Peace. Empathy and Evolution

a personal view by John Myhill

War, like  all violence and cruelty, is possible because those committing the  actions, do not believe, that those they hurt are properly human.  (This is easy to understand as most of us have at some time eaten animals, whilst ignoring the cruel treatment and terrible deaths of those we eat.)

 The other main driver, is a sense of unfairness: "they" have done something terrible to us, so we have a right to do something terrible to them (the first law: an eye for an eye, aimed at preventing escalation of the violence.  All law aims to prevent us taking the law into our own hands, as the mob always escalates violence, when they feel "they" have not been adequately punished.  

All that is needed to turn individual acts of terrorism into an "atrocity" is the involvement of a large number of people; who are either driven on by the ferocity of war [warriors out of control, a blood lust- as the Japanese in Shanghai or the current conflict in Sudan; or worse still a disciplined obedient force following a rational plan of extermination, as in genocide.)

I find all this so easy to understand!  Far more difficult to explain is how huge numbers of people manage to live in close proximity with each other without dehumanising those around them, without taking offence at minor unkindness.  Generally people are kind to those around them, and forgive them when things go badly.  There are a huge number of factors here (relative prosperity, enjoying the freedom to do things that we really want to do, being too busy to get involved, keeping ourselves to ourselves as long as we are left to do so, years of peace.  But also upbringing, education, spiritual experience and social traditions, etc.)

In fact it is very hard to be a pacifist if you are afraid of other people.  (I have often been shocked by the violence, expressed by abused women, against male offenders: "castrate them", "lock them up and throw away the key", "do to them as they have done".  But then I am not a survivor of abuse, and have only ever seen the pathetic, often cringing fear of such men amongst other men.)  Battle hardened soldiers can make some of the best pacifists, as they have seen the horror of war, yet remain brave and fearless, afraid of no-one (some of course live in terror with PTSD).  Sadly, people who are afraid, who see themselves as victims, can often drive the brave to take violent action on their behalf, to protect them; and a new cycle of violence and escalation begins.

Empathy developed through evolution to ensure that the community (sometimes a tribe, sometimes a collection of tribes) absorbed most of the individual's capacity to empathise.  Also to empathise with an enemy could be seen as betrayal.  But if enough people are able to empathise with those who are usually seen as "them", peace and understanding between the two groups becomes more possible and the risk of violence is reduced.

I am thinking here of tribes like Russia and America.  For the war in Ukraine can be seen to express the Russian leader's fear of American encirclement and domination, and America has shown empathy to Israel who fear the same encirclement from the surrounding Muslim nations.  Of course if I was a Ukrainian I would find such empathy much harder!  On the other hand, unless I was a Ukrainian American, how much empathy would I have with Ukrainian  suffering; surely I would use up my empathy on people I knew, perhaps people like me living in America, perhaps even diverse people living in America; but to take on the suffering of the whole world?  Thus empathy and lack of empathy can both incline a tribe towards peace, as well as towards conflict.

This question of Empathy is crucial for Human Rights legislation:  Thus: those who fail to empathise, find it easy to demonise the enemy, to see them as less than human = no human rights.  But, if we empathise with them, we will see they are as human as we are, and will want them to have human rights.  

The problem occurs when people are given human rights, who then refuse to give us human rights, so that even the law abiding are unable to empathise with them.  In other words, law cannot prevent atrocities and can only punish them if they win the war.  Empathy can enable us to treat all creatures equally; but law cannot prevent us returning to barbarism.  It can even reduce our empathy, if we see "them" being given special treatment that is not available to "us".

Living creatures have the life-force, the spirit, the good (Quakers would say "that of God") within them.  They have the freedom to turn it off or down, but if they tune in to it, they will feel where their strengths are. Then they will find it easy to learn things useful to that skill, that "leading of the spirit"; they will find those people with whom they can empathise, and the group will develop into a tribe.  But unless we take time out to connect with the life force; we may find it difficult to empathise with those outside their group, and conflicts will occur inevitably.

Too much empathy leads to burn-out and exhaustion.  It can also lead to supporting those who give excuses (hard luck stories) for their behaviour, when what they need is to work hard and take on challenges, to see themselves as useful, not as victims.  It can lead to blaming the hard working risk takers who bring solutions to many world problems, especially if they are rich or powerful (such people are often hard to sympathise with unless we get to know them personally), and people who work with the poorest in society tend not to meet them at all.  Perhaps we each have more empathy than we think we do, and if we let the Light lead us, the empathy will neither mislead nor overwhelm us.