Evil by any other name

Review of Simon Baron-Cohen’s The science of evil: On empathy and the origins of cruelty

Science of EvilIn his Acknowledgments, Baron-Cohen begins by saying, “This book isn’t for people with a sensitive disposition” (p. xi). It is a fair warning.

His first chapter is particularly distressing, with descriptions of numerous barbarities. If you need to be persuaded that human beings have provided many examples of man’s inhumanity to man besides those of the Nazi Holocaust, then read it all; otherwise you may prefer to skip some details.

Probably all of us can give examples of human behavior that we view as “evil,” but Baron-Simon suggests that by calling a behavior “evil” we tend to shunt it off into the moral domain rather than recognizing that evil behavior, like other behavior, can be studied scientifically and perhaps thereby become modifiable or preventable.

The key to understanding why people behave cruelly, according to Baron-Cohen, is empathy—and particularly deficits in empathy. To explain how “empathizing mechanisms” work,  Baron-Cohen takes readers on a tour of the “empathy circuit” in the brain.

Although he uses scientific language to identify parts of the brain that provide a neurological basis for empathy deficits, his book is not overly technical; it is accessible to the educated lay reader.

Baron-Cohen describes three types of personality disorder associated with deficits in empathy—psychopathic personality disorder, borderline personality disorder, and narcissistic personality disorder. The development of each type of personality disorder is associated with some form of abuse, neglect, or rejection in childhood.

Although Baron-Cohen emphasizes the strong link between childhood maltreatment and empathy deficits, he also suggests that empathy can and should be developed, and concludes with the story of two men, a Palestinian and an Israeli, both of whom lost their sons in the Intifada. Together the two of them tour synagogues and mosques promoting the importance of empathy and raising funds for their charity, The Parents Circle – Families Forum for Israelis and Palestinians.

This is a very readable book despite the frequent references to brain structures and circuitry. The message is crucial: empathy is probably essential to human survival.

Kathie Malley-Morrison, Professor of Psychology

War’s chance of success (Just war, part 6)

[Note from Kathie Malley-Morrison: Today we once again welcome guest contributor Dr. Michael Corgan, for the sixth in his ongoing series on just war.]

The just war principle of “chance of success” demonstrates a significant divergence between the notions of when it is “legal” to resort to war and when it is “just.” One case illustrates the point very well.

Finland Coat of Arms
Finland Coat of Arms

In 1940 The Soviet Union invaded Finland for various reasons having to do with the (well-founded) fear of a Nazi attack. By any legal standard, including international law as it was understood at the time, Finland had a right to defend itself.

But this was a war that Finland could not and did not win. Just war theory holds that Finland should not have even tried to resist such a blatant act of aggression against it. Although it was clearly the wronged party and the harm done by invading Soviet troops was immense, Finland could only add to the killing by its resistance.

Finland of course could and did contend that its resistance would later on be useful. Indeed post-war treatment of Finland by the Soviet Union was more considerate than it was to other bordering countries of the USSR. Nonetheless just war requires that war has some probability of success other than making a “statement” of resistance or defiance.

The US is involved in several war efforts now but Afghanistan is the biggest. How does it measure up to “chance of success?” We are “nation building” with a governing ruler who despises us openly and many of whose own people think is unacceptably corrupt.

Even our forces that are performing heroic and selfless efforts to help the Afghans build a national consciousness are irredeemably hampered by the fact that they are, of course, foreigners, infidels, and don’t speak the language. We can train soldiers and police but we can’t make Afghans.

Chance of success: nil.

Michael T. Corgan, Associate Chair and Associate Professor of International Relations, Boston University

Dehumanizing or demonizing the other (Moral disengagement, part 7)

Photo of antisemitic Nazi propaganda
Antisemitic Nazi Propaganda. (Licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Germany license. From WikiMedia Commons)

Dehumanizing or demonizing the other is a particularly common form of moral disengagement, especially during wartime or other types of conflict.

Another moral disengagement mechanism described by psychologist Albert Bandura, it refers to portraying your enemy as less than human, as some sort of vile creature.

During World War II, all factions in the conflict created posters of the enemy as a subhuman monster. In addition, propaganda and feature films of that era–as well as during the Cold War and the Vietnam War–stereotyped, sub-humanized, dehumanized, and demonized the enemy.

Consider this quote: “…[This nation is] aiming at the exclusive domination of the [world], lost in corruption, [characterized by] deep-rooted hatred towards us, hostile to liberty wherever it endeavors to show its head, and the eternal disturber of the peace of the world.”

Who do you think said that? To what nation was he referring?

The answer to the first question is Thomas Jefferson, in 1815, when he was President. The nation in question was Great Britain. Imagine what might have happened if weapons of mass destruction were available back then. Suppose Jefferson, as President, pushed Congress for a preemptive strike against Great Britain. Would a more peaceful world have been achieved?

Kathie Malley-Morrison, Professor of Psychology

Note: This post was adapted from my previously published article in Peace Psychology (a publication of the American Psychological Association), Spring, 2009.