Evil, defined as taking pleasure in someone else’s unwanted pain, exists. And if we pretend it doesn’t and look for other motives when evil was the driving force we get a mismatch between map and territory.
Edit
Good/Love = My utility goes up as other peoples’ utility increases.
Evil/Hate = My utility goes up as other peoples’ utility decreases.
As I tell my intermediate microeconomics students, only economists really understand love.
I think there are people who feel a strong impulse to cause pain. Subjectively, it may seem to them that they simply didn’t think of a non-pain-causing method of achieving their other ends. For all I know, at least some of them feel causing pain as a relief of anxiety rather than pleasure.
Also, it’s possible to frame just about anything as punishing defection. I’ve been seeing some indications that a lot of bad behavior is punishing people for claiming more status than they are felt to deserve.
Or, for something milder but closer to showing a terminal value, try this.
I’m not sure about this terminal value thing—if someone is causing pain because they feel pleasure from it, isn’t pleasure the terminal value?
I’m unconvinced that this is a good question, for two reasons.
If it exists but is incredibly rare, the answer is still “yes”. And for pretty much anything you can briefly describe, there exist people who take pleasure in it.
There are probably substantial numbers of people who, e.g., take pleasure in unwanted pain when inflicted as punishment for something they strongly disapprove of. This may or may not be a bad thing, but it doesn’t seem reasonable to say that it’s evil by definition. (And I guess that James_Miller didn’t intend to.)
So I think we’d get nearer to James’s intent if we asked whether a substantial fraction of humans (let’s say, at least 3% or so) take pleasure in other people’s unwanted pain for its own sake.
The reason why I made the poll was that I read James’s comment (before the edit), noticed the downvote, and was like: “What? I thought this was completely obvious? Does anyone here actually disagree? Wow, I am so curious to ask about their reasons.”
First, I wanted just to write “Dear downvoter, please explain.” with a hope to have an interesting conversation. But then I thought it would be even better to know how many people share which opinion. Like, maybe I am the minority here and… uhm, don’t know what, but could be an interesting opportunity to learn.
So, in a way, getting the answers I got here was a new information for me.
EDIT: Feel free to make a new poll with more detailed options. I am not sure what they should be.
When trying to be more precise, it might be useful to distinguish between “enjoys other people’s pain” and “enjoys something that causes other people pain, and is neutral about the pain”. For example, many people love playing computer games where they shoot virtual people. Now imagine that the only opportunity would be shooting real people. Some people would refuse. Some people would enjoy doing it.
Now imagine the latter people and give them an opportunity to shoot virtual people on the computer. Some would enjoy it. Some would refuse it as pointless. So now here are four possible categories: 1) Does not enjoy shooting virtual or real people. 2) Enjoys shooting virtual people, but not real people. 3) Enjoys shooting both virtual and real people. 4) Enjoys shooting real people, but not virtual people.
I am trying to express the difference between the 3 and 4. The latter derives pleasure directly from harming real people. The former harms people and enjoys it, but these two things are not necessarily connected, as he could get the same pleasure from shooting virtual people.
I don’t think it really matters. “Evil” isn’t an archetype meant for describing psychopaths. It’s meant for describing people like Al Qaeda. Or, if you happen to be a member of Al Qaeda, for describing Americans. It’s a form of dark arts used by Azathoth to make us behave in a way that we, personally, do not wish to behave in. Don’t repurpose it for a tiny portion of humanity that acts vaguely like that by coincidence. Abandon it.
Evil, defined as taking pleasure in someone else’s unwanted pain, exists. And if we pretend it doesn’t and look for other motives when evil was the driving force we get a mismatch between map and territory.
Yes, but from the inside, one’s utility function often feels like The Way The World Should Be. An evil person by your definition could still feel like they’re Doing The Right Thing when they’re decreasing others’ utility. So I feel like nothing has really changed with regard to whether “evil” defined as seeing The Way The World Should Be and opposing it makes any sense.
