INTRODUCING "E": a computer character first created in 2005 to embody Bringsjord's working definition of evil.
Image: Courtesy of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
More In This Article
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
TROY, N.Y.—The hallowed halls of academia are not the place you would expect to find someone obsessed with evil (although some students might disagree). But it is indeed evil—or rather trying to get to the roots of evil—that fascinates Selmer Bringsjord, a logician, philosopher and chairman of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute's Department of Cognitive Science here. He's so intrigued, in fact, that he has developed a sort of checklist for determining whether someone is demonic, and is working with a team of graduate students to create a computerized representation of a purely sinister person.
"I've been working on what is evil and how to formally define it," says Bringsjord, who is also director of the Rensselaer AI & Reasoning Lab (RAIR). "It's creepy, I know it is."
To be truly evil, someone must have sought to do harm by planning to commit some morally wrong action with no prompting from others (whether this person successfully executes his or her plan is beside the point). The evil person must have tried to carry out this plan with the hope of "causing considerable harm to others," Bringsjord says. Finally, "and most importantly," he adds, if this evil person were willing to analyze his or her reasons for wanting to commit this morally wrong action, these reasons would either prove to be incoherent, or they would reveal that the evil person knew he or she was doing something wrong and regarded the harm caused as a good thing.
Bringsjord's research builds on earlier definitions put forth by San Diego State University philosophy professor J. Angelo Corlett as well as the late sociopolitical philosophers and psychologists, Joel Feinberg and Erich Fromm, but most significantly by psychiatrist and author M. Scott Peck in his 1983 book, People of the Lie, The Hope for Healing Human Evil. After reading Peck's tome about clinically evil people, "I thought it would be interesting to come up with formal structures that define evil," Bringsjord says, "and, ultimately, to create a purely evil character the way a creative writer would."
He and his research team began developing their computer representation of evil by posing a series of questions beginning with the basics—name, age, sex, etcetera—and progressing to inquiries about this fictional person's beliefs and motivations.
This exercise resulted in "E," a computer character first created in 2005 to meet the criteria of Bringsjord's working definition of evil. Whereas the original E was simply a program designed to respond to questions in a manner consistent with Bringsjord's definition, the researchers have since given E a physical identity: It's a relatively young, white man with short black hair and dark stubble on his face. Bringsjord calls E's appearance "a meaner version" of the character Mr. Perry in the 1989 movie Dead Poets Society. "He is a great example of evil," Bringsjord says, adding, however, that he is not entirely satisfied with this personification and may make changes.
The researchers have placed E in his own virtual world and written a program depicting a scripted interview between one of the researcher's avatars and E. In this example, E is programmed to respond to questions based on a case study in Peck's book that involves a boy whose parents gave him a gun that his older brother had used to commit suicide.
See what we're tweeting about
63 Comments
Add CommentI wonder why E has that look.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI love it! What better use of AI than for EVIL!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSeriously though, I think this is interesting from a software point of view, I'm learning Prolog just so I can create AI like things. Perhaps I'll make an Evil AI to fight your Evil AI.
As far as I can tell, there is only cause/effect, and those effects are always constructive for some, and destructive for others. Those for whom an effect is both destructive and not fully understood, tend to describe it as evil.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBeyond that, there's not much to talk about without involving superstition.
@ candide
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI suggest you change your name to "Glibly Generalizing Angry Person" as you couldn't restrain yourself from making an insult.
On another note, why would we need "more accurate representations of people" to "solve problems in intelligence analysis" when we could use ACTUAL people instead? You can only build "E" from what has already been analyzed so how can he feed you back any data you don't already have?
