|
Evil as the Absence of Empathy
by Ernest Partridge
In 1946, Dr. Gustav M. Gilbert, a psychologist fluent in German, was assigned by the U.S. Army to study the minds and motivations of the Nazi defendants at the Nuremberg tribunals. The following year, his Nuremberg Diary was published, containing transcripts of his conversations with the prisoners. ( Excerpts here).
In words consistent with what I have read of, and about, Gustav Gilbert, he is portrayed in the 2000 TV film Nuremberg, as telling the Head Prosecutor Robert Jackson (Alex Baldwin);
I told you once that I was searching for the nature of evil. I think Ive come close to defining it: a lack of empathy. Its the one characteristic that connects all the defendants: a genuine incapacity to feel with their fellow man. Evil, I think, is the absence of empathy.
Absence of empathy is likewise, I submit, the one characteristic that connects most of the immoral and misbegotten tenets of Bushism: that dogmatic mix of market absolutism, libertarianism, corporatism and simple greed that falsely describes itself as conservatism, and which I choose to call regressivism. Absence of empathy is the essence of evil which, if unchecked and unreversed, is certain to bring about the demise of the American republic as we know it, just as it led to the fall of the Third Reich.
"We live in a world ... hardened and distorted by hate. We
communicate in the language of fear and violence. Human beings are no
longer viewed as human beings. They are no longer endowed in our eyes,
or the eyes of those who oppose us, with human qualities. They do not
love, grieve, suffer, laugh or weep. They represent cold abstractions
of evil. The death-for-death means we communicate by producing corpses."
- Chris Hedges
In contrast, empathy, the capacity to recognize and cherish in
other persons, the experience, emotions and aspirations that one is
aware of in oneself, is the moral cornerstone of progressive politics.
It is a principle recognized and taught in all the great world
religions, reiterated by numerous moral philosophers, and validated by
the scientific study of human personality.
Empathy is the
foundation of the moral teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. In that
most-quoted New Testament verse, the golden rule, Jesus said: as ye
would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise." (Luke
6:31, also Matthew 7:2). Also, thou shalt love thy neighbor as
thyself. (Matthew 22:39, also Leviticus 19;18). Both commandments
imply recognition in others of the human dignity and worth that one
recognizes in oneself. In a word, empathy.
The golden rule is
echoed in the moral teachings of Islam:
- "None of you [truly] believes
until he wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself." And as
Mohamed taught in his last sermon, "Hurt no one so that no one may hurt
you." (Mohamed, last sermon). And Rabbi Hillel, a contemporary of
Jesus, taught What is hateful to yourself, do not do to your fellow
man. That is the whole Torah; the rest is just commentary.
And
yet, how much empathy is to be found among self-proclaimed Christian
end-times preachers, such as James Hagee and Tim LeHaye, who eagerly
anticipate the rapture and the eternal torment and damnation that
awaits virtually all of humanity, as punishment for the sin of failing
to agree with the preachers theology? How much empathy is evident in
the late Jerry Falwells on-air remark to Wolf Blitzer, about Islamic
militants, If it takes 10 years, blow them all away in the name of the
Lord, and Ann Coulters infamous outburst, We should invade their
countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity.
Because they explicitly renounce Jesus injunction to love thy
enemies these hate-mongers are, in a literal and moral sense,
anti-Christs.
Regressivism and the Absence of Empathy
Empathy is conspicuously absent in the off-hand remarks of George Bush, his family, and his political allies. For example,
Bush
himself, to an ordinary citizen after a campaign event:
- Who cares what
you think? And to Bob Woodward: History, we dont know. Well all be
dead.
The Presidents mother, Barbara Bush, on Good Morning
America:
- "Why should we hear about body bags and deaths. Oh, I mean,
it's not relevant. So why should I waste my beautiful mind on something
like that?" (March 18, 2003).
Dick Cheney, in an exchange with ABC reporter, Martha Raddatz:
- Raddatz: Two-third of Americans say [the Iraq War] is not worth fighting.
- Cheney: So?
- Raddatz: So? You dont care what the American people think?
