You also suggest that low IQ means low empathy.
That is not true.

No Im suggesting that low empathy is likely linked to a low IQ (other way around).

You also suggest that low IQ means low empathy.
That is not true.

No Im suggesting that low empathy is likely linked to a low IQ (other way around).

That would mean that high IQ is likely linked to high empathy.
I dont think so. Remember Stalin?

Anyway. There is another term EQ, Emotional Qoute.

If your emotional abilities aren't in hand, if you don't have self-awareness, if you are not able to manage your distressing emotions, if you can't have empathy and have effective relationships, then no matter how smart you are, you are not going to get very far.

Daniel Goleman

I am not a victim of emotional conflicts. I am human.

Marilyn Monroe

Couldn't disagree more.
Explain ALL those University Professors, today and in the past, who are avowed Marxists. They are Stupid+

Why are they stupid? Being a Marxist is not the same as being a Stalinist or a proponent of Juche or any other mass murdering regime. The worst you can accuse those people off is naivety and idealism.
And that doesn't change the fact that the actual regimes we are talking about do attack intellectuals.

Brute Strength is Non-Intellectual?

Yes. Its the reliance on strength over wits and intelligence. If something is a problem, you smash it, rather than understand the problem and solve it. That is the brute strength mentality.

The Progressive/Marxist Left, when they take over country's: Always resort to brute strength. The Marxist Takeover of Russia, by Intellectuals, was extremely brutal before Stalin. Fidel Castro, University Graduate (Dr. of Law Degree) was/is extremely brutal. Mao Zedong, a University Graduate was...

Those places were anything but progressive or Marxist. And the fact that they use brute strength just shows you how little they valued wits and intelligence. Even their ideology says it all, its borderline worship of 'the worker' and in those time 'the worker' was not a highly educated intellectual. Do you honestly think that a ideology that values intelligence and education over strength would ever praise the blue collar worker as the best a human can aspire to? That such an ideology would deride the middle class (the ones that are educated) as lazy and parasitic?

Intelligence, coupled with Brute Strength (ALL power corrupts), will always destroy the people.
So Marxism, according to you, has never been really implemented, nor attempted.
Marxism is then just an ideal. Akin to 'We Should All Love Each Other'.
Sorry I attempted to discuss a silly little Ideology. I do find that Ideology and Theology are, in the end, the same.
I have always shied away from debating anyone's Theology/Ideology.
Again. Sorry for entering the debate over your 'Belief's'

I always see Marx manifests and Mao Zedong "Little Red Book" as something like the Bible.
You can interpret them in any way and that suits your purposes.

That would mean that high IQ is likely linked to high empathy.
I dont think so. Remember Stalin?

No it would mean that high empathy is linked to a high IQ.

That would mean that high IQ is likely linked to high empathy.
I dont think so. Remember Stalin?

No it would mean that high empathy is linked to a high IQ.

Hmmm... Sorry Mike
If a=b then b=a . a='IQ' b='empathy (EQ)'
This is Boolean logic, which became the basis of the modern digital computer.
Have you heard this expression from Boole paraphrasing Shakespeare?

To be or not to be that's true.

EDIT Boolean Math
2B or not 2B = true

That would mean that high IQ is likely linked to high empathy.
I dont think so. Remember Stalin?

No it would mean that high empathy is linked to a high IQ.

EQ and IQ are two differnt things Michiel and are not correlated.

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

That would mean that high IQ is likely linked to high empathy.
I dont think so. Remember Stalin?

No it would mean that high empathy is linked to a high IQ.

EQ and IQ are two differnt things Michiel and are not correlated.

Agreed.

---

Reality Internet Personality

Consider the following scenarios:


1) A politician, on the "take" from a corporation, might be considered doing
"evil", because he was circumventing the rules pertaining to an elected
system, called democracy. He was "evil", but it was he, and he, alone,
who could be adjudged to be guilty.

2) A politician, on the "take" from a corporation, might not be considered doing
"evil", because his authoritarian government absolved him from being as responsive to the citizenry. The government, not he, could be adjudged to be guilty (of committing "evil").