As an Evil genius, I have to wonder where they are getting their information. We have yet to lose a single evil genius in the evil genius organization, aka EGO, due to skilled law enforcement. Where do you get genuinely evil geniuses if you can't get them from the prison system? I think you are dealing with evil lackeys and occasional henchmen, the meat and potatoes of evil. To really grasp evil you will need far better models.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere are plenty of real life E's in Second Life so a virtual E would be passe.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"I wonder why E has that look." -- he just found out he can vote 73 times in Ohio.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI believe that all people are intrinsically evil and the world will be better off without us. If a killer virus wiped us out, I'd die knowing we got what we deserved. If I saw someone being mugged, I may risk my life to intervene. My motive would be to hurt the bully not save the victim. If someone attacked me I wouldn't hesitate to use deadly force if I thought it was marginally necessary. I believe the 'robber baron' model fits our governments. I believe the beuracratic creep can only be stopped through bloody uprising. I follow a cyclic model of civilisation and have no particular allegiance to the current system. If I ever kill someone, in my mind they will be more evil than I see myself as being.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI don't run around like a 14 year old ganking and griefing when I play MMO's, I mostly PVE and only PVP when it's inevitable.
Which of the above paragraphs would this research be able to best utilise?
The persona needs a small scar. "You can't be a bully unless you can stand the pain." As an NCO I knew in the seventies used to say.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnyone remember the name of the BASIC program from the early eighties that was about 300 lines long I think it was Eliza?
For those who havent already seen his face before, googlesearch images of "Ante Pavelic". He really IS a pretty evil looking dude! >:)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe transition from personality, psychological, and behavior traits to physical traits is an interesting one. It reminds me a lot of the (greatly flawed) anthropometric studies of the 19th century (all those composite portraits of prostitutes and pick-pockets). Dangerous territory...I'd be interested in knowing more about what informed their decisions about E's appearance.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo every person who has ever knowingly spread a false rumor about somebody else in order to cause them trouble is evil? This seems like a bit of a stretch to me.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDon't they already have something like this in Quantico? Isn't this like the learning process undergone by all those serial killer detectives and profiler's that the FBI employ? Are'nt you just recreating something in the private sector that is already developed in the government?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"To be truly evil, someone must have sought to do harm by planning to commit some morally wrong action with no prompting from others (whether this person successfully executes his or her plan is beside the point). "
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat about those who are prompted, Most Western Caucasians hate and fear other races for no apparent reason for example, is that not evil. When academia blocks knowledge because it comes from somebody of a different race, is that not pure evil, or is that just a slave of pure evil. Pure evil always has an excuse, the savages are different, the savages are inferior, as in case of native Americans who are almost extinct, evil is actions, and desire for actions, and always looking for an excuse to destroy others who just want a better life for themselves, that is evil, prompted by fear.
"To be truly evil, someone must have sought to do harm by planning to commit some morally wrong action with no prompting from others (whether this person successfully executes his or her plan is beside the point). "
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat about those who are prompted, Most Western Caucasians hate and fear other races for no apparent reason for example, is that not evil. When academia blocks knowledge because it comes from somebody of a different race, is that not pure evil, or is that just a slave of pure evil. Pure evil always has an excuse, the savages are different, the savages are inferior, as in case of native Americans who are almost extinct, evil is actions, and desire for actions, and always looking for an excuse to destroy others who just want a better life for themselves, that is evil, prompted by fear.
There is a lot of Psychology already out there about Authoritarian and Manipulative personalities, most not seen here, and a great many are remarkable for their unremarkableness, and certainly not fitting any image or racial stereotype. However their abuse as children is a very common trait.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI wrote much more about this at http://freedemocrat.blogspot.com/2007/04/generation-of-monsters.html
"with no prompting from others"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI would go even further and say that this criterion eliminates everybody who hasn't been raised in isolation by wolves or monkeys. In my opinion there will always be a "prompt" from E's point of view even if the rest of the world does not (want to) see it that way.
For example: this report, published by US terrorist experts in September 1999, adequately explains what prompted the events of 11 September 2001:
http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/frd.html
(just search for "retaliate"). Of course you can still stick your head in the sand and ignore the obvious...
If a certain presidential candidate released personal info to the effect that he enjoyed an IQ of 146, might he be considered an Evil genius? What if he entirely lacked a moral compass? Is a blind force by nature evil if it simply does not care about the welfare of you or me? But here we are out of the realm of science and into semantics. Hopefully, we won't be so bold as to run a real life field test.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAn evil person is someone who has great mental, resources, physical abilities; who's conscience is barely touching a shallow sense of guilt. Mould by a charisma and wholly self centered they are actually borderline animals.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLook at GW Bush or Dick Cheney to see evil portrayed even more accurately.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGSC
What makes any kind of profiling noteworthy is how little we understand Life and Living, the environmental circumstances that provoke personal rollout.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAcademic institutions and personalities are often overrated in what they can actual deliver in way of understanding.
