Explaining Evil

[Stavros]

In a previous thread we discussed why people commit 'evil' acts against others, a new book attempts to explain it psychologically -in the USA its called 'The Science of Evil' whereas in the UK the book is published as 'Zero Degrees of Empathy'...the review from the NYT plus link is below...

June 13, 2011
From Hitler to Mother Teresa: 6 Degrees of Empathy

By KATHERINE BOUTON

“The Science of Evil,” by Simon Baron-Cohen, seems likely to antagonize the victims of evil, the parents of children with autism spectrum disorder, at least a few of the dozens of researchers whose work he cites — not to mention critics of his views on evolutionary psychology or of his claims about the neurobiology of the sexes. “The Science of Evil” proposes a simple but persuasive hypothesis for a new way to think about evil.
“My main goal is to understand human cruelty, replacing the unscientific term ‘evil’ with the scientific term ‘empathy,’ ” he writes at the beginning of the book, which might be seen as expanding on the views on empathy expressed in his 1997 book, “Mindblindness: An Essay on Autism and Theory of Mind” (Bradford). Evil, he notes, has heretofore been defined in religious terms (with the concept differing in the major world religions), as a psychiatric condition (psychopathology) or, as he puts it, in “frustratingly circular” terms: “He did x because he is truly evil”).
Dr. Baron-Cohen, a professor of developmental psychology at the University of Cambridge and director of the university’s Autism Research Center, proposes that evil is more scientifically defined as an absence of empathy, exacerbated by negative environmental factors (usually parental, sometimes societal) and a genetic component. When these three exist in tandem they result in what he calls a Zero-Negative personality. Zero-Negative takes at least three forms (and possibly more), borrowing from terms used in psychiatry: Zero Type P (psychopathology), Zero Type B (borderline disorder) and Zero Type N (narcissism).
Whereas psychiatry groups these three loosely under the term “personality disorders,” Dr. Baron-Cohen proposes that they all share the characteristic of zero degrees of empathy. (His “empathy quotient” scale is available in the book or online, with an instant numerical score that is translated into degrees of empathy from zero to six, or super empathy.)
Viewing these disorders in terms of empathy “has very different treatment implications,” he maintains. Psychopaths aside, people with low degrees of empathy can be taught empathy, as is done in schools concerned about bullying, and treated with standard psychiatric approaches.
I am not a psychiatrist, psychologist or neurobiologist, but to a lay reader there seem to be limitations in describing pathological behavior in terms of zero degrees of empathy. He cites the example of a Nazi guard who forced a boy to put a noose around his friend’s neck as “cruelty for its own sake.” But rather than zero degrees of empathy, it seems instead that the guard possessed six degrees of anti-empathy: The guard acted in the cruelest way he could think of, fully understanding how devastating the act would be to both boys.
“What leads an individual’s ‘Empathizing Mechanism’ to be set at different levels?’ ”Dr. Baron-Cohen asks. “The most immediate answer is that it depends on the functioning of a special circuit in the brain, the empathy circuit,” which he maps in great detail. (This question — and many sentences in the book — could have used an editor. Does he really mean that an individual’s empathy mechanism goes up and down? I don’t think so. I think what he’s trying to say — and in fact does say at a later point — is “What determines where an individual falls on the spectrum?”)
Further, what causes the same neurological circuitry to produce behaviors as different as Zero N, Zero P and Zero B? The dual answer is environment (extreme emotional deprivation or social pressure, as in Nazi Germany) and genes. The discussion of empathy genes is crammed with caveats and warnings: “I hope this book will not be misunderstood as arguing that empathy is wholly genetic”; “I have put quotation marks around genes for empathy”; “we examine evidence that some genes are associated with...” (italics his). The editors dispense with all this hedging and call the chapter “The Empathy Gene.” (The American publishers did the same with his caveats about the word “evil,” using it in the title. The British edition was called “Zero Degrees of Empathy.”)
In his final chapter, “Reflections on Human Cruelty,” Dr. Baron-Cohen addresses perhaps the most central question: If zero degrees of empathy is a “form of neurological disability, to what extent can such an individual who commits a crime be held responsible for what they have done?”
Does this hypothesis mean that there is no such thing as individual responsibility, free will? Possibly. But sensibly, Dr. Baron-Cohen finds that prison is necessary for the most serious crimes, for three reasons: to protect society, to signal disapproval and to restore some sense of justice to the victim or the victim’s family. (He does not believe in capital punishment.) For lesser crimes, though, imprisonment may not be the answer.
Finally, zero empathy is not necessarily negative. In what he acknowledges is a controversial idea, he maintains “there is at least one way in which zero degrees can be positive.” Preparing for the howl of dissent, he adds: “It seems unthinkable, but bear with me.” People with Asperger’s syndrome also fall on the zero end of the scale, but they are Zero Positive. Zero Positive is almost always accompanied by high scores on the systemizing scale (and can lead to genius). In addition, the way “their brain processes information paradoxically leads them to be supermoral rather than immoral.”
My guess is that even suggesting these two conditions are related in some way will be inflammatory, though in the context of the book the discussion seems reasonable, and in no way does Dr. Baron-Cohen equate the two — except that they have in common zero degrees of empathy.
At the core of this deceptively simple book is the question of the nature of cruelty. In the last and most philosophical chapter Dr. Baron-Cohen discusses situations in which an individual who is not otherwise lacking in empathy may behave cruelly. Citing the philosopher Hannah Arendt’s term “the banality of evil,” and discussing the work of Stanley Milgram and Philip Zimbardo in which ordinary people exhibited cruel behavior, he acknowledges that in most of us empathy may be suspended temporarily, under certain circumstances.
This is a frightening thought, but one borne out not only by research but by history. Dr. Baron-Cohen’s hypothesis that cruelty is merely the zero end of a continuum on which we all fall makes that possibility more comprehensible.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/14/sc....html?_r=1&hpw

