How does evil happen?

In 1941, on the way from a ghetto to a concentration camp in Ukraine, a Nazi soldier beat my grandfather to death. My father saw that murder. Of course, it was just one of millions of similar stories, and I grew up with consciousness, over the brutality that often characterizes human beings.

The term “sapiens” at “Homo sapiens” does not fully describe our species: we are as violent as we are smart. That might be why we're the only Homo gender left on earth, and why we've been so destructive to dominate our planet.
But again the question arises: Like ordinary people, are they capable of such terrible acts of violence? This duality is also a mystery in itself, at the heart of cosmology, theology and tragedy, the engine of moral codes, and the tension at the heart of socio-political systems.
We know the light but also the darkness. We're capable of doing terrible things, but we're also creatively wondering why that happens. The self-awareness that characterizes the human mind is nowhere more surprising than in this problem of evil, which philosophers have discussed since Plato.
A prominent place for explanations of evil are the patterns of behavior displayed by those who commit atrocities. This is what neurosurgeon Itzhak Fried aimed at the University of California with his article “E” syndrome (1997) in the medical journal “The Lancet”.
The syndrome is a grouping of biological symptoms that together constitute a clinical condition. It will mean every word. With E Syndrome, Fried identified a group of 10 neuropsycological symptoms that are often present when bad deeds are done.
In the meantime, when Hannah Arend invented her expression “evilism” in the book “Ajman in Jerusalem” (1963), it meant that people responsible for the actions that led to mass murder may be common, obeying orders for banal causes, such as not losing their jobs.

Today, biology is a powerful explanatory force for many human behavior, although it alone cannot cause horror. Evidence of human destruction is best offered by political history, not science or metaphysics.
Only last century is it loaded with atrocities of an unimaginable scale, though the political generation was understandable. But it was the arrival of I SIS and thousands of young and enthusiastic recruits, who gave Fried's hypothesis a new emergency, and urged him to organize, along with neurophysiologist Allen Bertoz, three conferences on the E Syndrome.
The psychological and cultural environment is essential in determining whether biological processes will have a certain impact. The core in E Syndrome is the symptom of the “impact reduced”. Most people except psychopaths are extremely reluctant to cause pain, and no longer kill another man.
As psychiatrist Robert Jay Lifton has shown, it takes a brainwashing and implanting to give our “compassion” our emotional response, and to get beyond the red line. The authors of mass murder and torturers may want the best for their children, while not feeling anything for their victims an example of the echnomical symptom of E syndrome.
Social neuroscientist Tania Singer of the Max Plank Institute in Leipzig, Germany, defines sensitivity as the ability to reson “with other people's feelings. It develops since we're babies, first as imitations, and then as common attention.
This requires an ability to distinguish oneself and others, an aspect of the so-called <x0-second mind”, which is absorbed over the first five years of life. Development psychologist Philip Roshat of Emori University in Atlanta, U.S.A., has shown how children develop an ethical attitude at that time, and become aware of how their actions can be perceived by others.
But while sensitivity ensures the cohesion of a group or society, it is also unilateral and close. Revenge “lands” on it. Social psychologist Emil Bruno of Pennsylvania University has shown how it is easy to become part of a “group” at the expense of a “outside group”, which can then be targeted as an enemy and dehumanized.
Inevitably, we all practice selective sensitivity, lack of it on daily occasions, and in the lethal acts of violence that occur in social and family life, in business and in politics.
The one Simon Baron-Kenen of Cambridge University calls “the sensitivity of” is not a sufficient component for the outbreak of extreme violence. But it is still essential in opening the way to discrimination, and ultimately genocide.

As social scientist Jean Deseti of the University of Chicago said, our “hisibility has a dark side of”. This could partially reveal the mystery of our two faces our ability to help, or kill each other.
Neuroscence gives us an interesting psychological model of sensitivity emotion, such as a complex, dynamic process that unites executive, promotional, and motor-sensitive functions. She engages in particular, pre-ball cortex ( de m PFC) and the Oriental context (OFC), with which vm The PFC is partially overused, which is essential for the processing of emotions created in amigdals an ancient evolutionary structure within the lymphical system.
The OFC's damage damages to emotional feelings and with it the decision-making. In the cases of Syndrome E, emotional paths in the brain do not regulate judgment and action. A disorder occurs in reactions between the amigdals and the highest structures, the cortic connoisseur. The action itself separates from itself, a phenomenon that Fried calls “Controversial fuel”.
The concierge individual has no sense. A torturer knows exactly how to hurt the victim. But he usually has the knowledge capacity needed but not enough for sensitivity to understand the victim's experience. He just doesn't care about another person's pain, except instrumentalally. The complex emotional judgment means the disappearance of all moral meaning.

Source Layer: Taken with cuts from “Aeon. c”