A good example is Steven Pinker of Harvard who uses shock values versus substantive knowledge of anything. A careful analysis of Steven Pinker’s writing is a case in point, asking what the point is.
The issue at hand is Peck’s bad boy!
Roy D. Schickedanz
Refuting Charles Darwin in the case of Life’s Responsive Design
"I wouldn't release E or anything like it, even in purely virtual environments, without engineered safeguards," Bringsjord says. These safeguards would be a set of ethics written into the software, something akin to author Isaac Asimov's "Three Laws of Robotics".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThree laws of robotics define in many ways a highly ethical person. Asimov himself regards robots to have superior ethics to humans in some of his stories. So if the "Evil" character followed these laws it would not be evil any longer. Maybe should put the character in prison so that people could talk to him but he could not harm anybody.
Three laws of robotics define in many ways a highly ethical person. Asimov himself regards robots to have superior ethics to humans in some of his stories. So if the "Evil" character followed these laws it would not be evil any longer. Maybe should put the character in prison so that people could talk to him but he could not harm anybody.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisaaa
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe case of Good and Evil has been with Nature as long as Life has come into being. Life is cognitive as a Responsive Design. This includes both Carbon Dioxide and Oxygen Life. Here, the awareness of Life against reality.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRobert J. Sawyer’s, Canadian Science Fiction writer who’s “Wake,” is being serialized in Stanley Schmidt’s “Analogy,” finds a great story along similar lines.
I am reminded of combat story of being on the road in Grand Rapids, Michigan, where I was kissed by a serial killer who was killing patents at a nursing home on Alpine.
It raises the stake of crossing the line of society’s sense of Good and Evil.
Responsive Design raises questions concerning the matter of instincts in terms of Life and Living. Here, what must considered is nurturing and the way for all by the collective will of species in formulating its specie Specific Environmental Evolvement (SEE), how a species sees and responds to reality.
The Darwinian Evolutionists would see Good and Evil in terms of survival of the fittest and Natural Selection cliché for saying everything for nothing! But the target of Life and Living, the core component of Evolution, however is being persuasively stable, where all fueling needs are identified along with dangers and risks are equally noted.
Roy D. Schickedanz
Refuting Charles Darwin in the case of Life’s Responsive Design
The case of Good and Evil has been with Nature as long as Life has come into being. Life is cognitive as a Responsive Design. This includes both Carbon Dioxide and Oxygen Life. Here, the awareness of Life against reality.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRobert J. Sawyer’s, Canadian Science Fiction writer who’s “Wake,” is being serialized in Stanley Schmidt’s “Analogy,” finds a great story along similar lines.
I am reminded of combat story of being on the road in Grand Rapids, Michigan, where I was kissed by a serial killer who was killing patents at a nursing home on Alpine.
It raises the stake of crossing the line of society’s sense of Good and Evil.
Responsive Design raises questions concerning the matter of instincts in terms of Life and Living. Here, what must considered is nurturing and the way for all by the collective will of species in formulating its specie Specific Environmental Evolvement (SEE), how a species sees and responds to reality.
The Darwinian Evolutionists would see Good and Evil in terms of survival of the fittest and Natural Selection cliché for saying everything for nothing! But the target of Life and Living, the core component of Evolution, however is being persuasively stable, where all fueling needs are identified along with dangers and risks are equally noted.
Roy D. Schickedanz
Refuting Charles Darwin in the case of Life’s Responsive Design
Evil is relative, if you ask a zealot, everything that isn't expressly written on his reference book (whether the holey bible, or the star fleet technical manual) is evil, if you talk to a psycho, you will get something like I don't care, they all die the same! kind of answer, so evil is in the eye of the watcher.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOn the other hand, how could E if let loose on second life be more threatening than a cyberbully?, you would need to feed him with gigabytes of insults, teen angsts, harassment techniques and criterion to choose which to use on a given target, that amount of information would slow a big hefty computer to a point where the target would be playing Doom and Doomer before E could answer.