- Cheney: No....
John
McCain: bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran. And in response to the news
that cigarettes are a major US export to Iran, McCain remarked that it
might be a way of killing em.
Former Senator Phil Gramm, economic
advisor to John McCain, in an interview with the Washington Times,
remarked that the American economy is in a mental recession:
- Weve
sort of become a nation of whiners, he added.
The foundational
doctrines of regressivism are equally devoid of empathy. For example,
Ayn Rand: "Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy..
the process of setting man free from men." (The Fountainhead) And
Man must live for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others
nor sacrificing others to himself. (The Virtue of Selfishness.)
Furthermore,
economic Man (Homo economicus), a central concept of neo-classical
economic theory favored by regressives, is an uncompromising egoist,
whose sole motivation is to maximize personal utility or preference
satisfaction. A perfect market of fully informed, non-colluding,
uncoerced economic men, free of government interference, the theory
tells us, will invariably produce better results for all than any
governmental system yet devised. Never mind that economic man and
the perfect market are fictions, that never have been and never can
be realized in any human society. (For a defense of this claim, see my
Beautiful Theory vs. Baffling Reality).
The unfounded yet
undiminished right-wing faith in the wisdom of the free-market and in
the superiority of the pursuit of individual utility maximization as
the engine of social progress, was starkly summed up by Gordon Gekko
(Michael Douglas) in the 1987 movie, Wall Street: Greed ... is good.
Greed is right. Greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through, and
captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed, in all of its
forms -- greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge -- has marked
the upward surge of mankind."
In fact, history teaches us that
greed is not good, and greed does not work. Homo economicus is, in
fact, a moral monster, for he is a being devoid of empathy and even of
conscience. A mere bundle of consumer preferences can not add up to
personhood, much less moral agency. When greed (call it the profit
motive) reigns supreme, others, be they employees or fellow
citizens, are reduced to impersonal objects. If these others are
employees, they are regarded as units of human capital to be replaced
by less costly units (e.g. outsourced) whenever possible. And if
they are fellow citizens, they are prospective customers, to be
relieved through creative marketing of their disposable wealth.
Human, social, environmental external costs be damned. Witness the
tobacco industry.
A society of private, egoistic, utility
maximizers, devoid of empathy and unregulated by law and popular
government, without shared values, loyalties and aspirations, is no
society at all. It is a Hobbesian state of nature a war of all
against all, wherein life becomes "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and
short." (Thomas Hobbes, The Leviathan).
As we are now discovering, to our great regret and sorrow.
Progressivism and Empathy
In
stark contrast, empathy awareness of the needs, sufferings,
aspirations, rights, and dignity of others is the unifying theme of
the progressive agenda, and of the history of political/economic
liberalism (in the traditional sense of the word). The elite and
wealthy delegates to the Continental Congress, when they demanded
recognition of their rights, did not fail at that time to acknowledge
the rights of all persons:
We hold these truths to be self-evident:
that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator
with certain unalienable Rights; that among these are Life, Liberty,
and the pursuit of Happiness.
True, at the outset the full rights
of citizenship were restricted to white, male, landowners. But through
time and constant struggle, those rights were extended to include all
adult citizens, regardless of gender, race or creed. These struggles,
which continue today, were led by liberals, and resisted by
self-described conservatives.
Joe Conason eloquently describes these struggles and achievements:
- "If
your workplace is safe; if your children go to school rather than being
forced into labor; if you are paid a living wage, including overtime;
if you enjoy a forty-hour week and you are allowed to join a union to
protect your rights -- you can thank liberals. If your food is not
poisoned and your water is drinkable -- you can thank liberals. If your
parents are eligible for Medicare and Social Security, so they can grow
old in dignity without bankrupting your family - you can thank
liberals. If our rivers are getting cleaner and our air isn't black
with pollution; if our wilderness is protected and our countryside is
still green -- you can thank liberals. If people of all races can share
the same pubic facilities; if everyone has the right to vote; if
couples fall in love and marry regardless of race; if we have finally
begun to transcend a segregated society -- you can thank liberals.