Most people have some evil in them. Have you ever really hated someone and desired bad things to happen to that person? Didn’t this feel a lot different compared to when you loved someone and wanted good things to happen to that person?
Are you are suggesting that people just have a desire to cause suffering and that their reasons (dieties, revenge, punishment, etc.) are mostly just attempts to frame that desire in a personally acceptable manner? I ask because it seems like most people probably just don’t enjoy watching just anyone suffer, they tend to target other groups which suggests a more strategic reason than just enjoying cruelty.
Of course empathy-lacking individuals exist, but make up a small portion of the population. It seems more likely that any given instance of one person enjoying harming another is due to instrumental value rather than terminal.
But individuals who have empathy with some others, but not other others, are more common. They can have terminal values to cause suffering for that portion of the population they don’t have empathy with.
But individuals who have empathy with some others, but not other others, are more common. They can have terminal values to cause suffering for that portion of the population they don’t have empathy with.
I’m having a hard time getting this. Can you provide an example where the lack of empathy for some group isn’t driven by another value? My impression is that empathy is a normal human trait and that socializing teaches us who is worthy of empathy and who isn’t, but then the lack of empathy is instrumental (because it serves to further the goals of society). People who actually lack empathy suffer from mental disorders like psychopathy as far as I know.
Any example I could give could be disputed because it’s always possible to reverse cause and effect and say “he only lacks empathy because of X” rather than “he believes X due to lack of empathy”.
And my impression is that empathy towards only the in-group is a normal human trait and that it is often affected by society only in the trivial sense that society determines what the in-group is.
Any example I could give could be disputed because it’s always possible to reverse cause and effect and say “he only lacks empathy because of X” rather than “he believes X due to lack of empathy”.
Fair enough. It does seem like it would be difficult to tell those two things apart from the outside.
And my impression is that empathy towards only the in-group is a normal human trait and that it is often affected by society only in the trivial sense that society determines what the in-group is.
Also true (probably).
If you’re trying to get the best match between map and territory though, it’s worth looking for the motive for each particular evil. If you’re trying to reduce evil in the above-defined sense of enjoying causing involuntary suffering, doesn’t it make more sense to treat this as outgroup persecution rather than terminal “evil.” I guess my point was that I don’t think evil as a terminal goal exists in most people. There may be terminal goals for which evil is a hardwired strategy, but it’s more important to look at what those goals actually are if you’re going to try to minimize the evil. Maybe we can tweak the definition of outgroup. Maybe we can make the ingroup value something that the outgroup doesn’t and then “deprive” the outgroup of that thing as our form of persecution. Just saying that “evil” exists and is a driving force feels like a mysterious answer.
Vengefulness is a real emotion, as the grandparent implies. It leads you to take pleasure in the pain of people who you feel have harmed you or something you care about (see: most of the justice system). There are also people who take pleasure in anyone else’s pain. They are too few to matter much in explaining an organization the size of Al Qaeda, never mind “the terrorists” or “religious fanatics”.
Now, there may be confusion here about the phrase ‘because of our freedom’. There are moral reasons, and then there are causes. I don’t think Al Qaeda members perceive themselves as taking revenge on the West for the weakness of the Muslim world, nor as serving the house of Saud. I also don’t believe either Al Qaeda or Isil would exist if the Muslim world were stronger relative to the West, nor that they’d exist without the machinations of the house of Saud. And I usually couldn’t care less about terrorists’ “moral” reasons.
Evil, defined as taking pleasure in someone else’s unwanted pain, exists. And if we pretend it doesn’t and look for other motives when evil was the driving force we get a mismatch between map and territory.
Edit
Good/Love = My utility goes up as other peoples’ utility increases. Evil/Hate = My utility goes up as other peoples’ utility decreases.
As I tell my intermediate microeconomics students, only economists really understand love.
