Evil = Lack of Empathy?

[Atheist-Lite]

Was listening to the Guardian science podcast yesterday and was struck by this interesting discussion with Simon Baron-Cohen re his new book, Zero Degrees of Empathy and his idea that evil should be redefined as a deficit of empathy.

Extended interview here:-

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/audio ... aron-cohen

Apparently, about 10 areas of the brain are implicated in "feelings of empathy" and it's when they go wrong that humans are able to regard other humans merely as objects, which can be broken without remorse or much emotion at all.

A scientific definition of "evil"....

This is a bad thing.

At the moment we judge people by what they do, not what they are.

This is just another step in changing how we think of crime and think of people. Right now people are presumed innocent . This research could change everyone into presumed guilty.

The human race may be criminally insane but this is the result of observing his brother Ali G I reckon.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

That's the thing about so called 'empathy', amazing how it always belongs to the ingroup with the most stones.

That made even less sense than normal for you.

At least I haven't got a entire thread dedicated to my confused utterances just yet, just yet.

All of your threads do such service.

[.Morticia.]

[mistermack]

It's not as simple as a lack of empathy. You can be very empathic, and still be extremely evil. Hitler was very fond of his dog. Many Nazis were very upset to actually see atrocities. But they were able to turn the empathy off, or put the awareness of what was happening into a compartment of the brain, and ignore it.
People can perform mental somersaults of logic to justify what they do, or ignoring what they know is happening.
These people can be far more dangerous than someone who doesn't display empathy.
In the end, it's what you do that counts, not how you feel about it.
Perfectly "normal" people can be responsible for enormous "evil".
.

[charlou]

It's his area. Whether the autistic community agrees with him depends on the form the retaliation takes?

Good point, first up.

However, Baron-cohen's not equating evil and lack of empathy, nor is he equating lack of empathy with evil*. He's suggesting we reevaluate our understanding of behaviour.


*He's not suggesting all people with a lack of empathy display antisocial or abusive behaviour, just that those who do display antisocial or abusive behaviour are lacking empathy.

Like all daisies are flowers, but not all flowers are daisies.

Was listening to the Guardian science podcast yesterday and was struck by this interesting discussion with Simon Baron-Cohen re his new book, Zero Degrees of Empathy and his idea that evil should be redefined as a deficit of empathy.

Extended interview here:-

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/audio ... aron-cohen

Apparently, about 10 areas of the brain are implicated in "feelings of empathy" and it's when they go wrong that humans are able to regard other humans merely as objects, which can be broken without remorse or much emotion at all.

A scientific definition of "evil"....

This is a bad thing.

At the moment we judge people by what they do, not what they are.

This is just another step in changing how we think of crime and think of people. Right now people are presumed innocent . This research could change everyone into presumed guilty.

Morticia, I don't recall hearing that angle before ... I've often heard the argument that no-one would be considered guilty if it were explicitly accepted that they have no control over their behaviour .... it's like accepting that free will doesn't exist: oh the can of worms!



Something I've posted before:

That is at the heart of what makes me ache about what we as humans do to our children's egos, by the imposition of our traditionally held prejudices and misconceptions.
It's our preoccupation with, and emphasis on, good and evil that gives both such prominence in our behaviour. From the cradle (even as early as during pregnancy) we are endowed with value laden labels, described as either good or bad (naughty), an angelic child or a little devil, depending on our demeanor and behaviour and how that is interpreted by those who bestow the labels, without consideration of the surrounding issues, of why we are the way we are or do the things we do, nor the effect that such attitudes and labeling has upon the the behaviour it seeks to label, and upon the psyche. We carry that baggage around with us throughout our lives, accumulating more and more along the way. In our quest to divest ourselves of such a burden we must acknowledge that we are neither inherently good or bad, and reconstruct our sense of self from a perspective of who we are in relation to the natural world, not who we are in relation to the imposed values and ideals of others.

[Daan]

Empathy is over-rated in human beings when you look at the species objectively. It's often the charming sociopath that'll put the knife in your back from a position of social power. Is there reaally a difference between charm and empathy? We're dealing with a black box here and it is so easy to see what we want to see especially when the truth hurts. The human species is a disgusting, depraved, ugly and hopelessly hypocritical pile of self-contradictions destined for the garbage heap of the fossil record. Empathy, that's why the movies and games markets are full of body counts? That's not my problem, it's yours.

I have worked for years at schools and i really don't agree. Empathy is hidden, it is shy, you have to go and look for it.

[Seth]

Was listening to the Guardian science podcast yesterday and was struck by this interesting discussion with Simon Baron-Cohen re his new book, Zero Degrees of Empathy and his idea that evil should be redefined as a deficit of empathy.

Extended interview here:-

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/audio ... aron-cohen

Apparently, about 10 areas of the brain are implicated in "feelings of empathy" and it's when they go wrong that humans are able to regard other humans merely as objects, which can be broken without remorse or much emotion at all.

A scientific definition of "evil"....

This is a bad thing.

At the moment we judge people by what they do, not what they are.

This is just another step in changing how we think of crime and think of people. Right now people are presumed innocent . This research could change everyone into presumed guilty.

Excellent point, Morticia.

We must be careful to distinguish between empathy, which is "the intellectual identification with or vicarious experiencing of the feelings, thoughts, or attitudes of another," and action.

