Is the epic struggle of good versus evil a metaphysical reality or a case of bad wiring running amok?
Be careful of podcasts and books – they can activate thinking and questioning. I think it was the Sam Harris podcast referenced below that got me thinking about good and evil, or it may have been current events that led to a memory of a book I read years ago on the history of evil. No matter – a memory, a book, and a podcast led to purchasing books on the History of the Devil and Evil and the 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos by Jordan Peterson and going down the internet-rabbit-hole reading various articles and posts.
What stood out for me in the History of the Devil and Evil was that all religions had their beginnings in fear and worry around – you might say – bad things happening to good people. When crops failed, or illness struck, or death arrived too early – bad forces, evil forces were at work. And belief systems rose as a way to try and make sense of these forces, which are seen to be self-existent. I found it interesting that it took a long time for the notion of “good” to enter the fray – which then led to dualism – the eternal struggle between good and evil. That struggle is so much a part of human history that it is the basic plot for almost every movie and novel.
The world is full of good and evil – deeds – no argument from me, but I’m not so sure of the devil or his dominion – hell. The book I read years ago explored the origin and construction of the notion of hell – it hasn’t been around forever.
So, what about human beings? Are we born good or evil?
The Moral Life of Babies by Paul Bloom – Morality, then, is a synthesis of the biological and the cultural, of the unlearned, the discovered and the invented. Babies possess certain moral foundations — the capacity and willingness to judge the actions of others, some sense of justice, gut responses to altruism and nastiness. Regardless of how smart we are, if we didn’t start with this basic apparatus, we would be nothing more than amoral agents, ruthlessly driven to pursue our self-interest. But our capacities as babies are sharply limited. It is the insights of rational individuals that make a truly universal and unselfish morality something that our species can aspire to.
Whether we or we are good or evil in the moment or over time, it serves us to explore the behavior, the biology, and the historical structuring of such notions.
Here are some insights from a Sam Harris podcast on the Biology of Good and Evil:
Robert Sapolsky, Neurobiologist, Primatologist and author of Behave: The Biology of Humans at Our Best and Worst says when we explore – Why did that behavior happen? – we open up a very complex inquiry that needs to include such questions as:
- What occurred in the brain of that individual one second ago?
- What were the sensing queues in the environment that triggered those neurons?
- What did that person’s hormone levels do to make them more sensitive?
- What are the person’s neuroplasticity, developmental history, fetal environment, and genes contributing to the behavior?
- What sort of culture was this person raised in?
- What were the ecological influences on the ancestral lineage?
- What about millions of years of evolution?
All of these, he says, are part of the same question. Also, if we are talking about the brain, we’re talking about childhood experiences as the brain formed.
Many people believe that much of bad or evil behavior can be avoided or mediated through logic or will power. But there is a common misunderstanding around the relationship between reason and emotion. At a neurobiological level there is no dichotomy between them, they are inseparably intertwined. Indeed, a great deal of research in recent years shows that we make decisions far more often on implicit emotional automatic reflexes. We make them within milliseconds at an unconscious level.
Often what we believe is rational thinking isn’t. More often than not, it is our cognitive-self playing catch-up to try and rationalize our emotional instincts. We need a “felt” sense of consequences to make any decision.
Role of Frontal Cortex
 | Region of the brain that makes you do the hard thing when the hard thing is the right thing to do. Impulse control, emotional regulation, long-term planning, gratification postponement. Most recently evolved part of the brain. It is the last part of the brain to get wired up. The frontal cortex is not fully online until about 25 years old. Therefore, it is the part of the brain that is the least constrained by genes and the most shaped by experience. |
The ancient Greeks had many discussions about the “good.” When discussing concepts and notions, it behooves us to try and understand those concepts within the context and language of the civilization where the discussion originates. For Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, and other Greeks, the word translated as “good” is eudaimonia. Another concept from the ancient Greeks that may be of worth in this discussion is that of phronesis – “practical wisdom.
Chris Surprenant (University of New Orleans) discusses the account of human well-being and the good life presented by Aristotle in Nicomachean Ethics and Politics. He explains why Aristotle believes that a human being lives well when he acts rightly and possesses all virtues, both intellectual and those relating to good character.
Neuroscience is giving the forces of dualism fits!
Are We Fundamentally Good or Evil? Neuroscience Has an Answer
The theory that instincts like empathy and morality may be tangled in a web of competing neurological and environmental demands is highlighted by an interesting experiment featured in BBC’s documentary, Are You Good Or Evil. Neuroscientist Paul Zak has studied a chemical compound called oxytocin that’s related to our feelings of empathy and bonding with each other. Not only is empathy tangled in a complicated chemical web, but according to a brand new study from Human Brain Mapping, our tendencies for altruism, a behavior that often stems from feelings of empathy, are metered by mechanisms in our brain responsible for impulse control. Researchers claim that beyond empathy and a sense of morality, altruism may be hardwired in the brain, and we may be able to encourage more altruistic behavior. “The more we tend to vicariously experience the states of others, the more we appear to be inclined to treat them as we would ourselves,” said researcher Christov-Moore. They found that blocking parts of the brain responsible for impulse control (whether those impulses are positive or negative) also leads to more altruistic behavior, suggesting that our innate impulses are good, not bad.
