As we know, the carteles in Mexico are capable of horrible crimes, such as mutating someone alive.

I have always wondered in what kind of mental state someone needs to be in order to commut such atrocities without guilt. Only option I have considered is that they are sociopaths, but is it possible to have so many sociopaths working together as a group? Do narcos hire sociopaths for the crimes? 

This reminds me of the Nazi regime. There were many concentration camps were people was tortured and killed. But these camps were not run mostly by sociopaths but normal soldiers. This makes me think that for you to commit such crimes you do not need to be crazy, but simply dehumanize the target. Is this possible though?

I think it is a very interesting topic, and I would like to listen to your opinions.

All possible evils in any possible world, are evils that are possible.  All possible good in any possible world, is good that is possible.

This is a tautology but an important one, in that you, you will realize every evil intention that can be imagined is possible. The same is true of good.

(April 21, 2018 at 4:56 pm)Macoleco Wrote: As we know, the carteles in Mexico are capable of horrible crimes, such as mutating someone alive.

Fill me in on this... are these Super Evil Mexicans Dot Com.... mad scientists or something?

---

(April 21, 2018 at 5:00 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: All possible evils in any possible world, are evils that are possible.  All possible good in any possible world, is good that is possible.

This is a tautology but an important one, in that you, you will realize every evil intention that can be imagined is possible. The same is true of good.

Tautologies are tautologically true, indeed... but you still have to actually define what you mean by "good" and "evil".

Without guilt*?   Competent equipment, a sufficient personal justification, and the support of their cultural peers..and obviously an opportunity to do so.  I have a knife, this has to be done, my peers agree and support this decision....and there's that guy!

It can be done without dehumanization...but that helps...regardless of whether it's projected or internal dehumanization.

*even then, there may be guilt, it simply might not be overwhelming in relation to the other relevant factors.

Collateral damage is an example of highly immoral damage that can be carried out without guilt from non-sociopaths. We haven't evolved to feel empathy from a distance.

(April 21, 2018 at 5:01 pm)Hammy Wrote:

(April 21, 2018 at 4:56 pm)Macoleco Wrote: As we know, the carteles in Mexico are capable of horrible crimes, such as mutating someone alive.

Fill me in on this... are these Super Evil Mexicans Dot Com.... mad scientists or something?

---

(April 21, 2018 at 5:00 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: All possible evils in any possible world, are evils that are possible.  All possible good in any possible world, is good that is possible.

This is a tautology but an important one, in that you, you will realize every evil intention that can be imagined is possible. The same is true of good.

Tautologies are tautologically true, indeed... but you still have to actually define what you mean by "good" and "evil".

It's abstracted at many levels to humans - if you wish to know the details, than you have to really wish to know the details!

I believe in objective good and bad. We could say good and evil but "evil" is misleading. By my account, earthquakes that kill people are an "evil". It's not about intentions it's about consequences. Although intentions are relevant when they're relevant to the consequences.

But I don't believe in some kind of hocus pocusy good and bad.

(April 21, 2018 at 5:04 pm)Hammy Wrote: Collateral damage is an example of highly immoral damage that can be carried out without guilt from non-sociopaths. We haven't evolved to feel empathy from a distance.

Sorry, dont quite understand what you mean. Can you reformulate the sentence?

(April 21, 2018 at 5:11 pm)Macoleco Wrote:

(April 21, 2018 at 5:04 pm)Hammy Wrote: Collateral damage is an example of highly immoral damage that can be carried out without guilt from non-sociopaths. We haven't evolved to feel empathy from a distance.

Sorry, dont quite understand what you mean. Can you reformulate the sentence?

I'm talking about when people declare war on a country and bomb it, and they kill a bunch of civilians too in the blast, including small children.... and they don't feel any guilt about it because they're emotionally disconnected to it.

That's highly immoral and without conscience but it doesn't require sociopathy.

In most of our locations in these times, the idea of human lives all being precious doesn't get challenged. Because there is no reason to challenge it. The majority of people can live their lives without ever being in a situation where murdering or not murdering someone is a tough choice, outside of arguably abortion, where we are more than happy to kill off a fetus.

But you put some people in some more stressful situations. Like a nazi germany, or a drug cartel, or large swaths of history, when there is a lot to be gained and lost based on your adherence to the idea, the outcome is different.

Just like everyone has pet dogs who are 'part of the family'. But the apocalypse comes, and everybody starts starving, a lot of those pet dogs are going to turn into lunch. But because the idea of treating them as part of the family isn't challenged by anything.

Essentially we live in a super duper easy time to be alive, and our perspective from this bubble is pretty naive.