Progressive innovations like those and so many others were achieved by
long, difficult struggles against entrenched power. What defined
conservatism, and conservatives, was their opposition to every one of
those advances. The country we know and love today was built by those
victories for liberalism -- with the support of the American people."
(Big Lies, p. 3)
That public support and the consequent liberal
reforms issued from empathy: from the awareness throughout the general
public that oppressed minorities and economically and educationally
disadvantaged individuals, possess the same sentiments, needs,
aspirations and rights that more fortunate citizens recognized in
themselves.
Regressivism as Psychopathology
Empathy
is never totally absent in any functioning human being. A recognition
that other persons with whom one deals have functioning minds with
ideas, emotions, and aspirations is implicit in game playing, in
negotiations, and even ordinary conversation. Self awareness, even that
of a thoroughly egoistic, narcissistic and sociopathic self, can only
arise out of childhood interaction with others. The self is a social
construct.
Thus even such sociopaths as George Bush and Dick Cheney
will acknowledge that the bombs dropped on Iraq cause collateral
damage and thus profound suffering to innocent civilians. They
likewise are aware of the suffering in New Orleans caused by the
mismanagement of the Katrina disaster. They are, after all, at least
minimally sane. Such an awareness of others that is also devoid of
feeling we might call abstract empathy. The misery to innocent others
that they cause simply does not matter to the Busheviks. They do not
care, unless these moral atrocities exact political costs to themselves.
This
abstract empathy is not the sort of empathy that Dr. Gustav Gilbert
found absent among the Nuremberg defendants. The empathy that he had in
mind combines awareness with feelings of concern and with respect for
the rights and integrity of the other.
In contrast, the
regressivism of the Bush/Cheney administration would have us ignore the
economic, social and environmental consequences of unregulated
commerce, and also have us dismantle Social Security, impoverish public
education, tolerate inadequate health care for millions of our fellow
citizens, abolish fundamental constitutional rights, and engage in
aggressive wars against unthreatening countries, all of this with
minimal regard for the human misery caused by these policies. To do all
this, requires a deliberate stifling of feelings of empathy, and what
David Hume called the natural moral sentiment of benevolence: a
genuine concern for the well-being of others.
Regressives who
support such policies are, at worst, simply amoral: without moral
restraint, rotten to the core. At best, they are profoundly mistaken:
possibly fundamentally decent individuals, trustworthy, law-abiding,
charming friends, devoted spouses and parents, but bewitched by false
dogmas. The former are, by and large, beyond redemption and are best
isolated from political influence and from positions of public
responsibility. The latter might be amenable to evidence and rational
persuasion.
How can such an ideology captivate and take
political control of a nation once renowned and admired for its
generosity and compassion and for its devotion to democracy and human
rights?
In part, the rise and dominance of regressivism is the
result of a deliberate and opulently funded public relations campaign,
supported for the past forty years by wealthy individuals and
corporations. This campaign included the establishment of ideological
think tanks such as The American Enterprise Institute, The Heritage
Foundation, and The Competitive Enterprise Institute, the abolition of
The Fairness Doctrine and the consolidation of most of the mass media
into six conservative mega-conglomerates, enormous expansion of
corporate lobbying of Congress, and a vastly increased corporate
involvement in campaign financing, of both major parties. With
conservative Republicans in control of the White House for all but
eight of the past twenty-eight years, the federal courts have become
dominated by right-wing judges.
With these formidable propaganda
resources, the resurgent Right has exploited natural sentiments
equally fundamental to human nature as empathy; namely, ethnocentrism
(identification with and loyalty to our group) and its negative
complement, xenophobia (fear, distrust, and hatred of outsiders). The
terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 intensified these prejudices,
objectifying and depersonalizing the new enemy (so-called
Islamo-Fascists) while, at the same time, neutralizing empathetic
sentiments toward the residents of these alien nations.
With
the captive media exploiting and intensifying public fear of
terrorism, the Bush regime formulated, and the intimidated Congress
readily assented to, assaults upon our traditional civil liberties such
as the PATRIOT Act, the Military Commissions Act, and now the revised
FISA Act.