The Neurobiology of Evil
Is a person’s propensity toward evil a matter of malfunctioning synapses and neurons?
Michael Stone, professor of clinical psychiatry at Columbia University and author of “The Anatomy of Evil,” says it is. Ever-more-detailed brain scans are revealing the biological origins of psychological issues in “evil” people, from those who are mildly antisocial to serial murderers.
Murderers and other violent criminals have been shown to have amygdalae that are smaller or that don’t function properly, explains Stone. One recent study concluded that individuals who exhibit a marker of “limbic neural maldevelopment” have “significantly higher levels of antisocial personality, psychopathy, arrests and convictions compared with controls.”
The amygdala is important because, among its other functions, it allows an individual to respond to the facial expressions of others. When a person has an abnormal amygdala—one that doesn’t process the facial expressions of emotion—they can have an inability to register the fear and suffering of a victim, says Stone. This lack of response to the emotions of others predisposes an individual to antisocial, even criminal, behavior.
Under normal development, empathy from a full-functioning amygdala pairs with a moral “braking system” in the brain’s higher-functioning cortex. This connection halts deep-rooted urges from our neural-narcissistic lizard brain, keeping each of us morally and socially in step. However, if that connection is not operating properly, says Stone, “the person may go ahead and do the unspeakable crime, which otherwise he would have put the brakes on or maybe even not even contemplated doing it in the first place.”
The End of Evil?
Ron Rosenbaum asks – Is evil over? Has science finally driven a stake through its dark heart? Or at least emptied the word of useful meaning, reduced the notion of a numinous nonmaterial malevolent force to a glitch in a tangled cluster of neurons, the brainAre 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?
Indeed recent developments demonstrate that evil remains a stubborn concept in our culture, resistant to attempts to reduce it to pure “physicalism.” To read the mainstream media commentary on the Breivik case, for instance, is to come upon, time after time, the word “evil.” Not just that the acts were evil, but that he, Breivik was, as a Wall Street Journal columnist put it, “evil incarnate.”
But what exactly does that mean? The incarnation of what? Satan? The word “incarnation,” even without explicit religious context, implies, metaphorically at least, the embedding of a metaphysical force in a physical body.
Is self-reflective consciousness to blame for good and evil? Is evil conflation of defective neurons and self-reflective consciousness? I don’t know, but Jordan Peterson makes a good point in 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos.
Unlike us, predators have no comprehension of their fundamental weakness, their fundamental vulnerability, their own subjugation to pain and death. But we know exactly how and where we can be hurt, and why. That is as good a definition has any of self-consciousness. We are aware of our own defenselessness, finitude and mortality. We can feel pain, and self-disgust, and shame, and horror, and we know it. We know what makes this offer. We know how dread and pain can be inflicted on us – and that means we know exactly how to inflict it on others. We know how we are naked, and how that nakedness can be exploited – and that means we know how others are naked, and how they can be exploited.Human beings have a great capacity for wrongdoing. It’s an attribute that is unique in the world of life. We can and do make things worse, voluntarily, with full knowledge of what we’re doing (as well as accidentally, and carelessly, in a manner that is willfully blind). Given that terrible capacity, that proclivity for malevolent actions, is it any wonder we have a hard time taking care of ourselves are others – or even that we doubt the value of the entire human enterprise? And we’ve suspected ourselves for good reason, for a very long time.
Work on one’s personality is used to access spiritual states of consciousness. – A. H. Almaas
FAQ
- About the Article “The Tenacity of Good Versus Evil” What’s it about?
The article discusses the enduring battle between good and evil, exploring their nature, presence in personal lives, and impact on society. - Defining Good and Evil – How are good and evil defined?
Good is characterized as actions, thoughts, and values that promote harmony, compassion, and well-being. Evil, on the other hand, is actions, thoughts, and values that cause harm, suffering, and discord. - Philosophical Aspects – Is there a delve into the philosophical aspects?
Yes, the article explores philosophical and moral implications, touching upon debates regarding the nature of evil and human capacity for both good and evil. - Examples in Everyday Life – Are there examples of good and evil in everyday life?
The article offers examples of everyday situations, discussing acts of kindness, honesty, and empathy as manifestations of good, while deceit, violence, and cruelty exemplify evil. - Impact on Society – How is the impact of good and evil on society discussed?
The article explains that the presence of good and evil can greatly impact society, suggesting that good creates a harmonious community, while evil can lead to conflict and suffering. - Guidance on Fostering Good and Combating Evil – Is there guidance offered?
The article provides insights into cultivating goodness and contributing to the battle against evil, emphasizing self-awareness, introspection, and actions like kindness and empathy. - Religious or Spiritual Perspectives – Are religious or spiritual perspectives addressed?
The article briefly touches upon various religious and spiritual interpretations of good and evil, exploring the role of divine forces in the struggle. - Subjectivity or Objectivity – Is the analysis subjective or objective?
The article presents its analysis relatively objectively, discussing different perspectives and theories related to good and evil.