What level of intelligence is required for Evil?

[terley]

Was talking to my friend earlier about the idea of Evil and what it actually means..

I told him that there isn't an Animal on earth that is truly Evil besides human beings, he adamantly disagreed and tried to insist that cats can be Evil, because they "kill for fun".

My rebuttal that cats act purely on instinct, yes they don't always kill humanely and may play with their prey for a while before killing it, but i see that as mainly a lack of experience coupled with their inate instincts.

So what level on intelligence is actually required for Evil?

The dictionary defines Evil as "profoundly immoral and wicked."

I would suggest that true Evil is when a being knowingly inflicts suffering, mental or physical to another being whilst being fully aware of the damage it may and most likely will cause to that being or the people who care about that being.

So would it be possible for say a person with severe downs syndrome to be evil? Can they truly understand the feeling their actions may have prior to commiting said action? The same could be said for somone with severe autism.

It seems to me that Evil and malevolence are things that require a high degree of intelligence.

Bit of a pointless thread, but i thought i'd get GD's opinions.

 

[Hades]

How do you know what an animal thinks?

 

[terley]

How do you know what an animal thinks?

I dont

 

[Malevolence]

It seems to me that Evil and malevolence are things that require a high degree of intelligence.

I wholeheartedly agree.

 

[Diddums]

I wholeheartedly agree.

 

[FortuitousFluke]

Philosophy at 3:51am. I like your style.

I suppose all of this boils down to your definition of evil. I think for me in the definition you provided above it's the bit about immorality that is most important here. Obviously morality is defined by society and it's when a person falls drastically outside of that definition that they might be considered "evil". With that in mind I don't think it's purely an intelligence issue, I think it's about a) knowing that there is a code that needs to be followed (I'm not talking knowing as in being aware but actually being mentally capable of understanding the social contract) b) being able to identify what falls inside and outside of that moral code.

I don't know that this is an area where you can say person x isn't capable of evil because they have a certainty degree of autism and therefore all people at that point on the spectrum atr the same, however you might be able to say case by case that a person having any particular condition might not be aware of the consequences of their own actions.

We do it at a societal level too though and that's when the fact that evil is a man managed construct becomes clear. We define middle eastern countries as evil for stoning gay people, but maybe 400 years ago they would have been righteous and the gay person evil.

In terms of the cat question I agree with you, by trying to apply a man made construct to animals we're antrmhropomorphising them, they have natural instincts, even the idea of playing with food for killing for fun, being bound to those instincts isn't evil.

Evil is a bit of a useless term to be honest. It changes based on circumstances, evil acts are acceptable base on factors, the definition changes with time, and then there's the religious blurring of the concept to suggest that something can be evil inherently, which reminds me of the Hitler as a child moral quandary.

 

[Zatoichi.uK]

So Jamie Bulgers killers were highly intelligent?

 

[d_brennen]

So Jamie Bulgers killers were highly intelligent?

Their species is, in relation to other mammals, yes.

 

[Orionaut]

Ignoring for the moment specific definitions of "Evil" (for reasons already stated) and even whether or not "Evil" is even a bad thing (From a Darwinian perspective)

It is certainly the case IMO that one requires a degree of empathy in order to derive pleasure from inflicting torture.

So Jamie Bulgers killers were highly intelligent?

Empathy =/= Intelligence.

(Although "Intelligence" does allow for the possibility of devising rather more imaginative methods for inflicting Torture than the mere causing of pain! )

 

[Nitefly]

If evil is an extreme then I think being evil requires a deliberate or reckless rejection of both ‘good’ and whatever the middle ground is. The more ignorant you are, the more likely you are to be recklessly evil.

I don’t think that intelligence has much bearing on it, but would being intelligent help with being successfully evil? I guess so.

 

[edscdk]

there is no such thing as good and evil its all in your head...

If you think its "evil" then it is (as far as you are concerned), if you think its good its good...

What you think is "good" might be another persons evil and vice-versa...

 

[Orionaut]

there is no such thing as good and evil its all in your head...