I think he misses a critical point. It's not whether you see harmful acts as good - a dentist inflicts pain to prevent greater pain in the future. The act has to be harmful, have no mitigating good (at least in any proportion to the harm) and the individual has to take pleasure in the harm. Leona Helmsley, the "Queen of Mean," once fired an employee on Christmas Eve. She knew perfectly well what she was doing - she did it specifically to be spiteful. I would also restrict the "urging" requirement since there is abundant evidence that people gleefully commit evil if they are given permission or offered immunity.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf people commit evil because they take pleasure in it, no amount of nurturing or social equality will eliminate evil from the world. We will always need police and armies.
If there's any author whose writings on evil are worthless, it's M. Scott Peck. The parents who gave their kids the gun that his brother used to commit suicide weren't evil so much as mind-numbingly obtuse. Peck completely missed the single worst evil in his book. He described a program the Army contemplated to find out why soldiers committed atrocities, but screpped it out of fear it would have been misinterpreted (as it absolutely would have). It never occured to Peck that misusing a well-intentioned act as fodder for anti-war propaganda might have been more evil than any of the other garden variety self deceptions he described in his book. Between this and his casual dismissal of crime as not really evil, Peck is more a "People of the Lie" than most of the characters in his book.
All research into human behavior should look upon with a skeptical eye of concern, not falling into a concept of Eugenics, the better “Mench.”
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThough what is normal is determined by what is abnormal.
E for evil character moves into the world of codification and recognition, throwing our depiction into these terms. What happens when it turns out wrong?
Roy D. Schickedanz
Refuting Charles Darwin in the case of Life’s Responsive Design
I agree with gs_chandy. GW Bush and Dick Cheney are best example of evil. Although both are not mentally or physically great, they had vast resources (powers) to fulfill their evil doings. Both hidden their true selves with charisma and lies without blinking an eye. Only human can be evil and they are borderline animals.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"All research into human behavior should look upon with a skeptical eye of concern, not falling into a concept of Eugenics"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat's right. As long as we don't follow the example of the old testament, where eugenics and genocide were not only justified and glorified, but even mandated by god, then this world could be a much nicer place.
And that's "Mensch" by the way. Or actually "Ubermensch", but with an umlaut on the "U".
Who are the righteous and who are the dammed?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat are to believe?
In the tenets of the Articles of Faith and Doctrine, whether those of Apostolic Church of God, a flock of believers led by Bishop Arthur M. Brazier, Pastor or the Compass Doctrine offered up by the Bible Conference entitled the Steeling the Mind where the Holy Bible becomes the inspired word of Hope and personal salvation.
These tenets become the fundamental theology of hope and possibility.
If these are the righteous, those who find another path of Life’s understanding are they to be condemned? Isn’t the act itself Evil?
Man from day one, finding himself walking and running erect on two legs as a hybrid Chimpanzee fronted a world and a need to survive committed himself to a directional path finding language in his hunter gather mode of Life and Living, also finding acute understanding of possible Good versus what would be bad, and possibly Evil sought to reconcile the two natures of his own being fronting new rules in his Strategies of Life (SOLs). It in itself is a Work-in Progress, and will always remain so
Roy D. Schickedanz
Refuting Charles Darwin in the case of Life’s Responsive Design
Evil is subjective. What is evil in one culture may not be considered as such in another. What can be termed as "evil" can also be thought of as an evolutionary survival mechanism. Abberant behavior in one setting may be exactly what is needed for that individuals survival, and/or prosperity in another. Calculating a numerical weighted scale for a "AI" routine is not science, especially when ther is no free will involved. It is just a small math routine if(A>b||A<C)....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn order for this to have any real merit the "AI" must have some measure of free will. If you can accomplish that then it might matter, other wise its just code that adheres to what the author believes is to be considered evil. The next problem here is that the programmer gets to decide what is to be considered evil and what is not, what if he is truley the evil one?
