Whose more EVIL, The Priests that molest childern or the religious leaders that condone and hide it?
The religious leaders that condone and hide it. Paedophilia is a mental disorder. You can learn to cope with, and control urges unacceptable in society, but you can't eliminate them. It is biologically who you are, and having a good sense of morality is sometimes not more powerful than the sexual urges you are biologically wired to have.
The religious leaders that hide it on the other hand have the ability to make it stop and don't. That to me is evil. Paedophiles themselves are not evil - hate the disorder, not the person.
I don't agree that people are biologically wired to have these problems. Our wiring is our subjective thoughts. The part you claim as biologically wired is simply lacking control of the subjective thoughts that cause the impulses.
A person is merely the sum of their experiences reacting to the genes their parents gave them.
We are all biological machines possessing the illusion of choice.
2 children raised in the same home with the same upbringing can turn out completely opposite. It is their subjective views that determine their experience and reality, not their genes. If we were just biological machines, we should be able to fix the errors on all occasions or keep them from happening, no?
They turn out completely opposite because their personalities are different. Identical twins have the same genotypes, but not the same phenotypes. Their subjective experience is a result of the differing phenotypes - biology.
Two siblings are even more far apart because they do not have the same genotype (DNA) - which is still biology.
And theoretically we could fix errors, and prevent them from reoccurring if we could determine the set of experiences that create such negative consequences. To a certain degree we do. It doesn't work in all circumstances because different experiences are reacted to differently by different genotypes/phenotypes.
It also doesn't work in all circumstances because people are too afraid of gene research because they are horrified of another eugenics movement.
It's essentially a free will question. Free will is an illusion. There is no other decision one could choose to make, but the choice one made. Everything that has led up to that moment of choice has programmed one to make the exact decision that was made.
"In any case, neuroscience is posing some serious challenges to our conceptions of free will and moral responsibility. Some of these challenges are global: They cast doubt on the very possibility of free will and moral responsibility, even in the case of healthy, normal, human brains. Other challenges are more specific: They suggest that many people, whom we would now hold responsible for their actions, in fact have diminished moral responsibility and legal culpability because of the structure or function of their brain."
- GARDAR ARNASON in Neuroimaging Uncertainty and the Problem of Dispositions
I don't think the phenotype has anything to do with it. What is your source that says phenotype designs all subjective experiences? If the child acts like no one in the family, who's phenotype did the child get?
Phenotype is determined by the interaction of one's genes. It is the differing ways a person's DNA is expressed - it isn't alone an inherited trait, but very much a biological result.
Do you mean a mutation? Even so, a persons mind can be changed from thinking one way into thinking new ways with increase of knowledge of how they think, what does phenotype have to do with this?
It has to do with two children reared in the same home turning out differently - phenotype determines personality.
In any case, thought is a reaction to experience, and that reaction is determined by everything that came before - that reaction is not a choice, merely the illusion of it. See my previous comment about free will.
I disagree, it is thought that creates the experience. How do you figure the experience creates the thought? This is like saying the car drives before you think to start it. The thought of the experience is what creates and gives reality to the experience. I think phenotype is the only illusion unless you have more information than this.
You aren't really understanding what I'm trying to say, and I'm starting to get bored with this conversation. We differ in our opinions - which is good because life would be terribly boring if everybody agreed with me.
If we didn't have any experiences, we wouldn't have any reason to think. Consciousness is the result of complex neurological processes - the gestalt result that the whole is more than the sum of its parts. Without experiences you would have nothing to be aware of, no reason to think. Awareness of them is something completely different. But whatever the case, you are the sum your nature and your nurture, and every decision you make will be entirely the result of the interaction between the two of everything that has come before. There is no other possible decision you could make. Because you can think of other outcomes or choices it gives you the illusion of having made a choice of one over the other. Semantically perhaps you have, but philosophically you did the only thing you could have done, what you have been pre-conditioned to do.
Hello, still waiting on your source that says the phenotype creates all subjective experiences. This seems more like a personal theory than a biology statement. If we didn't think, we wouldn't have any experiences. I don't understand how you think a action comes before thought, what is your source in biology for this? Consciousness is up for grabs, if you think biology has defined it, you are mistaken. I think you have been pre conditioned to think you are pre conditioned without any sources or evidence to make your claims.