I don’t think that’s a good definition of evil. Feeling pleasure for punishing a person who defects from a prisoner dilemma isn’t inherently evil.
When look at how clinical psychopaths are “evil” it’s more complicated then simple taking pleasure in someone’s unwanted pain.
LOL. I just want to keep this quote as an example of LW ethics… X-D
Do you disagree with the substance, or only want to remark on the way the statement is made?
I’m not sure there’s much substance involved, but I certainly think of humans as Turing complete.
I think you mixed up two different threads.
Ah, sorry, yes I did.
My amusement at this quote isn’t quite at the agree/disagree level, it has more to do with the mindset which produced it.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/katja-rowell-md/when-feeding-therapy-becomes-aversion-therapy_b_2951294.html
I think there are people who feel a strong impulse to cause pain. Subjectively, it may seem to them that they simply didn’t think of a non-pain-causing method of achieving their other ends. For all I know, at least some of them feel causing pain as a relief of anxiety rather than pleasure.
Also, it’s possible to frame just about anything as punishing defection. I’ve been seeing some indications that a lot of bad behavior is punishing people for claiming more status than they are felt to deserve.
Or, for something milder but closer to showing a terminal value, try this.
I’m not sure about this terminal value thing—if someone is causing pain because they feel pleasure from it, isn’t pleasure the terminal value?
The question is always whether a given interpretation is useful.
The economist position that defecting in prisoner dilemmas isn’t evil but punishing defectors is evil seems wrongheaded to me.
That might be a passable definition for personal evil, but it doesn’t look adequate for institutional evil.
Okay, time for a poll:
Do you believe that “taking pleasure in someone else’s unwanted pain” exists in some humans?
[pollid:829]
I’m unconvinced that this is a good question, for two reasons.
If it exists but is incredibly rare, the answer is still “yes”. And for pretty much anything you can briefly describe, there exist people who take pleasure in it.
There are probably substantial numbers of people who, e.g., take pleasure in unwanted pain when inflicted as punishment for something they strongly disapprove of. This may or may not be a bad thing, but it doesn’t seem reasonable to say that it’s evil by definition. (And I guess that James_Miller didn’t intend to.)
So I think we’d get nearer to James’s intent if we asked whether a substantial fraction of humans (let’s say, at least 3% or so) take pleasure in other people’s unwanted pain for its own sake.
Yes, I agree.
The reason why I made the poll was that I read James’s comment (before the edit), noticed the downvote, and was like: “What? I thought this was completely obvious? Does anyone here actually disagree? Wow, I am so curious to ask about their reasons.”
First, I wanted just to write “Dear downvoter, please explain.” with a hope to have an interesting conversation. But then I thought it would be even better to know how many people share which opinion. Like, maybe I am the minority here and… uhm, don’t know what, but could be an interesting opportunity to learn.
So, in a way, getting the answers I got here was a new information for me.
EDIT: Feel free to make a new poll with more detailed options. I am not sure what they should be.
When trying to be more precise, it might be useful to distinguish between “enjoys other people’s pain” and “enjoys something that causes other people pain, and is neutral about the pain”. For example, many people love playing computer games where they shoot virtual people. Now imagine that the only opportunity would be shooting real people. Some people would refuse. Some people would enjoy doing it.
Now imagine the latter people and give them an opportunity to shoot virtual people on the computer. Some would enjoy it. Some would refuse it as pointless. So now here are four possible categories: 1) Does not enjoy shooting virtual or real people. 2) Enjoys shooting virtual people, but not real people. 3) Enjoys shooting both virtual and real people. 4) Enjoys shooting real people, but not virtual people.
I am trying to express the difference between the 3 and 4. The latter derives pleasure directly from harming real people. The former harms people and enjoys it, but these two things are not necessarily connected, as he could get the same pleasure from shooting virtual people.