Is this evident in other species? Haven't we evolved to be evil--to cause harm to others as our prehistoric ancestors did for basic reasons (even as we caused harm before we developed emotion).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn response to B9Robot, man is basically good.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is in the dangers and risks have evasive action taken by all species, most seek not to engage prostituting threatening and other actions.
Man developing religion has formulated different set of verbal and conscious rules, coding sin and its possible consequences.
The ten commandants are basically common set rules of Life and Living where rules needed to establish.
Nevertheless, given societies actually set moral and ethical rules.
Judeo-Christian certainly can be traced to Egypt especially New Kingdom one God worshiping.
The case for Religion was effectively argued by Sigmund Freud in his Moses and Monotheism, and Civilization and Discontent.
Issues for a God gene should be looked upon as being completely questionable, taken with a gain of salt.
It is like Craig Venter, indicating in his book A Life Decoded, that “I do not have this particular genetic propensity to pile on the pounds,” when the last photographies in the same book shows that is not quit true. Who is he kidding?
Craig looks like his peer grouping in life.
Like I have said previously this how I judge someone actually knowing how Evolution actually works by how they look. Life hides nothing!
Roy D. Schickedanz
Refuting Charles Darwin in the case of Life’s Responsive Design
Those who have not read Edward Humes’ book, Monkey Girl, I strongly suggest its reading.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is certainly probably not at the top of the reading lists for The Discovery Institute, or religious institutions and churches of Dover, Pa.
It portrays where we are actually standing with Evolution and Religion, where serious concerns for teaching science in our country is being fronted.
Often the battle ground is the actually classroom and the various communities. This will play serious consequence for our country and it’s world standing, competing with countries especially in Asia, where science will be use to bridge any possible technical gaps.
Dover is probably quit typical of the problems we are now facing.
Roy D. Schickedanz
If you define something carefully enough, you can prove anything
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe article defines a terrorist
If you define something carefully enough, you can prove anything.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe article defines evil as a terrorist
If released through a bug... this could be bad......
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI believe in Hobbes' point of view... that man is naturally wicked. However what makes us different is that we have the power to destroy where we live. All other animals don't. We will be our own demise....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI believe in Hobbes' point of view... that man is naturally wicked. However what makes us different is that we have the power to destroy where we live. All other animals don't. We will be our own demise....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisthatguy: welcome back to earth.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou had me seriously worried for a while.
Reign of God started. Please log on to http://www.makudam.net for details
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisReign of God started. Please log on to http://www.makudam.net for details
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHuman morality has already been explained by Ayn Rand in her book "The Virtue of Selfishness" She breaks it down to its essentials. As a quick example consider; Morality is possible because of the constant alternative that we face, life and death. Every choice is a choice in the direction of one or the other, it either promotes your life (life) or acts against it (death).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is the line of reasoning she uses but she is much more clear and essential than I am. If you truly have a desire to discover the source of morality read the first part of that book.
Oh my, Steve D -- who died and left you God? Scottie did a lot more good than harm -- none of us is perfect.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOh my, Steve D -- who died and left you God? Scottie did a lot more good than harm -- none of us is perfect.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOh, my Steve D -- who died and left you God? Scottie did a lot more good than harm -- none of us are perfect, but there are definitely some who are worse than others. Plus Peck did talk about the evils of Mỹ Lai .
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn regards to the "Populist Tripe American", I'm curious why you are deeming this as rubbish? The science, to me, is present. Psychology is in fact a science. The article was interesting, and appropriate given the holiday.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo, a half assed sythetic psychopath is an achievement? Does thi guy even understand what AI is? With digital computers an AI entity will only do what you set it to do given predefined parameters, Outside those parameters, if the program is really good, it will fall back to the closest conditions and then react accordingly.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo they will not discover anything about the huiman psyche like by watching E. I'd be surprised if they achieve anything at all, other than raising their programers' income considerably after publication of the work...
Evil is not a set of parameters you can define, it would only be your arbitrarily chosen, personal idea of evil. Want somethi ng more widely recognized/recognizable? Look up PSYCHOPATH and then go do some useful work, ok?