I would like to take a crack at this one if I may. From what I have read here the crux of the problem is down to the control we have over experiences. As a survivor of child hood abuse I say with a degree of authority that there is NOTHING I could do to change that event or experience. My influences growing up taught me that the logical reaction to being abused is to experience depression. So I have the typical poor me type thoughts that lead to the depression. My reaction at that point was decidedly negative. I had to be taught how to exert control over my thinking about those events that I have no control over. When I learned to change my thinking the automatic responses I now have are different and much healthier and positive.
Take a child with a genetic pre-disposition to react negatively to abuse (a less strong emotional make up) who is then sexually abused. They take from that experience that the way to cope is to exert that same sort of power over other vulnerable individuals and we have a pretty typical pedophile. If they can be taught to have different thoughts to those events outside our control the way we feel and the way we react will be changed dramatically but that needs to be learned some how. For myself I think of it as having developed my inner vulcan or 7 of nine as I try to monitor how I am thinking about this or that event and try to see the truth to that event, is this thought a reasonable reaction to this event? Is this logical or emotional? I had to learn that in therapy in order to take control of my emotional responses and thus have less distress over experiences that do not need to be distressing.
Lets see what the other poster has to add
Nothing, I'm not interested in this conversation anymore. With TruthDebater it is bound to go nowhere. He isn't listening to the entirety of what I'm saying so there's no point.
PS - I love the Star Trek reference
Btw, I know exactly what you mean. I'm from a physically and sexually abused background, and I too had very unhealthy, negative reactions to my environment, until I was conditioned through CBT to react otherwise.
I am reading everything with an open mind. Yet, you still haven't posted any proof that biology backs up your claims. Where is the proof that the phenotype creates all subjective experiences? This is simply a theory you are making up rather than absolute biology. Thats fine, but it would be nice if you let people know it was individual theory rather than medicine set in stone with observational evidence. There is a big difference.
I feel bad for anyone that is abused in any way, we are all abused in some ways in our lives, it's how we perceive it that changes us, not the abuse itself. If it was the abuse itself, people couldn't change their thoughts of how to view and live with the abuse without letting it destroy them.
In some scholarly communities, such as cognitive psychology and computational neuroscience, Gestalt theories of perception are criticized for being descriptive rather than explanatory in nature. For this reason, they are viewed by some as redundant or uninformative. For example, Bruce, Green & Georgeson conclude the following regarding Gestalt theory's influence on the study of visual perception:
"The physiological theory of the Gestaltists has fallen by the wayside, leaving us with a set of descriptive principles, but without a model of perceptual processing. Indeed, some of their "laws" of perceptual organisation today sound vague and inadequate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gestalt_psychology
If you are claiming this theory as biology, what other theories are you claiming as proven biology? I find the truth.
I would say that they are equally evil.
Kinda like which one is more dangerious, the rattle snake that bit ya or the one that would have if the other one hadn't bit ya before you went ten more feet down the trail,
I disagree with you.
It is in the rattlesnake's nature to bite when threatened, you can hardly call the act of it biting you evil. You are after all the intruder.
A paedophile is in a similar light to the rattlesnake. For whatever reason their brains did not develop with the same amount of healthy impulse control that you or I have, and often paedophiles were sexually abused as children themselves. By society's standards (in other eras it would have been normal, for example, the ancient Greeks) they have a mental disorder, they are sick. Not evil. The act itself is immoral, but if the person does not have the faculty to control their impulses, the person them-self is hardly immoral. Paedophiles can be rehabilitated, but a religious leader who chooses to cover up the immoral acts of another to save face - he is the one acting immorally.
Whose fault is it when the child touches the element on the stove? The child or the parent who left the child unattended?
I think that we have put nametags of ilness upon many things that are evil.. It sounds better.
Cerial killers are not evil, they have a sickness
Cerial rapists are not evil they have a sickness
Hitler wasn't evil He had a sickness.
Those around him that could have stoped him are evil.
He was just sick and couldn't help himself.
Any one that commit a crime can't help themself cause
they have a compulsion.
So I guess the question should be define what evil is?
Evil is an arbitrary concept created by man. There is no true "evil." Just as there are no true "good intentions."
I believe there is no ghost in the machine, and any perceived control over our thoughts, decisions, and actions is merely an illusion.
But if we call evil an illness it sounds better?
I don't care if a rattle snake is evil or not; do you want me to kill it or pitch it over the fence into your yard.
I am sure this is not correct but I have always thought a mean heart and an evil heart were the same thing.
Because you believe there is something more to man than biology. I don't.
I think that there are very few ways in which people differ. We are all governed by the same equation, the only difference is the variables. Since a person cannot choose their variables it is hardly right to blame them for who they are.
So there is no such thing as a man being evil ?