If you think its "evil" then it is (as far as you are concerned), if you think its good its good...

What you think is "good" might be another persons evil and vice-versa...

The Dawkins/Darwin approach...

"Good"=Anything that improves the chances of propagating ones "Selfish Gene"

"Evil"=Anything that reduces the chances of propagating ones "Selfish Gene"

Discuss!

 

[Sutters]

there is no such thing as good and evil its all in your head...

If you think its "evil" then it is (as far as you are concerned), if you think its good its good...

What you think is "good" might be another persons evil and vice-versa...

Isn't that just moral relativism?
I don't believe in that at all.

 

[FortuitousFluke]

The Dawkins/Darwin approach...

"Good"=Anything that improves the chances of propagating ones "Selfish Gene"

"Evil"=Anything that reduces the chances of propagating ones "Selfish Gene"

Discuss!

As morality is a purely social construct you would need the social consciousness to be either consciously or sub-consciously directed towards the propagation of the species for that to be accurate. I've always thought it to be a very simplistic analysis of the situation, the original idea of banding into settlements may have been about safety, and then the advent of law and base morality may have been about protecting that safety so that would play into the definitions you listed. However as time has gone on we've started to evolve morality and ethical stand points that don't necessarily make us safer or more secure but sacrifice some element of that for what is perceived to be the greater good.

I don't know, I quite like Dawkins as a writer but I've always felt that he doesn't address his own prejudices enough in his work, he can come across as quite blinkered, especially when discussing religion.

 

[itchy]

Evil spelt backwards is Live, just saying.

 

[glenimp617]

So Jamie Bulgers killers were highly intelligent?

That's a whole different argument. Evil is when an individual knows it's wrong, yet still does it.

You 'could' argue that in the Bulger case, the two killers had such poor upbringings they did not fully understand their actions. If someone from birth is taught a certain way, or sees a certain behaviour from their parents they would think differently to you or I How else would they know?

Nobody is born evil (at least I think anyway).......only life events, or perhaps a chemical imbalance or illness turns someone to evil......that said, are they really evil?

If we are saying true Evil is only when someone knows it's wrong......is a mentally ill person evil by carrying out an evil act.

 

[CREATIVE!11]

Self-awareness

Only some animals possess at least a low level of it (mirror test).

Chimpanzees are funnily enough one, and they seem pretty evil at times....

https://www.world-of-lucid-dreaming.com/10-animals-with-self-awareness.html

 

[FortuitousFluke]

That's a whole different argument. Evil is when an individual knows it's wrong, yet still does it.

You 'could' argue that in the Bulger case, the two killers had such poor upbringings they did not fully understand their actions. If someone from birth is taught a certain way, or sees a certain behaviour from their parents they would think differently to you or I How else would they know?

Nobody is born evil (at least I think anyway).......only life events, or perhaps a chemical imbalance or illness turns someone to evil......that said, are they really evil?

If we are saying true Evil is only when someone knows it's wrong......is a mentally ill person evil by carrying out an evil act.

The legal system should reflect morality and ethics in society and they allow insanity as a defence so I'd say if a person was impaired to such an extent by their mental health that they could not be considered responsible for their own actions then know they haven't committed an act of evil.

 

[mmj_uk]

Lack of empathy? isn't that what psychopaths have? a certain level of intelligence is needed to feel empathy but sometimes even the most intelligent people lack it.

You wouldn't be able to treat others in evil ways if you could put yourself in their shoes.

 

[edscdk]

Lack of empathy? isn't that what psychopaths have? a certain level of intelligence is needed to feel empathy but sometimes even the most intelligent people lack it.

You wouldn't be able to treat others in evil ways if you could put yourself in their shoes.

is that last bit correct? If there is limited food, I know you may try and take it (I can put myself in your shoes)... I need it all to survive... I kill you... I smart u dumb I survive to pass on my genes? (assuming I took into account all other survival factors, like getting you to help me kill everyone else and killing you in your sleep... before you kill me)...

actually if I needed to kill you was it even evil?