Our definitions of evil are truly stunted. They should not follow political-correctness, or even our initial gut feelings. It is well known that sociopaths, highly selfish and destructive / murderous people, are exceedingly charming and engaging while Nobel prize winners who contribute to the future of us all can be very abrasive and non-politically-correct. We always ignore those higher up who make decisions that quietly and perhaps indirectly lead to the destruction of people for selfish reasons. Politicians and financiers, captains of media and academic figures who manipulate people for non-universal interests for example. Evolution and science can readily tell us what is good and evil on this level quite objectively. See "The Textbook of the Universe: the Genetic Ascent to God" which discusses this at length and clearly shows this.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe only thing evil here is the raising of research funds for the team about developing an "A. I."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe only thing evil here, is the raising of research funds for the team about developing an "A. I.", not a chatter bot.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy bother with a robotic face for evil?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI suggest you just use Casey Anthony's face instead!
Why use a "computer-generated" face to personify evil?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy not just post a picture of Casey Anthony instead??
Umm sorry. Didn't mean to post twice. *blush*
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think Bringsjord may need to work on his definition a little more. E is positively nice compared to some real life villians. For example:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAdolph Eichmann - The nazi bureaucrat who scheduled the trains to the death camps and handled other logistics for the holocaust. It's estimated the he arranged the deaths of 4 million people without laying eyes on a single one of them. He apparently spent the war living in dread fear that he would be returned to his former job as a filing clerk if he didn't meet his monthly quota of killed Jews.
Lavrenty Beria: Head of the NKVD (later renamed KGB) under Stalin. When he wasn't murdering half the Soviet political leadership and arranging mass deportations to Siberia, he spent his spare time molesting children.
Herod the Great: The biblical story of the slaughter of innocents was probably all in a days work for Herod. He was a paranoid sociopath who preceived just about anyone as a threat - and had them killed as a result.
First of all - these people were not unprompted. They perceived a very good reason to do what they did. Second - they weren't "purely" evil either. Eichmann & Beria were nice to their kids. Herod created an economic and religious revival in ancient Israel. Finally, no one knows what Herod looked like but Eichmann & Beria were both good looking men.
Skynet?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSkynet?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMichael Vick
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think that you could define evil as that which actively goes against promoting life. Which life might you ask? Humans versus the rest? A good planet would allow a large but diverse population of different species. I think a more fruitful exercise would be to try and define the most evil government possible, and then use it as a litmus test on the various governments around the world to see how they measured up. No government would be able to get 100% for goodness. Hitler's was the worst we've had so far, but is it the worst possible? A government headed by a devil worshipper would seek to ultimately wipe out all life on the planet. To do this it would have to be systematically devious and dishonest, tricking people to give up their rights to fight back before killing them. Remember how the Nazis progressively outlawed all other political parties? Remember how they were able to shepherd the Jews to the concentration camps? They waged war on their fellow Germans as well as non-Germans, as did Stalin in Russia. As Solzhenitsin said, "You today, me tomorrow".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAsk Trey Parker and Matt Stone for ideas. They created Woodland Christmas Critters!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAsking what or who) is evil, or what constitutes an evil act, is so subjective I cannot imagine a scientific explanation much less a "cure" for it. What, exactly, are we trying to explain?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPeople of different religions or cultures often believe outsiders are evil. We think 9/11 was a wicked act, yet a significant part of the world's people found it cause for celebration. Israelis and Palestinians each think the other wicked, and both have theologeons to prove it. Hitler thought of himself as, "the last hope and savior of Western civilization." Bertrand Russell felt Ghengis Khan more wicked than Hitler, but it wouldn't surprise me if Khan had a very high opinion of himself.
If you intend anti-social behavior, that's at least easier to grasp if only statistically. For example some individuals belonging to a given religion or culture can be anti-social toward other members of the group. Still "anti-social" seems hardly worthy of the intensity suggested by "evil". The thief who steals your newspaper is admittedly a scuzzball, but mostly elicits annoyance and contempt.
Perhaps the objective definition of "evil" is simply "a word commonly used to denounce an individual or people toward whom you feel intense anger and hatred."
To imagine science can "cure" such people so you wont hate them anymore seems unlikely.