The latest issue of The New Yorker, has an article on corruption in (US)
politics. Although it does not go very far into the matter of good vs evil,
it does treat corruption, within the various interpretations of the US
Constitution. One point of contention involves treating corporations as
being individuals, thus affording them protection under the 1st Amendment.

The question I would pose, is: How much "good vs evil" should be given
weight in the administrating of people's welfare, in countries with
representative governments? Should it be relegated to the dustbin,
as being a part of Medieval thinking (mentioned in TNY), or not?
If so, then -- from the perspective of a Christian, should Christ's
teachings (obviously, pre-Medieval) be, also, discarded?

What are today's societies left with, on which to base their systems of
government? The framers of the US Constitution, although not perfect, were
very educated men, and had visionary views of government, tempered with the
realities of their day. They were probably influenced, at least by a modest amount, from the teachings in the bible. So, by extension, perhaps the
US Constitution's validity could, also, be called into question.

For those who are either non-Christians, agnostics, or atheists, upon what
principals should governments be based?

I'm not a Constitutional lawyer; perhaps, some of my fellow Setizens could
shed some light on this.

*

Also, as a post-script: Should breaking the law merit two trials --

one, to ascertain whether or not the law was broken, and,

two, to ascertain if the person/entity was committing an evil act?
Right now, criminal and civil trials appear to be the only two major
divisions -- but, I could be wrong.

A bag of wax, and I don't believe any lawyer would care to take on
the issue.

---

Also, as a post-script: Should breaking the law merit two trials --
one, to ascertain whether or not the law was broken, and,
two, to ascertain if the person/entity was committing an evil act?
Right now, criminal and civil trials appear to be the only two major
divisions -- but, I could be wrong.
A bag of wax, and I don't believe any lawyer would care to take on
the issue.

In our country, we have always an investigation first to see if a crime has been committed.
If it is so, a trial begins to determine what punishment the person will get or whether the person should be released.
So it is just one trial and not two trials.

evil act? I dont think any laws consider that.
Maybe the punishment...

The question I would pose, is: How much "good vs evil" should be given
weight in the administrating of people's welfare, in countries with
representative governments? Should it be relegated to the dustbin,
as being a part of Medieval thinking (mentioned in TNY), or not?
If so, then -- from the perspective of a Christian, should Christ's
teachings (obviously, pre-Medieval) be, also, discarded?

AFIK good and evil are flexible standards. They aren't written into stone or even paper. A law, such as robbery, is written.

So using some standard of good vs. evil would be arbitrary and capricious. Many would feel arbitrary standards are evil or perhaps more properly stated as not desirable.

Good vs. evil for judging how much punishment is inflict, is done in many legal systems. They have lists of mitigating and aggravating circumstances. Phrases like "depraved indifference." It is intended to take the arbitrary nature out of such a comparison, but it can only mitigate it to some extent.

For those who are either non-Christians, agnostics, or atheists, upon what principals should governments be based?

The consent of the governed.

While it is easy to say, that is hard to quantify. First we have to realize that it will be impossible for everyone to agree 100%. There will always be a few who will object to whatever government is. The same would even apply to a law, even one prohibiting murder. There is also the issue of who consents and when. It is possible to poll the people when the government is instituted. However later, say a couple of generations, the people who gave their consent are not the ones being governed.

Also, as a post-script: Should breaking the law merit two trials --

one, to ascertain whether or not the law was broken, and,

two, to ascertain if the person/entity was committing an evil act?

That assumes that acts can't be decided beforehand if they are evil. So you can't decide that murder is evil.

Trials in the USA have to establish several things to find guilt. The prosecution has to prove a crime was committed. They have to prove the defendant did the crime. They also have to prove the defendant had intent to commit a crime.

You could think of that as mutiple trials, but with one judge and jury.

In capital cases there are two phases to the trial. The first to affix guilt. The second to determine penalty.

---

That would mean that high IQ is likely linked to high empathy.
I dont think so. Remember Stalin?

No it would mean that high empathy is linked to a high IQ.