You could be right?
So it falls back to a definition of Evil.
Is there really a such thing?
I'm not trying to be cute; seriously. What is evil in your opinion?
I don't personally believe there is such a thing. Evil implies having evil intentions, but if man is merely the product of the complex interaction of nature and nurture than all we have is the illusion of having intentions, not intentions themselves.
I do not believe they can be reformed just like I do not believe that you can change a gay man into a straight man.
It is entirely possible that the Pope believed they could be reformed just like they believe they can make a gay man straight.
As far as the question, who is more evil. Some people think gay men are evil but I think that is crazy, they are fine the way they are but I would hold them responsible for their crimes like any other person.
Rape and child molestation is a crime regardless and the Pope should have known better than to endanger other children. I might understand his possible reasoning but I think that because he knew and didn't remove them he is partly responsible.
I would hold the same principle as sound in my daily life as well. If I knew someone was a pedophile I would never, ever, ever let my kid or anyone elses kids be unattended or have any authority over them. And I would let people know, especially those with kids because it greatly decreases the likelihood of them doing it again.
Part of the sickness of being a pedophile is the need to have authority over others. They are master manipulators and they prey on people with weaknesses. One could possibly be that the Pope is expected to be forgiving and that their followers are expected to repent. I would say that the pedophile also took advantage of the Pope.
Evil is such a nasty word for describing holy men.
"Immoral" might be more appropriate.
Immoral is stealing someone elses work, or sleeping with your friend's wife.
Using God to gain a child's trust for no other reason than to abuse him for you own twisted desires while emotionally damaging them beyond imatination and stealing a their innocence is nothing short of the pure meaning of EVIL...
Perhaps the most evil of all is the society that pushes this issue under the rug, More of a question to me is this, Why does this American culture continually lesson the severity in punishment of criminals?
That society would be the Vatican.
And the answer to the second question is... Liberal progressivism.
The "if it feels good do it" crowd, is who is in power and who have pushed thier liberal agenda of immorality into our schools and throughout all other aspects of it.
The American left has fought to make baby rape a moral crime only... making them all victims of some dis-order. As someone has already tried to espouse on here.
The question was whether it is evil, not what should be done about it. Those are two very, very different things.
I think psychological screenings of anyone entering the ministry should be mandatory, and none of this one on one time with child and priest.
There isn't an answer to this problem. We should screen them, they don't get the Job, they become school teachers? No not that either.
So we limit their options of employment?
Identify who they are and send them out in the streets.
Any way we look at it we would be doing the same thing the church did. Only, ... we are doin it before the fact.
There isn't an answer.
Until we know which variables in the equation interact together to create a paedophile. When we know that we can make sure those variables never occur together or at all.
People are too caught up in punishing offenders instead of figuring out what could be changed to eliminate having offenders to punish.
People who condemn the entire organization based on a small percentage of bad people.
I suppose it is like condemning the whole family for what one did. I know the Bible says that the crimes of our fathers are not our own but your own crimes are yours and yours alone.
However it also talks a lot about "stumbling blocks" and how we shouldn't put them there for our brothers to stumble. Clearly, the Pope dropped the ball and big time. Though it is not his crime, he is still guilty for seeing the hole in road but not warning the "travelers" of the potential danger, if you get what I mean.
I'm not sure evil is the right word. Are they both responsible in different ways - yes.
by Yves 4 years ago
Is morality undervalued? Are ethics replacing morality?Though similar, there are distinctions between morality and ethics. Which school of thought do you live by? Are you moral or ethical?
by Grace Marguerite Williams 5 years ago
feel that the issue of evil is morally relative while others believe that there is absolute evil. A few strongly insist that evil does not even exist. There is evil in this world and in same cases, there is pure evil. Do you believe that there is pure evil? Why? Why...
by Jacqui 4 years ago
Why is it assumed that Morals are dictated by Religion? Doesn't that scare you?It is mentioned a lot that Morals are dictated by Religion, and the inference (or the direct statement occasionally) is that therefore Atheists are immoral. What makes people think this? I'm curious. Has anyone...
by taburkett 6 years ago
Do you believe the rights of an immoral person are jeopardized by the rights of a moral majority?With the latest court rulings involving same-sex marriage and abortion, the court has sided with the immoral minority when the moral majority has spoken. Will these rulings bring grave damage upon...
by India Arnold 7 years ago
Is a person born evil, or are evil and cruel intentions learned human behaviors?
by Susan Reid 7 years ago
What is a "bonus" grandchild?
Copyright © 2020 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|