For example, I had empathy for my alcoholic, violent, dangerous, abusive father. I understood what he was going through and why, and I understood his reactions to what affected him in his life. But having empathy does not mean that I must tolerate, condone or permit the bad behavior. I understood him, but I cut him out of my life because he was unwilling to change his behavior in any way. He became mired in his alcoholism and rage and would not accept any attempts to help him.

So, while a lack of empathy may be "evil," in the sociopathic sense, a lack of empathic or sympathetic behavior in response to empathic analysis is most certainly NOT evil. In most cases it's entirely rational and appropriate not to act on those empathic judgments for reasons having nothing to do with understanding or empathy, but having everything to do with plain old social interactions.

I may have empathy for the armed robber and understand that his drug addiction is driving him to threaten me with a knife at close range, but I'm going to shoot him dead all the same, if I have legal justification and need to do so.

[Daan]

Excellent point, Morticia.

We must be careful to distinguish between empathy, which is "the intellectual identification with or vicarious experiencing of the feelings, thoughts, or attitudes of another," and action.

For example, I had empathy for my alcoholic, violent, dangerous, abusive father. I understood what he was going through and why, and I understood his reactions to what affected him in his life. But having empathy does not mean that I must tolerate, condone or permit the bad behavior. I understood him, but I cut him out of my life because he was unwilling to change his behavior in any way. He became mired in his alcoholism and rage and would not accept any attempts to help him.

So, while a lack of empathy may be "evil," in the sociopathic sense, a lack of empathic or sympathetic behavior in response to empathic analysis is most certainly NOT evil. In most cases it's entirely rational and appropriate not to act on those empathic judgments for reasons having nothing to do with understanding or empathy, but having everything to do with plain old social interactions.

I may have empathy for the armed robber and understand that his drug addiction is driving him to threaten me with a knife at close range, but I'm going to shoot him dead all the same, if I have legal justification and need to do so.

So, you were the one having empthy, but your dad hadn't. It is also possible to have empathy and that someone else has empathy too.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

A lack of empathy can lead to evil acts. Evil acts don't need a lack of empathy as a motivator. So the OP isn't even a question.

[Seth]

Excellent point, Morticia.

We must be careful to distinguish between empathy, which is "the intellectual identification with or vicarious experiencing of the feelings, thoughts, or attitudes of another," and action.

For example, I had empathy for my alcoholic, violent, dangerous, abusive father. I understood what he was going through and why, and I understood his reactions to what affected him in his life. But having empathy does not mean that I must tolerate, condone or permit the bad behavior. I understood him, but I cut him out of my life because he was unwilling to change his behavior in any way. He became mired in his alcoholism and rage and would not accept any attempts to help him.

So, while a lack of empathy may be "evil," in the sociopathic sense, a lack of empathic or sympathetic behavior in response to empathic analysis is most certainly NOT evil. In most cases it's entirely rational and appropriate not to act on those empathic judgments for reasons having nothing to do with understanding or empathy, but having everything to do with plain old social interactions.

I may have empathy for the armed robber and understand that his drug addiction is driving him to threaten me with a knife at close range, but I'm going to shoot him dead all the same, if I have legal justification and need to do so.

So, you were the one having empthy, but your dad hadn't. It is also possible to have empathy and that someone else has empathy too.

Correct. So how would one judge or measure the "empathy quotient" in an individual as a part of determining how "evil" they are? Clearly a person without any empathy is a psychopath, but it's impossible to distinguish between bad acts performed despite empathy and the absence of empathy, so what's the point of the OP, exactly?

[charlou]

Clearly a person without any empathy is a psychopath,

I disagree.

As I said in my previous post, a psychopath lacks empathy, but a person without empathy is not necessarily a psychopath.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Clearly a person without any empathy is a psychopath,

I disagree.

As I said in my previous post, a psychopath lacks empathy, but a person without empathy is not necessarily a psychopath.

Sometimes they're just right-wing bloggers.

[Atheist-Lite]

Empathy debates sure bring the beast out in people.

[Daan]

Correct. So how would one judge or measure the "empathy quotient" in an individual as a part of determining how "evil" they are? Clearly a person without any empathy is a psychopath, but it's impossible to distinguish between bad acts performed despite empathy and the absence of empathy, so what's the point of the OP, exactly?

Of course it can't be measured. Psychology is a science and uses some preconceptions that aren't entirely objective. Often these preconceptions are being presented as objective, what Baron-Cohen does as well. But regardless of the subjectivity, we all have our ideas on good and evil. Right-wingers often have the strong urge to punish people they regard as evil. The classic liberal response is to be moderate, and to avoid punishment as much as possible, and Baron-Cohen is a representative of this liberal response.

[mistermack]

The original question is an incredible simplification.
Just because empathy is a single word, and can be defined in a few words, the fact remains that it is an incredibly complicated entity, as it's a product of an incredibly complicated organ, the human brain.
Empathy isn't simple. It's not like water. Lack of water makes you thirsty. Lack of empathy can take billions of different forms, and can have billions of different effects.
Empathy is different in every individual.
One thing that sticks out a mile about humans, is that empathy doesn't apply to all equally.
I can have concern about the welfare of a puppy, and complete indifference to the welfare of a fly, or a rat.
The same applies to humans. We can be incredibly caring about some people, and incredibly callous about others. Usually, callous about people who are, or appear, foreign in some way.
We evolved this ability when we lived in tribes. It makes sense to protect those who are close, and probably related, and to be inclined to attack and destroy those who are clearly unrelated.
So we can be caring of our own, and completely callous to others, at the same time.
It makes evolutionary sense.
.