Finally, regressivism feeds upon greed: the relentless
corporate drive for still more profits and political control, and the
perpetual cultivation of consumer demand by the multi-billion dollar
advertising and public relations industries.
But greed is
pitiless and blind to the side effects (externalities) of the
unconstrained appetite for the consumption of consumer goods and for
profit: effects such as poverty, pollution, disease, and the
collateral damage of war upon innocent civilians.
A political
economy based upon unregulated greed has been tried numerous times in
the past, and has failed in each and every occasion: the French and
Russian Revolutions, the era of the robber barons in the late
Nineteenth Century, the Great Depression of the Thirties. They failed
because when greed rules, the nations wealth inevitably flows from
those who produce the wealth to those who own and control the wealth
until, eventually, the toleration of the increasingly miserable masses
for this economic injustice collapses, and the oligarchic regime is
overthrown.
Once again, regressivism is on the brink of collapse.
Time Magazine and the Rockefeller Foundation reported last week that 85% of US population is unhappy with the US economy.
In April, 80% of Americans believed that the country is moving in the wrong direction.
During
the first six months of 2008, 343,159 Americans lost their homes, up
136% from 145,696 recorded during the same period in 2007.
(CNNMoney.com).
An alarming and under-reported increase in
unemployment and inflation is underway. (US government cost of living
statistics do not include food and fuel prices).
The latest Gallup Poll reports that Democratic party affiliation leads Republican by ten points (47% to 37%).
George Bushs approval ratings are at an all-time low at 28% (disapproval from 61%-69%)
This
public sentiment should suffice to overthrow any regime that maintains
power with the consent of the governed and subject to recall by
election. Under normal circumstances, these statistics would indicate a
landslide repudiation of the regime in the coming national election.
But
these are not normal circumstances, for this regime is supported by a
formidable array of resources: virtually unlimited financial support, a
captive media including a cadre of right-wing pundits, a proven ability
to rig elections along with a refusal of the media to investigate and
report election fraud, oppressive laws, a ruthless GOP campaign
organization unconstrained by facts, fair-play, or even on occasion, by
the law. All these resource might once again overwhelm the consent of
the governed, and prolong the regressive regime for another four or
even eight years. But eventually, it must fall. The longer it holds on,
the greater the misery and repression that will ensue, and the more
violent the eventual overthrow.
But
it will take an extraordinary effort by an overwhelming number of
ordinary citizens to bring it off. There are no guarantees.
Copyright 2008 by Ernest Partridge
Ernest Partridge's Internet Publications
Conscience of a Progressive: A book in progress.
Partridge's Scholarly Publications. (The Online Gadfly)
Dr.
Ernest Partridge is a consultant, writer and lecturer in the field of
Environmental Ethics and Public Policy. He has taught Philosophy at the
University of California, and in Utah, Colorado and Wisconsin. He
publishes the website, "The Online Gadfly" and co-edits the progressive
website, "The Crisis Papers".
The Crisis Papers.
July 22, 2008
|
Neither of the quotes you bring up have anything directly related to a "lack of empathy." Here's more context for your first quote:
"Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy. The savage’s whole existence is public, ruled by the laws of his tribe. Civilization is the process of setting man free from men."
[The Soul of an Individualist, For the New Intellectual, 84]
http://aynrandlexicon.org/lexicon/civilization.html
Rand here is merely remarking that a civilized life allows people to engage in more and more private activities, without everyone in the city, state, etc. having to know their business, unlike primitive tribes. Nothing about empathy in that quote.
Second quote:
"Man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life."
[“Introducing Objectivism,”
The Objectivist Newsletter, Aug. 1962, 35]
http://aynrandlexicon.org/lexicon/objectivism.html
Here, Rand is summarizing her view of morality, known as "rational egoism." The part you quoted refers to her belief that each person was an independent, sovereign entity, whom could not be morally ruled and destroyed by others, nor could anyone morally rule (sacrifice) others. This concerns the type of proper relationships humans could engage in, not a statement advocating the suppression of empathy.
Thanks for your time.