The End of Evil - Essay Example

Here Here Here Here The End of Evil? Has Evil Ended as Some Neuroscientists Suggest? Some researchers who contribute to pop-neuroscience (mainstream books) have condemned the concept of “evil” as we traditionally understand it. They suggest that evil is nothing more than a malfunction of the brain, or more specifically, it is the reflection of a complete lack of empathy. These viewpoints are coupled with the idea that free will is nonexistent, and present an almost responsibility-free, wholly mechanistic approach to the execution and interpretation of our actions. The elimination of free will makes the intentional act of committing evil completely impossible, since autonomous intention cannot exist in a deterministic world. Supporters of this view cite the results of functional magnetic resonance imagine (fMRI) as confirmation of the brain’s master role in the creation of the formerly metaphysical concept of evil, as the imaging process has been used to identify neural processes that may be directly responsible for such actions. As discussed in Rosenbaum’s article (2011), the real problem with evil is that, while it is often cited, the meaning of the term has been debated for centuries, and will continue to be so. The definition of the word often includes metaphysical or “spiritual” connotations that have become the ire of some neuroscientists, leading to this desire to replace the world. But how can we replace a word if we can’t describe it first? How will we know what to replace it with? On the surface, the charge against evil in a linguistic sense is based largely in semantics, rather than neuroscience. Below the surface, it appears that the mechanistic view of evil is an example of a “brain over-claim”. This means that we put too much faith in the relationship between brain imagery, neural activity, and behavior. fMRI is not a visual image of the brain in action, it is a visual representation of information about the brain’s activity. This difference is significant and should not be taken lightly. Furthermore, neural activity and observed behavior have been shown to be correlated variables. This means that they are associated, but not that the link is causal. Brain activity could be a reflection of behavior, rather than the cause of it. Conclusion: Evil has not ended in the sense that some neuroscientists may claim. Are those who commit acts of cruelty, murder, and torture just victims themselves- of a faulty part in the head that might fall under factory warranty if the brain were a car? The examination of a person’s actions/behaviors/ideas depends largely on the perspective used. Those who believe in free will may come to the conclusion that a person is evil if they appear to intentionally cause harm to others, or if they satisfy some other form of decision making that leads to widely negative outcomes. When free will is taken from the equation, the human mind is reduced to nothing more than a piece of machinery, like a car, that simply responds to various stimuli without intent. Some neuroscientists have interpreted the mechanical view of human behavior as an indication that supposedly evil acts are the result of some kind of brain abnormality, or to put it differently, a malfunction in the machine. This perspective abolishes the notion of responsibility for one’s own actions (including those that are currently labeled as evil or bad) and may even serve to explain some of the most horrific acts in history, such as the Holocaust, as being the result of a malfunction in the offender’s (Hitler’s for example) brain. While this explanation of such atrocities may make us feel better about the idea that a person could be capable of these things, it also presents an excuse that could be exploited. The fact is that we have no amount of evidence to suggest that free will is absent, just as we lack evidence capable of confirming the concept. We must be careful not to make such judgments in the absence of repeatable, confirmed results, or they could be used to create undeniable (even if it is indefinable) evil through pre-screening procedures suggestive of eugenics. Conclusion: Behaviors are not confirmed to be merely the result of neural mechanisms, and so we cannot expect brain abnormalities to account for all aspects of actions. This would set a dangerous and unfounded precedent that may be used to excuse heinous actions. Can Evil be Reduced to a Lack of Empathy? Neuroscientist Simon Baron-Cohen wants to replace the concept of evil with the notion of lacking empathy. The researcher has offered evidence to suggest that there is an empathy circuit within the brain. This tract is said to consist of 13 different locations within the brain. At one end of the empathy spectrum (full activation) is the complete understanding of the feelings of others, while a complete lack of empathy and evil behaviors are represented at its lowest level of operation. In other words, empathy counteracts our self-centeredness and prevents us from selfish actions that could be perceived as evil. Cohen’s view is hurt by his reliance on reductionism and mechanism. His attempt to reduce the behaviors associated with evil to a malfunction of the empathy circuit is foiled by several factors, including his neglect to account for the nature of fMRI visualizations. These images allow us to view a visual representation of brain activity as communicated by electromagnetic transmission. They do not let us literally view the brain in real time, and thus do not represent a causal effect, but instead represent a correlation that could be in either direction and/or influenced by a variety of intermediate variables. Additionally, a lack of empathy has been used to describe antisocial personality disorder for some time, and while the disorder is certainly far from stigma-free, not all people diagnosed with it can be considered to be evil in any context. In contrast, it is not far fetched to consider that a person who has consistently displayed empathy may suddenly commit an out-of-character act of evil, or to think of situations where a person may commit a supposedly evil act against their will and not necessarily out of a lack of empathy (soldiers killing for example). Conclusion: Evil cannot be reduced to a lack of empathy as Baron has suggested. Do fMRI images show us the neurological causes of our behaviors? Brain imaging technology has taken many large strides over the years, and each advancement has brought increasing excitement about revealing the actual workings of the brain during various tasks and situations. fMRI uses a magnetic field to generate real-time imagery of the brain in action, and it represents the most commonly used cutting-edge imaging techniques currently available to researchers. Images from fMRI have been gaining attention in several realms, including the possibility of using such imagery for court proceedings (truth verification) and to diagnose neurological maladies. A major problem with fMRI imaging is that it is often interpreted as being a photograph/video of the brain, when it is actually a representation of activity that may not represent a direct relationship between brain mechanisms and behaviors. This relates to the “hard problem of consciousness”, which refers to the inability of science to thus far account for the complete conscious experience that appears to arise due to some relationship between consciousness and brain structure. In other words, we know they are related, but not how. Conclusion: fMRI does not show us the neurological causes of behavior, but instead show us a representation of neurological activity Work Cited Rosenbaum, Ron. “Does evil exist? Neuroscientists say no.” Slate.com September 30, 2011. Web. Nov. 30 2011. Read More