I mentioned it because it has a direct relationship with the concept of "evil."  In general usage (and especially among LRPers!), evil is some kind of metaphysical state or force.  Its existence implies goodness exists, too.  Having been raised Catholic, it's hard not to think of redemption when people mention evil.  My point was that "evil" as a metaphysical thing just doesn't exist.

If there are such people, then they likely have quite profound brain damage and need treatment, rather than dismissal.

I can agree that there are people who are extremely resistant to the suggestion that their behaviour should alter, but that's not quite the same as being irredeemably evil.  I mean, you can consider them whatever you want to, but that doesn't form a helpful basis for dealing with a problem!

Antisocial personality disorder, which is effectively what you describe ("The essential feature for the diagnosis is a pervasive pattern of disregard for, and violation of, the rights of others that begins in childhood or early adolescence and continues into adulthood.") has a prevalence of about 1% in females and 3% in males.  However, it's also treatable, meaning that the number of people who are "too thick to educate" is going to be vanishingly small.

What do you advocate doing with such people?

I believe that any human can learn anything that any other human can learn; however, the amount of effort required will vary between individuals, to the point that it might become functionally impossible to learn something.  And while we obviously can't learn to break the laws of physics (we require being bitten by radioactive spiders for that), most skills and abilities can be developed by practice.  Which is, y'know, learning.

There's plenty of proof of the existence of humanity ;-)

In all seriousness, there's also plenty of evidence for the fundamental altruism of humans toward other humans.  There are certainly plenty of examples of humans being really crappy to other humans (e.g. war), but the point I was making is that the capacity for "good" exists in pretty much everyone.

---
Joe Rooney

Insurrection LRP: high fantasy in a dystopian setting. First event: 24-26 October 2008, in Leicestershire. Book online before August 1st for maximum discount!

Bladelands: Raoul Ortez, dubious scumbag, and Alessandro the deathknight
EOS: staff

Joe R's LARPCard

Accepted.

That assumes that they are able to be treated, and more importantly are 'willing' to be treated.

If the only way to alter that is effectively to brainwash them and turn them into someone else then I would say that their behaviour (defined as 'evil' by my terms) was not changeable. In adittion a lot of treatments for mental disorders cobncentrate heavily on symptomatic relief rather than actually addressing the root cause.

Difficult isnt it... Im fairly sure releasing them onto the streets rather than admitting they are actually 'mad' isnt helping. I dislike Societys tendency to describe the majority of mental problems as 'illness' just because there is a stigma against the more accurate term 'mad'. Permenant incarceration may well be the only option for some.

Functional impossibility is pretty much the same thing is it not?

I contend that whilst a large proportion of the population may be able to do so it is not the case that everyone can. I object to the idea that all humans are equal in capacity. this is simply not the case. Also since I beleive in free will I cannot deny that there is the possibility that a human may choose to refuse to learn.

So it wont require faith then.... *grins*

Im not sure, I think that there is generally an advantage to the behaviour. True acts of complete altruism are extremely rare.

If one accepts a metaphysical concept of 'Good' one must also accept that the opposite is true and that therefore the capacity for "evil" also exists.

As the old robot saying goes "does not compute"

First of all, the armed forces are not a correctional facility. Nor is National Service about doing your thing for society, nor is it about having a large and cheap army. It`s about training a large part of the population to function within a well oiled machine, so that when the need arises they can be called upon to defend their country. Not as elite troops, but as troops who can be expected to do as they are told. It`s about not having to train conscripts when you decide you need them, but having a pool of them already. The primary quality NS tries to instill in recruits is an ability to follow orders, and - to a lesser extend - to give them. Chief consideration in this is trust. The recruit has to trust his own capabilities, his immediate superiors, his ultimate superiors, the government and even society at large to be able to follow orders without question. The armed forces are therefore far more understanding, fair and just to their people than back-stabbing dog-eat-dog civilian society will ever be, provided you can live with its hierarchy. That hierarchy, however, is often a good thing, since the system does not tolerate competition from other 'shadow' hierarchies within itself and any cliquiness - and its inherent exclusions - are swiftly dealt with, or isolated from the system at large in the case of some of the smaller special forces.
At the same time, military training encompasses learning to follow orders under any circumstances, which is what all the shouting and bullying is about. Not to demean the recruit, but to train him to stay levelheaded under stressful circumstances.

