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.
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.