I don’t think it really matters. “Evil” isn’t an archetype meant for describing psychopaths. It’s meant for describing people like Al Qaeda. Or, if you happen to be a member of Al Qaeda, for describing Americans. It’s a form of dark arts used by Azathoth to make us behave in a way that we, personally, do not wish to behave in. Don’t repurpose it for a tiny portion of humanity that acts vaguely like that by coincidence. Abandon it.
A third reason is that “pain” is somewhat ambiguous. Does schadenfreude count?
Yes, yes it does.
Yes, good point. I kinda just assumed it really meant “suffering” in some generalized sense, rather than anything narrower.
Yes, but from the inside, one’s utility function often feels like The Way The World Should Be. An evil person by your definition could still feel like they’re Doing The Right Thing when they’re decreasing others’ utility. So I feel like nothing has really changed with regard to whether “evil” defined as seeing The Way The World Should Be and opposing it makes any sense.
Most people have some evil in them. Have you ever really hated someone and desired bad things to happen to that person? Didn’t this feel a lot different compared to when you loved someone and wanted good things to happen to that person?
Are you are suggesting that people just have a desire to cause suffering and that their reasons (dieties, revenge, punishment, etc.) are mostly just attempts to frame that desire in a personally acceptable manner? I ask because it seems like most people probably just don’t enjoy watching just anyone suffer, they tend to target other groups which suggests a more strategic reason than just enjoying cruelty.
Yes, harming others is a terminal value for evil people.
Of course empathy-lacking individuals exist, but make up a small portion of the population. It seems more likely that any given instance of one person enjoying harming another is due to instrumental value rather than terminal.
But individuals who have empathy with some others, but not other others, are more common. They can have terminal values to cause suffering for that portion of the population they don’t have empathy with.
I’m having a hard time getting this. Can you provide an example where the lack of empathy for some group isn’t driven by another value? My impression is that empathy is a normal human trait and that socializing teaches us who is worthy of empathy and who isn’t, but then the lack of empathy is instrumental (because it serves to further the goals of society). People who actually lack empathy suffer from mental disorders like psychopathy as far as I know.
Any example I could give could be disputed because it’s always possible to reverse cause and effect and say “he only lacks empathy because of X” rather than “he believes X due to lack of empathy”.
And my impression is that empathy towards only the in-group is a normal human trait and that it is often affected by society only in the trivial sense that society determines what the in-group is.
Fair enough. It does seem like it would be difficult to tell those two things apart from the outside.
Also true (probably).
If you’re trying to get the best match between map and territory though, it’s worth looking for the motive for each particular evil. If you’re trying to reduce evil in the above-defined sense of enjoying causing involuntary suffering, doesn’t it make more sense to treat this as outgroup persecution rather than terminal “evil.” I guess my point was that I don’t think evil as a terminal goal exists in most people. There may be terminal goals for which evil is a hardwired strategy, but it’s more important to look at what those goals actually are if you’re going to try to minimize the evil. Maybe we can tweak the definition of outgroup. Maybe we can make the ingroup value something that the outgroup doesn’t and then “deprive” the outgroup of that thing as our form of persecution. Just saying that “evil” exists and is a driving force feels like a mysterious answer.
Vengefulness is a real emotion, as the grandparent implies. It leads you to take pleasure in the pain of people who you feel have harmed you or something you care about (see: most of the justice system). There are also people who take pleasure in anyone else’s pain. They are too few to matter much in explaining an organization the size of Al Qaeda, never mind “the terrorists” or “religious fanatics”.
Now, there may be confusion here about the phrase ‘because of our freedom’. There are moral reasons, and then there are causes. I don’t think Al Qaeda members perceive themselves as taking revenge on the West for the weakness of the Muslim world, nor as serving the house of Saud. I also don’t believe either Al Qaeda or Isil would exist if the Muslim world were stronger relative to the West, nor that they’d exist without the machinations of the house of Saud. And I usually couldn’t care less about terrorists’ “moral” reasons.