better not to write off a child as 'born bad'? Maybe if the children seem to reject the opportunities they are given, it's our fault for not engaging with them properly? They're only children, after all.

The old nature/nuture thing.

I find the idea that a child could be 'born bad' totally repulsive. It also smacks of a possibly difficult child's carers wanting to shift responsibility. To a child. What?

az

It's *possible*. Hypothetically. But the failure to find causes in the child's upbringing and circumstances, and the failure to remedy past failings tends to indicate a lack of imagination at the very least.

Well, passing the buck, innit?

az

It's iffy because there are plenty of examples on Earth of creatures who have unspeakable attitudes to their own which are of no consequence to anyone but us. Female spiders being the obvious example.

I didn't want to believe there could be a gene - or genetic malfunction - that could dictate a person's capacity or absence thereof to have a conscience; my father was a from childhood, according to my aunts - but we *are* bags of code and there's plenty of scope for glitches. People are born unable to see, unable to hear, unable to communicate all sorts of important processes to their bodies - unable to 'get' metaphors (excellent drivers, though).

Maybe there is something that can be absent, a relationship in the brain, that can put a person in the born [inadequately resourced for compassionate reasoning] category. Nothing that should be considered irreparable, though.

Hi, by the way

Yes, you're right. As I said, it's possible. However, if anyone is going to judge children as 'born wicked', first they have to show the evidence. Where's the glitch? Show me the DNA. Show me the neurones. And show me the reason why we can't still work with the children to overcome their poor programming.

But when people judge children as 'born wicked', they're far from considering such hypotheticals. They're just lazily writing off a child who they don't like. Which is far easier than thinking - let alone doing anything to help.

Passing the buck ...

az

Without having to quote studies, it seems to me that research tends to suggest that, absent human tinkering, there is a shared responsibility between nature and nurture for most human character traits. C.F. studies of twins seperated at birth etc.

Whether one of the two influences is able to dominate the other to such an extent that the malign or benign influences of one can be counteracted by the other still seems to be an open question. Nevertheless it would seem to suggest that there is at least the possibilty that strong nurture can overcome any natural programming.

That said, it seems to me that the sticky bit isn't the DNA v. a good school, loving parents, and discipline question, but rather the issue of what we define as evil, wicked, a bad 'un, or just someone whose politics we disagree with. It's far, far easier to identify and find agreement on what constitutes a psychopathology than to make a moral assesment that people will agree to.

Kevorkian: evil?

Mother Theresa?

Fidel Castro?

Problematic. We'd get some strong and opposing views of the "evil" or "good" of each of them, right here on this thread.

Jeffrey Dahmer or Ted Bundy, on the other hand, are pretty clearly damaged goods. Evil? Suffering victims? Who knows? But certainly pathological.

I wonder just how useful a label like "evil" really is to this kind of discussion.

'Local Woman Finds "GOD" in Eggplant

A Delaware County woman says an eggplant has reminded her that God can be found anywhere, and anytime.'

http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=bizarre&id=5563034


Too bad the eggplant actually reads 'Gid'

Wow ... talk about omnipresent!

az

That would be 'imnipresent' in the case of Gid.

Yis.


az

Ah, all is clir. Gid is Saht Effrikin.

I just knew the almighty was desmond tutu.

http://www.mcn.org/1/Miracles/Allah2.html

Now I'm looking forward to seeing The Flying Spaghetti Monster in Eggplant Parmagiana.