Military life is in ways more comfortable than civilian life. For instance, anything affecting your morale you can discuss with the captain, who will try to sort it out, because anything affecting your performance is also affecting his performance as a commanding officer. Try that in civilian life. If the law says you`re entitled to receive help from society, you can take it up with a desk-clerk, who may or may not redirect you to an 'officer', neither of whom are directly affected by your ability or failure to perform in civilian society. It`s even possible that local authorities will have a bigger spending budget if there are more people drawing benefits.

Alternative community services are historically meant for people who, for instance, principally oppose violence. Germany with it`s nazi war past had a relative large contingent of people calling on the conscience clause, and were also more lenient towards those than most other countries, which is how the 'German Compulsory Community Service' developed. Most of the 'consient' recruits were put to work in hospitals and such, since the purpose remained to train people to function in structured organisations for when the need would arise to call upon them, not to clean the streets, not to keep young people busy. When the system was abolished after the cold war, hospitals suddenly found themselves in dire need of trained nurses. Apparently nobody had realized how dependant they had gotten on the conscience clause.

Okay, that was a bit long, and I apologize for it. On to the effects on society.

The Dutch NS was put on ice when the cold war ended. Theoretically all able bodied men are still up for mandatory military service, but they are no longer called under arms for training. Officially the reasons for this are the lack of an immediate need and the substantial savings on the military budget for not having to train and equip - I still have my Personal Standard Equipment in the basement - thousands upon thousands of young men each year. Unofficially it is assumed to be to hide the fact that the law is unconstitutional because it discriminates between men and women, and feminist lobbyists and politicians have fought tooth and nail to keep women excempt from NS.
Since then, the level of civilian violence and alcohol abuse under young people have risen to - dare I say it - British levels.

There have been numerous suggestions for all forms of Compulsory Community Service since then. Nurses - hardworking and underpaid - are so hard to get they are now being flown in by the planeload from Indonesia, so it`s not like the unions would protest against 'drafting' nurses. Others think it would be good to give young people leaving schools a year of working experience to put on their cv`s. In fact, there are programs to get people some work experience if they fail to get any themselves. Lawyers to assist defendants who cannot afford one in criminal court are now randomly selected from all available and paid a minimum fee by the state. The idea of having law students do a year of community service was deflected by the argument that that would give poor people only bottom line lawyers to defend them in court. (Less of  problem here than in the States, but still.) The list goes on.

I`m certainly not against NS, but then, I abused it to get out of the house at a time I couldn`t afford to get a room, just as my father did so many years ago. Neither am I convinced of any direct economical benefits of the system, or any benefits for people`s personal life and career.
But I do get the feeling that NS thought young men a thing or two about social mores, performing under stress, and handling aggression - both in themselves and in others, that seem to be lacking in young people today. There may also be something in isolating men at a 'young drinking age' from mainstream society in general and younger generations in particular. Heavy drinking and rowdy behaviour was something for soldiers, sailors and college corps members, and if you were interested in participating, than that was where you went looking for it. The rest of the youth stayed well clear of those types. Nowadays such behaviour have permeated youth culture and are considered 'cool' by many, at younger and younger ages.
There is also a growing number of people becoming victims of 'senseless violence', often because they tried to address a situation they were not themselves directly involved in and failed miserably. In the old days, in any given group of young adults, there would be at least some who had been in the armed forces and had some experience with handling aggressive and violent individuals, and keeping cool under pressure. That simple experience seems to be severely lacking today.

In short, I hold the concept of National Service to be that of the tribal warrior. Not a professional soldier, but able to rise to the occasion when called upon. With the end of the cold war and the professionalising of the armed forces and the subsequent de-militarising of society, even in times of peace, society has become less safe.

________________________________________________________

IRL: Edwin Hofstra

- mostly crewing at the moment