The Genetics of Evil
A compilation of the 50 most evil villains in literature by the UK’s newspaper, The Telegraph, listed the devil at the number one position on its list. The number two position was given to a fictional rat. Samuel Whiskers, from Beatrix Potter’s story, The Tale Of Samuel Whiskers, is certainly a bad fellow. He steals from the house in which he lives, and tries to make Tom Kitten into a dumpling:
But determining whether Samuel Whiskers is truly evil is difficult. According to most Western traditions, evil is the absence of good, and doesn’t have an independent identity. Other traditions, such as Buddhism, in which evil is an intrinsic element of existence, or Zoroastrianism and Star Wars, in which good and evil are opposing forces, have different definitions. Even if we stick with Western definitions, the question of Samuel Whiskers still is not clear. According to Thomas Aquinas, evil is the absence of goodness which should be found in our nature. A rat, which is an omnivore, may be acting in accord with its nature when it tries to eat a kitten (Tom Kitten survives, by the way, and learns to avoid rats in the future), and thus is not really evil. At best we could say that he seems to be participating in a metaphysical evil, in that nature can seem cruel and evil. As Woody Allen said, “To me, nature is… I dunno, spiders and bugs and big fish eating little fish. And plants eating plants and animals eating…It’s like an enormous restaurant.”
A well fed rat may not be evil per se, but cooking a live kitten in a dumpling probably is.
So let’s suppose that Tom Kitten and Samuel Whiskers are both people, or at least, sentient beings, and judging by their clothing (Tom Kitten had a nice blue jacket before being covered in dough), that is a reasonable assumption. In this case, most would agree that Samuel Whiskers was performing a moral evil by going against our accepted moral order. Sentient beings don’t cook each other for their puddings. Furthermore, Aquinas also suggests that as our world is not in itself bad, evil must exist within our actions, not in the effect. In this case, a well fed rat (the result of eating Tom Kitten) is not an evil thing, per se. Rats deserve to be fed. However, rolling a live kitten into a dumpling is evil.
Why Samuel Whiskers is evil is an even more difficult question than determining if he is evil. All rodents are not bad to Beatrix Potter, as her Tale of Mrs. Tittlemouse clearly attests. Therefore the problem must be something specific to Samuel. Still following Aquinas, the root cause of evil is our free will, we have been given the freedom to make bad choices, and we frequently do so. Aquinas states that maybe sometimes the temptation to transgress can come from that villain at the number one slot on The Telegraph’s list (Satan), but often not, it’s just our choice. Current thinking, which largely discounts a role of Satan in clinical psychology, specifically posits social and economic factors as main factors in prompting our transgressions. Additionally, since the 1960’s a genetic cause for moral evilness has also been a contested but active area of research.
One of my personal pleasures that I don’t often broadcast is an appreciation for the Taiwanese TV series Meng Xue Yuan. A story about a boarding school for magically adept students, it’s like Harry Potter written with the sensibilities of Gilligan’s Island (or Mr Bean). The heroine of the story, Wuke NaNa (烏克娜娜), upon discovering that her father was a dark wizard, flees the school, explaining, “我有暗黑基因!” (I have dark genes!). In her own way, Wuke NaNa is raising a valid question, is evil heritable?
XYY males: aggressive super males or not? (answer: not)
A specific genetic cause for evilness, or to be more clinically precise, antisocial behavior, was first proposed in the 1960’s when it was found that some males harbor an extra Y chromosome (so that they were XYY instead of the normal XY). Carriers of this rare genetic condition (occurring in about 1 out of 1000 males) were suggested by early studies to be found in prison populations more than expected by chance. The president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in 1970 suggested that these dangerous and aggressive “super males” could be eliminated from society if women carrying fetuses with an XYY set of chromosomes would be required to abort them. Subsequent studies have found that though XYY might be associated with slighter lower intelligence, there doesn’t appear to be any direct connection to aggressiveness or law breaking. Nonetheless, the idea that XYY males are dangerous still persists in much literature.