Hmmm... Sorry Mike
If a=b then b=a . a='IQ' b='empathy (EQ)'
This is Boolean logic, which became the basis of the modern digital computer.
Have you heard this expression from Boole paraphrasing Shakespeare?

To be or not to be that's true.

EDIT Boolean Math
2B or not 2B = true

No, thats flawed logic at best. Not all religious people reject the theory of evolution, but all people that reject the theory of evolution are religious.

But you did manage to distract me a bit by starting to talk about IQ when I was talking about intelligence. IQ does not equal intelligence. Or for that matter, EQ or EI does not equal empathy.

That would mean that high IQ is likely linked to high empathy.
I dont think so. Remember Stalin?

No it would mean that high empathy is linked to a high IQ.

Hmmm... Sorry Mike
If a=b then b=a . a='IQ' b='empathy (EQ)'
This is Boolean logic, which became the basis of the modern digital computer.
Have you heard this expression from Boole paraphrasing Shakespeare?

To be or not to be that's true.

EDIT Boolean Math
2B or not 2B = true

No, thats flawed logic at best. Not all religious people reject the theory of evolution, but all people that reject the theory of evolution are religious.

But you did manage to distract me a bit by starting to talk about IQ when I was talking about intelligence. IQ does not equal intelligence. Or for that matter, EQ or EI does not equal empathy.

Now I'm confused:)

However I think evilness are highly linked to power and greed.
So humans are not born evil.

To go back to the original question. I don't think humans are born capable of realising what good and evil are. We are not born with any instinct to recognise either.

We've all seen toddlers that one minute are sharing their toys or trying to comfort another toddler who's hurt. Then the next minute the are trying to commit physical assault on another child for no apparent reason.

Even as we age this randomness still applies. e.g. Why do we stop and help one stranger, but walk/drive by another who's in exactly the same trouble ? What makes us decide to return the money that a shop assistant has over paid in change one time but not the next ?

For once in the Nature vs Nurture debate, I'm more on the side of Nurture. Children, unless they are genuine psychotics, CAN be taught enough about good and evil to keep them inside the boundaries of "acceptable behaviour" (a nasty term I know but it's the only one I can think of atm).

We are naturally social animals. A group of children without any adult intervention at all will work out a "social code" to keep things running smoothly between them and this group develop their own definitions of good and bad which won't be that far from the adult's world. This isn't an instinctive thing, it's more like a tacit "I won't harm you if you don't harm me" agreement.

T.A.

A group of children without any adult intervention at all will work out a "social code" to keep things running smoothly between them and this group develop their own definitions of good and bad which won't be that far from the adult's world. This isn't an instinctive thing, it's more like a tacit "I won't harm you if you don't harm me" agreement.
T.A.

Have you read this book? I have.
Lord of the Flies is a 1954 dystopian novel by Nobel Prize-winning English author William Golding about a group of British boys stuck on an uninhabited island who try to govern themselves with disastrous results.

Lord Of The Flies[1990]full movie
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X7ffCWSTNYM

Have you read this book? I have.
Lord of the Flies is a 1954 dystopian novel by Nobel Prize-winning English author William Golding about a group of British boys stuck on an uninhabited island who try to govern themselves with disastrous results.

Its also fiction. Not proof of actual human nature. Not to mention the fact that it takes place in a crisis setting, so even then its not indicative of how humans are normally.

Have you read this book? I have.
Lord of the Flies is a 1954 dystopian novel by Nobel Prize-winning English author William Golding about a group of British boys stuck on an uninhabited island who try to govern themselves with disastrous results.

Its also fiction. Not proof of actual human nature. Not to mention the fact that it takes place in a crisis setting, so even then its not indicative of how humans are normally.

Of course its fiction.
But I think it's very close to reality.
Show me ONE studie where evilness is explained in a scientific paper and a solution to get rid of evilness in the World or at least perhaps reduce evilness.
I have my hypothes that evil becomes of power and greed.
A baby doesnt know what Power and greed is.
Maybe a Child at 4 or 5 years which suggest its all about social interaction.