[iamdrgonzo]

I lean toward empathy or lack of empathy as being learned traits not as the pros and cons of the human genome.

[hippifried]

Okay, I haven't read the book, but just from these snippets, I'm thinking it's a bit simplistic & maybe backwards. I'm having a bit of trouble with the details, since there aren't any in the article. Pehaps he backs up my thesis. I don't know about an "empathy gene" though. I think too many things are chocked up to genetics. I wonder if this is published in large type?

I'm no shrink & I'm skeptical towards them, but I've thought about this alot. I'm pretty much convinced that the moral code is innate, & that you have to go out of your way to overcome instincts in order to be an asshole. We're born empathic. It's a major aspect of the moral code & part of being human. Unless you're a total psychopath, everybody knows when they're being an asshole. From there, they usually get either apologetic or defensive if called on it. Ever meet a constant asshole who wasn't full of excuses? I haven't.

[Stavros]

Hippifried I agree with you. I think academic psychology tries to use 'science' or scientific methods to try and explain things and in the process inflates and bursts -like most people I was both schooled in moral judgement as a child, and grew naturally into a sense of what is fair -its not fair when someone in the playground takes your ball away, and so on: there are obviously young people who grow up in homes where nobody cleans anything, where drug and alcohol abuse, bad language and rampant sex are common, so their moral compass points in different directions and the children often become delinquent -but are they evil? And while many commit callous acts of violence, I don't know that they would be useful as torturers. And as you suggest, if the men who rape women in the Congo are confronted, they would probably try to deny it and be ashamed -but they thought they could get away with it at the time -and for now probably have. Not sure what a laboratory can help us with there.

[Birgitta]

What always troubles me is that a lot of people will act out in an evil way when they have the chance. Even when they were taught and even feel its wrong. Bottom line is that we should not trust human nature at all...

[joeninety]

What always troubles me is that a lot of people will act out in an evil way when they have the chance. Even when they were taught and even feel its wrong. Bottom line is that we should not trust human nature at all...

I totally agree the human race is a parasitic destructive one that breeds like vermin and destroys everything it comes into contact with including each other, i for one welcome the end days and shall look forward to watching the desrtuction, may mother nature one day be free again............

[trish]

It started with sociobiology, but with the advent of real time brain imaging and our ever increasing skill at manipulating genetic material, people everywhere are postulating physiological and genetic explanations for behavioral disorders. I think I’m with hippiefried in finding most of these hypothesis highly suspect. The sociobiological/genetic account of the existence of evil [h]as about as much explanatory power as the snake-on-legs/apple/naked-tart account found in Genesis.

In a society where people empathize, cooperate and trust each other, it will always be possible to gain an advantage by exploiting that trust; and so there will always be cheaters among us working the system large scale and small. This will be the case regardless of whether the capacity to empathize, cooperate and trust has a genetic component. Exploiting others for personal gain [] (IMO) accounts for the majority of the “evil” we find in the world. The products of greed can be cruel and debilitating. Fortunately societies can be structured to minimize economic and political exploitation.