Despite this setback in identifying genetic determinants of criminality, we know that genetics affects all aspects of our life, including behavior, so few doubt that there can be found a manner in which our genes can contribute to morally unaccepted actions. Our genes are rarely completely determinative, however, and never act alone. Therefore current studies often try to see how our genetic variations may interact with other social factors that can contribute to antisocial behavior. For example, a variant of the serotonin transporter protein gene (SLC6A4) has been found to confer a risk of predatory, psychopathic traits in children raised in disadvantaged environments.
Seratonin: psychopharmacology wonder chemical
That serotonin is important factor in regulating our behavior is well established, and so the finding that genetic variants affecting Seratonin uptake make affect antisocial behavior is not surprising. Seratonin is a chemical messenger in the brain, and the neurons to which it binds are involved in a wide range of processes, including sensitivity to pain, regulation of the heart and respiration, mood, and even learning and basic cognition. It also has been shown to affect a number of psychiatric conditions, such as schizophrenia, depression, addiction, and anxiety. Drugs which target the serotonin system (termed selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, or SSRIs) work by altering the levels of serotonin in the brain. Common brands of SSRI’s include Prozac and Zoloft.
Besides the serotonin transporter protein gene SLC6A4, several other genes have been shown to be able to apparently contribute to antisocial behavior. In one recent study, tryptophan hydroxylase 1 (TPH1); the serotonin transporter (SLC6A4); and monoamine oxidase A (MAOA), each of which is involved in the regulation of serotonin, also were associated with early signs of antisocial behavior (physically aggressive behavior, disruptiveness, and relational aggression, etc.). The relationship of these genes to behavior was not simple, however. Among non-mistreated children there were no differences in antisocial behavior associated with the studied genetic variations. In contrast, among maltreated children the variations in the three genes were each significantly related to an increase in reports of antisocial behavior.
None of these studies are definitive. Measurement of antisocial can be subjective, and much larger studies are needed. However the basic notion that genetic variants can contribute to behavior that violates our moral codes is becoming better established.
A genetics of evil?
Whether this means there is a genetics of evil is still not clear. Recall Samuel Whiskers: was he participating only in a metaphysical evil, that is, he didn’t violate a rat moral code, but his actions were viewed as evil because preying on the week by the strong in nature seems evil? This is evil only by analogy, and if we believe that that nature itself cannot be evil, then a metaphysical evil doesn’t really exist. Or did Samuel perform a moral evil because he violated the moral code of all pants-wearing sentient beings? If the former is true, if our genes determine our nature and we must be judged accordingly, then one might argue that children with SLC6A4 variants are only acting according to their proper nature when they act with heightened aggression. If we believe the latter, then an immoral act is an immoral act, no matter our genetic makeup.
Though the genetics of metaphysical evil may seem like a question only for the philosophers, it’s an important issue. In 2010 the governor of Ohio commuted the death sentence of Sidney Cornwell, a gang member convicted of killing a young girl in a drive-by shooting. Sidney Cornwell carries an XXY set of chromosomes, instead of having the extra Y of the XYY males mentioned previously, he has an extra X chromosome. This condition, like XYY, has been associated with a lower IQ on average. The judge decided that this genetic condition reduced his responsibility below that required to merit a death penalty. In other words, it was decided that it was in Sidney Cornwell’s nature to act in a manner not completing fitting with society’s standards. It is probable that the harboring of variations in genes in the serotonin pathway will also become issues in court cases in the near future.
However, it’s unlikely we’ll adopt a completely biological view of the nature of evil. Sidney Cornwell was not released based on his genetic makeup, his sentence was only reduced. Likewise most of us are will not attest that we are completely beholden to our genetic makeup. Origen, a 2nd century theologian, stated that even if the devil were no more, our desire for food, sex and the like will still make us stray. Temptations are always around us, sometimes more, sometimes less, sometimes made more difficult to resist based on our genetic code, sometimes easier to resist. Even if we do have dark genes, like Wuke NaNa, we are still responsible for our actions.
