Evil = Lack of Empathy?

[Daan]

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.
.

Sometimes, but humans can also care a lot about complete strangers, see for instance during natural disasters with the earthquakes in Indonesia, Haiti and Japan. A lot of money went there, because humans do care. Evolutionary it can be explained, because humans who socialize with or help strangers have a bigger chance to survive.

[Jason]

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"....

Holy FECK! You know what this means? Autism is a certifiable manifestation of scientific EVIL!

All we need now is a scientific definition of "good" and we might make some sense of Sam Harris's idiotic scientific morality!

[charlou]

Mistermack, that's an excellent post.

Holy FECK! You know what this means? Autism is a certifiable manifestation of scientific EVIL!

I don't think this is what's being suggested at all, as I've already said in response to this notion when crumble raised it: http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 82#p843382

[Gonzo]

Great thread.

I would argue that good and evil are merely social constructs and empathy is an evolutionary trait meant to care/nurture or else sociopathically protect/ kill. We set arbitrary boundaries of what is and is not acceptable for everyone. A lack of empathy could mean life or death, we adjust ourselves in accordance to survivalism.

[Atheist-Lite]

When people define someone as having a lack of empathy it is a excuse to limit resources either emotional or practical. So in that way it can be seen as efficient way of determining the use of resources. The idea that empathy is divorced from sociopathy does not explain how so many sociopaths rise to power in business and politics, yet seeing these as being the same thing explains it all. It makes it palitable, even useful, to have this good cop, bad cop attitude out there with hand not knowing what the other doing.

[mistermack]

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.
.

Sometimes, but humans can also care a lot about complete strangers, see for instance during natural disasters with the earthquakes in Indonesia, Haiti and Japan. A lot of money went there, because humans do care. Evolutionary it can be explained, because humans who socialize with or help strangers have a bigger chance to survive.

Fair enough, but we've had a lifetime of being fed the message, "be good to others".
(which is a good thing), and we now see foreigners in our living rooms every day on the tv. It's bound to lower our natural feelings of mistrust and dislike.
We no longer have the natural fear and mistrust that evolution supplied us with. At least, consciously. It's still there in the background, which is why we are fed the "love thy neighbour" message all the time.
It's time to re-read "Lord of the Flies". It contains some good insights.

In evolutionary terms, we ARE programmed to welcome strangers, but only in small numbers, and usually, the young, attractive ones. It makes sense to avoid in-breeding, so fresh blood is vital.
So we are attracted to one or two sexy young foreigners moving in, but scared and mistrustful of bigger numbers of mature ones.
.

[Daan]

Fair enough, but we've had a lifetime of being fed the message, "be good to others".
(which is a good thing), and we now see foreigners in our living rooms every day on the tv. It's bound to lower our natural feelings of mistrust and dislike.
We no longer have the natural fear and mistrust that evolution supplied us with. At least, consciously. It's still there in the background, which is why we are fed the "love thy neighbour" message all the time.
It's time to re-read "Lord of the Flies". It contains some good insights.

In evolutionary terms, we ARE programmed to welcome strangers, but only in small numbers, and usually, the young, attractive ones. It makes sense to avoid in-breeding, so fresh blood is vital.
So we are attracted to one or two sexy young foreigners moving in, but scared and mistrustful of bigger numbers of mature ones.
.

Our present society is very new. Humans used to live in small groups. It was only the 19th century that most humans became nationalists. Before that humans mainly felt allegiance to their own village or neighbourhood and before that for their own clan. The nation is a strange kind of clan, because it consists out of millions of people. Back in the old days the clan could immediately fight of strangers whenever they caused trouble. In our major nation states, we have to convince our fellow countrymen that certain strangers cause trouble. But, for many people within the nation the strangers aren't seen as strangers, because they don't know most of their fellow citizens as well.

I don't think sexy young foreigners are enough to counter the enormous hatred towards strangers. What often happens in wars is that the ugly strangers are killed and the beautiful strangers are abused and than killed. Only sex can't stop the hatred.

[Atheist-Lite]

Hitler seemed empathic within his own circle which comprised the vast majority of the German people.....obviously not all.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9GymQr5 ... re=related[/youtube]

[charlou]

Hitler seemed empathic within his own circle which comprised the vast majority of the German people.....obviously not all.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9GymQr5 ... re=related[/youtube]

Considered empathic? Citation please.

[Atheist-Lite]

Hitler seemed empathic within his own circle which comprised the vast majority of the German people.....obviously not all.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9GymQr5 ... re=related[/youtube]

Considered empathic? Citation please.

The people loved him and went to great lengths to display their admiration. They'd kill multitudes for that guy.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The people loved him and went to great lengths to display their admiration. They'd kill multitudes for that guy.

That's their empathy, not his.

[.Morticia.]

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.

lack of empathy is considered the defining characteristic of psychopathy

in this context empathy is regarded as an involuntary neurological response

and it's not black and white, it's a continuum

[camoguard]

I think calling something evil is tantamount to communicating your dislike of it. Evil is an objectively useless adjective. Metaphorically it's any force that competes with your progress. Useless. That's what evil is.

[charlou]

and it's not black and white

What is ... other than .. say .. black and .. white ..? Even then there's a range of shades to consider. Fark.

[camoguard]

Did you just fark?