Monday, February 20, 2012

Response to the idea that evil is the lack of empathy


The idea that evil is simply the lack of empathy was brought up by a group in class. They used Halloween as an example of this. I have not seen the movie, but from what I know about it, Michael is portrayed as a psychotic murder that escapes from a psychiatric hospital and tracks down women in his home town and kills them.  In addition, he doesn’t care about the effects of his action. I think this also goes for the movie The Strangers that was shown in class.  In this movie the two tormenters even say that the only reason they were doing this is “because you (they) were home.” They don’t care at all about how tormented the James and Kristen, the main characters, were. They were just bored. To further understand what it would mean if the lack of empathy was evil, I looked into where we can see empathy, such as in just humans or is it also shown by animals, and where empathy would have come from, and if the origin of empathy affects what it means for evil to be the lack of empathy. 
I think we can all agree that humans do show empathy, but what about animals. It was brought up in class that animals show empathy. I researched the concept of animals showing empathy a little bit and was able to find an article about this in AAAS (American Association for the Advancement of Science) called Empathy and Pro-Social Behavior in Rats1(I was able to get the full article by using the NMT library online journal database). In this article the authors describe an experiment where there is one rat trapped in a cage and another one is free to roam about. The cage door is set so that if the rat really tries, it can pull the cage door open. They found that the free rat would communicate with the trapped rat through holes in the cage and would try to free the rat. After a week or so, the rats learned how to open the cage and free the caged rat. At this point, one might ask themself where does empathy come from? And what would it mean if it is not solely a human quality?
After determining that both animals and humans can show empathy, I looked into how empathy would have developed in animals and humans. The first concept I considered was Darwin’s theory of Evolution. In our book, Problems from Philosophy2, it states that Darwin Essentially said
“there will be a ‘struggle for existence’ to determine which individuals live and which die. What determines the outcome of this struggle? What determines which individuals live and which die? There are two possibilities: It could be the result of random causes, or it could be related to the differences between individuals.”
It then goes on and eventually says that an organism might have a certain trait or characteristic that is beneficial to their survival, and therefore, that animal will outlive other organisms or even species that do not have this beneficial trait/characteristic, barring some sort of random incident. Following this argument, empathy must be a beneficial trait that will help an organism to survive, but does it really help an organism survive? First let us think of this trap as something the rat fell into out in nature, instead of simply a cage in a laboratory. Then, Empathy made a rat stay behind and risk falling into the trap themselves, for they could not know for sure how that rat became trapped or if it was something that could happen to them to. It would have been safer for the rat to simply get as far away from there as possible and leave the other rat in the trap. Assume that the trap was one were there was a chance of the empathetic rate being trapped while attempting to help the other one. We know from human experiences that empathy can put you in dangerous. An example of this in a movie would be Ladder 49. Morrison, the fireman in the movie, cared about other people and tried to save them, but it is dangerous to go in and save those people. From an evolution stand point, it would be smarter to not go in. It would force humans to learn to be careful with fire or at least know quick ways out of a fire. Instead Morrison, and fireman in general, have empathy and run in to help. Going back to the rat example, over millions of years, the rats that were empathetic and helped out their fellow mice would eventually die off.  This would leave only apathetic rats. For this reason, empathy coming from evolution seems unlikely
Since evolution is the unlikely starter of empathy, intelligent design is the next explanation for empathy. The idea of intelligent design is that there is a God who is guiding the evolution process2. If [i]this God is a loving and all good God, it would stand to reason that the God must be empathetic.  For if love is the opposite of evil, and the absence empathy is evil, than love must also be empathy.  An all good God will also want his creations to be good, and therefore he would make sure that empathy existed in his creations. Furthermore, this means that evil is the lack of God, who is love and therefore empathy, and that good is the presence of God. This concept would mean that for us to do good, and not evil, we must be like God ourselves and what separates us from the animals, is that we have the choice, also known as free will, to not be empathetic and instead go against God.
In conclusion, a lack of empathy, as shown in The Strangers, Halloween, and many other slasher movies, is evil.  In addition, since empathy is not a trait that will increase our likelihood to survive, it is not a result of evolution, but instead is a source of intelligent design.  As a result, evil is the lack of God.


1 Rachels, James, and Stuart Rachels. Problems from Philosophy. New York: McGraw Hill, 2012. Print.
2 Mason, Peggy, Jean Decety, and Inbal B. Bartal. "Empathy and Pro-Social Behavior in Rats." Science 334 (2011):                      1427-430. Print.

3 comments:

  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  2. It may be a bit too simplistic to conclude that empathy is not the result of evolution after an analysis from an egocentric perspective. It seems that empathy can be modeled by a form of the prisoners dilemma that offers payback ratios in the following sequence:
    1) Single sided cooperation(rat 1) – rat 2 unconditionally helps rat 1, but rat 1 does not help rat 2.
    2) Mutual cooperation – rat 2 and rat 1 help each other
    3) No cooperation– neither rat 1 nor rat 2 help each other.
    4) Single sided cooperation (rat 2) – rat 2 unconditionally helps rat 1, but rat 1 does not help rat 2.

    In a simulation where groups are allowed to form and reproductive chance is governed by the payback received in this game, an in group mutual cooperation strategy emerges.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I really enjoy the richness of the Travis's initial posting about empathy--and the follow up by Jeff. I wonder if empathy is built into humans and animals because of an interdependence for survival.

      Game theory is such a cool idea here, leading us to wonder if empathy in some cases is simply advanced logic aimed at self preservation in the guise of empathy. The Dark Knight has a great example of this concept.

      On a more metaphysical level, perhaps there is some deep acknowledgement that we are connected to a single source--an explanation driven by belief in a source greater than ourselves like Ellie's experience in Contact when she acknowledged that we may be more than simply logical beings.

      Travis brought me to wonder what the response would be if there were a lot of free rats able to enjoy freedom while one rat was caged. Would the dynamics change? I also wonder what would happen if rat 2 could be harmed in trying to help rat 1.

      From the perspective of biology, Martin Techner describes how sustained stress at an early age inhibits the growth of the hippocampus, resulting in anti-social behavior, including a lack of empathy. The argument in class directed toward social factors as a source of "evil" would be enhanced by Teicher's study: http://nospank.net/teicher2.htm

      Perhaps our many perspectives of the nature of evil help us each understand that concept.
      Thanks for the food for thought.

      Delete