Of course its fiction.
But I think it's very close to reality.
Show me ONE studie where evilness is explained in a scientific paper and a solution to get rid of evilness in the World or at least perhaps reduce evilness.
I have my hypothes that evil becomes of power and greed.
A baby doesnt know what Power and greed is.
Maybe a Child at 4 or 5 years which suggest its all about social interaction.

No such studies exist for a variety of reasons. For one, evilness is a controversial concept. There is no strict definition that everyone would agree with and as a result the studies validity would be non existent. In other words, the study would be junk science. Secondly, a scientific study and a scientific paper is not the place where one can suggest a way to get rid of 'evil'. You can write entire books about it (and there have been plenty of books that have made a number of suggestions on how to stop evil). Obviously, usually those books have caused as much problems as they have solved....

As for your hypothesis, power is merely a facilitator of evil, just as it is a facilitator of good, but by itself its inherently neutral. The vast majority of human beings handles the power they have in a very responsible manner. That is because every human being has some measure of power, over other people, over their environment or over other creatures. Its a very simple, observable fact that the vast majority of human beings are decent and do not abuse their power in a horrible way. There are a few that do, but they are and always will be a minority.

And greed? Meh, its a socially acceptable way of being addicted to certain things, and because of that is not really evil anymore. Greedy people are no more in control over their own behavior than drug addicts. The only problem is that drug addicts get taken off the street while greedy people become bankers than run our financial system. Their damaging behavior simply has a larger impact.

Have you read this book? I have.
Lord of the Flies is a 1954 dystopian novel by Nobel Prize-winning English author William Golding about a group of British boys stuck on an uninhabited island who try to govern themselves with disastrous results.

Its also fiction. Not proof of actual human nature. Not to mention the fact that it takes place in a crisis setting, so even then its not indicative of how humans are normally.

Of course its fiction.
But I think it's very close to reality.
Show me ONE studie where evilness is explained in a scientific paper and a solution to get rid of evilness in the World or at least perhaps reduce evilness.
I have my hypothes that evil becomes of power and greed.
A baby doesnt know what Power and greed is.
Maybe a Child at 4 or 5 years which suggest its all about social interaction.

Pre-adolescent children are psychopaths. Teens are narcissists. True adult behavior doesn't kick in until the 20s

---

Reality Internet Personality

Pre-adolescent children are psychopaths. Teens are narcissists. True adult behavior doesn't kick in until the 20s

That would be taking it over the top a bit. Also, that view probably doesn't take cultural influences into account.

Of course its fiction.
But I think it's very close to reality.
Show me ONE studie where evilness is explained in a scientific paper and a solution to get rid of evilness in the World or at least perhaps reduce evilness.
I have my hypothes that evil becomes of power and greed.
A baby doesnt know what Power and greed is.
Maybe a Child at 4 or 5 years which suggest its all about social interaction.

No such studies exist for a variety of reasons. For one, evilness is a controversial concept. There is no strict definition that everyone would agree with and as a result the studies validity would be non existent. In other words, the study would be junk science. Secondly, a scientific study and a scientific paper is not the place where one can suggest a way to get rid of 'evil'. You can write entire books about it (and there have been plenty of books that have made a number of suggestions on how to stop evil). Obviously, usually those books have caused as much problems as they have solved....

As for your hypothesis, power is merely a facilitator of evil, just as it is a facilitator of good, but by itself its inherently neutral. The vast majority of human beings handles the power they have in a very responsible manner. That is because every human being has some measure of power, over other people, over their environment or over other creatures. Its a very simple, observable fact that the vast majority of human beings are decent and do not abuse their power in a horrible way. There are a few that do, but they are and always will be a minority.

And greed? Meh, its a socially acceptable way of being addicted to certain things, and because of that is not really evil anymore. Greedy people are no more in control over their own behavior than drug addicts. The only problem is that drug addicts get taken off the street while greedy people become bankers than run our financial system. Their damaging behavior simply has a larger impact.

Totally agree with your reasoning but the topic are 'are humans born evil'.
'The vast majority of human beings handles the power they have in a very responsible manner.'
A Child doesn't know what a responsible manner is.
'Greedy people are no more in control over their own behavior than drug addicts.'
Children can not be addict since it take times to become an addict.