The concept of “personal gain by any means available” is easy to understand. Genes or not we are all sometimes tempted to cheat. Genes or not, some of us cheat persistently, some of us cheat occasionally, some of cheat rarely and some of us never cheat. The difficult thing to understand is what constitutes “personal gain” for others. Of course personal gain can be wealth, political or personal power and various and sundry pleasures. It’s those “pleasures” where things get murky. It’s easy to understand why someone might hurt another for personal gain, except when the personal gain is “the pleasure of hurting someone.” Yet, as denizens of a porn forum we should be better able than most to understand this sort of “personal gain.” I sometimes wonder if Eve’s pleasure was derived from the apple’s taste, or whether she got a greater thrill from knowing her single bite doomed the entire future to the vile rampages of raging sin.

[hippifried]

"That which displeases you, do not to your fellow. That is the whole Torah. All else is explanation. Go & learn."
~ Hilel, Rabbi of Babylon, circa 100 BCE. ~

That's the moral code in a nutshell. We call it (metaphorically) the Golden Rule. I call it the universal code of human interaction. It's all about reciprosity. Empathy is a major aspect of that. Human nature isn't evil. Philosophical social memes have merely been invented & developed to skip past the code for the purpose of gaining power or property, or just getting over on someone else. Once you understand the memes, they can't really confuse the issue anymore, whatever the issue happens to be. Change the mindset & change the world.

[Stavros]

Rene Girard in Violence and the Sacred makes a compelling argument for the role that has been played by greed/jealousy in violence, but link the analysis of the Old and New Testaments, Greek myths and some other ancient texts to the role played by sacrificial violence as a means of defusing social tensions -indeed argues that the secularisation of human societies deprives them of the sacrificial route to the resolution of conflict. At one point he takes on Freud over the 'Oedipus' myth arguing that the son is not seeking to replace the mother in her affections, but cannot see that what he really wants is his father's power of attraction: he resents not having what his father has: and this becomes part of the narrative of mimesis at the core of Girard's thought. There is quite a strong religious trend in Girard for which he has been attacked -and some have tried to argue that the processes of imitation and jealousy and greed can produce positive results rather than violent ones -not everyone needs to sacrifice a goat or even a virgin to resolve a dispute. It is, nevertheless a fascinating read, if hard going at times. He makes the intriguing point somewhere that ancient/primitive societies used the 'bacchanal' or if you like, 'Carnival' as a safety valve -at a certain time of the year, people would be allowed to forget the rules and norms that govern daily lives, go a bit mad -drink to excess, dress up as wild animals -crucially for this forum perhaps, dress as the opposite sex -and often imitate/simulate sacrificial acts: the danger is that when societies do not have a Carnival/bacchanal to achieve this, and if the moral order breaks down, the violence is real, and chaos ensues....
Google 'Violence and the Sacred' for a precis on Wikipedia.

Trish, also -an archaeologist called Francesca Stavrakopoulou caused a lot of controversy earlier this year with three programmes on Old Testament themes: King David -if he existed- was not a King; the Garden of Eden story should really come later in the book of Genesis and there was of course no apple; I cant recall the third on David and Goliath. Also not sure if US browsers will be able to see the programmes on the BBC iPlayer -the series was called 'The Bible's Buried Secrets'.

[trish]

Girard (from the very very little bit I just read) seems to be saying desire for an object is aroused when it become the possession of another. The obvious conflict (i.e. the desire to possess the property of another) creates antagonism. The objects of wealth are peripheral to this antagonism as they are desirable only by virtue of being another’s property.

Indeed this sort of behavior is readily seen among toddlers and even older children. Even among adults, the wealthy tell you that class warfare is all about jealously and nothing else whereas the poor will tell you that class warfare is all about greed and the need to prevent others from owning anything whatsoever. Yet I find it difficult to accept that this is the foundation of all desire for property. I bought a computer for it’s functionality, not because my neighbor owns one. Nor do I covet my neighbor’s computer...despite the fact that she owns it.

Girard also seems to maintain that antagonism is the sort of thing that can accumulate and requires release. This is his explanation of violence. For Girard, religion is ritualized violence and serves the function of a release valve. It’s an interesting thesis. I first encountered it from an old Star Trek rerun where Kirk makes first contact with a civilization, by unfortunate happenstance, during their mad and murderous bacchanal.

It makes for interesting science fiction, but is it really explanatory? At the center of the Christian religion we have the Deity’s ultimate sacrifice of his Son. But does this one time act of violence really succeed in venting modern antagonisms? Is it meant to? And is antagonism the sort of thing that accumulates and needs venting? Does violence really release the pressure? Or does it just spur more antagonism?

In any case, thanks for the references.