I always say, never underestimate the power of Spite.
This method reveals that the majority of individuals exhibit consistent (non-)spitefulness over time and that the distribution of spitefulness is bipolar: when choosing whether to be spiteful, most individuals either avoid spite altogether or impose the maximum possible harm on their unwitting victims.
To the extent that this holds up, it would be quite useful in a predictive sense.
The problem with this sentence is that “evil” can mean so many different things—some of them fit well to some people, some of them are strawman versions.
We need to be more specific. Otherwise it’s easy to get into a “reversed stupidity” pattern, where we notice that the strawman version of the argument is obviously wrong, and therefore… no people are morally worse (e.g. more likely to cause others harm, even without personal benefit) than others.
Imposing “maximum possible harm on their unwitting victims” sounds pretty unambiguously evil. If you can come up with a reasonable definition that disagrees, feel try to type it out.
I always say, never underestimate the power of Spite.
To the extent that this holds up, it would be quite useful in a predictive sense.
“Most people are either good or evil”?!
The problem with this sentence is that “evil” can mean so many different things—some of them fit well to some people, some of them are strawman versions.
We need to be more specific. Otherwise it’s easy to get into a “reversed stupidity” pattern, where we notice that the strawman version of the argument is obviously wrong, and therefore… no people are morally worse (e.g. more likely to cause others harm, even without personal benefit) than others.
Imposing “maximum possible harm on their unwitting victims” sounds pretty unambiguously evil. If you can come up with a reasonable definition that disagrees, feel try to type it out.