Abstract
In this essay, I will delve into both morality and empathy. The question of nature verses nurture is a huge bone of contention in many societies across the globe and wars have been fought solely on the grounds of people’s beliefs. Man’s actions alone do not tell the whole story. In order to have a greater understanding of our own motivations and propensity towards violence and compassion, we must delve deep into the psyche and subconscious of both ourselves and others.

Humankind or Human-unkind
These days, you would be forgiven for thinking that the whole world has gone insane. With the aid of modern media, we are continually bombarded with stories and images of extreme violence from virtually every corner of the world. Modern media tends to depict people at their worst and as we all know, the main driving factor behind the content put forward by most media outlets is demand. This indicates that if we were given a choice between watching ‘good news stories’ or ‘bad news stories’, the majority of us would choose the latter. Why is this? What does it say about humankind as a whole? Time and again, we hear people of an older generation begin sentences with “In my day…..” or “When I was young……” followed by how everything and everybody was safer, more content and happier in days past. Is this true? Over the course of a single generation, have we really degenerated into a society surrounded by anarchy and inhabited mostly by people void of emotions for their fellow human being? Or, are we just looking at a small part of a much bigger and complex picture? To answer these and other questions, it is necessary to venture into the past in a bid to understand the present and predict the plight of man in the future.
The Emergence of Compassion
These days, the overarching theory on the origin of man is Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution. His theory that all mankind evolved from animals opens up the question of when exactly man became aware of his own actions and how those actions affect others around him.
Until fairly recently, It was assumed and believed that early humans in the form of Neanderthals displayed animalistic tendencies far removed from those of modern man. Many believed that they displayed social characteristics more closely related to apes than man due to their brain size and outward appearance. Neanderthals and other variants that came before them were, and to a large extent still are depicted in movies and books as mindless, violent predators interested only in themselves and their own self preservation. Recent evidence found in caves and elsewhere tells of a different story. Archaeologists and paleontologists from York University who were studying emotions in humans have found evidence of compassion and the emergence of empathy as far back as six million years ago. Neanderthals were taking care of their sick, injured and elderly four hundred thousand years ago and extended their compassion to animals around them and their environment as far back as one hundred and twenty thousand years ago.
Since then, we have evolved into much more creative, critical thinking, complex creatures but an argument could be made about how far empathy and compassion for our fellow human being has progressed. Has empathy and compassion kept up with evolution or has that part of our brain long since reached its maximum capacity? These questions have given anthropologists and philosophers much to think about and no doubt will continue to provide them with food for thought for the foreseeable future and beyond.

Violence throughout the Ages
There is no doubting the fact that technology has made us more capable of mass destruction today than ever before. The evolution of weapons has depersonalized killing, especially in war, and made it possible for people to kill remotely from hundreds or even thousands of miles away. In terms of sheer numbers of people killed in war, the twentieth century seems to have been extremely violent with world war two being the worst of the worst. Or was it? Throughout the ages, the population of the world has been expanding at an astounding rate. When talking about casualties of war, it might be better to talk in terms of the percentage of the world’s population instead of the total number dead. During World War 2, the total number of deaths are estimated at anywhere from forty million to seventy two million. In terms of a percentage of the world’s population, this equates to approximately 1.7%-3.1%. A huge number by any standards but not the highest by far. In vast contrast, The Mongol Conquests of the 12th century claimed up to 17% of the world’s total population at the time. Unlike today, this type of warfare was ‘up close and personal’ as the weaponry in use then consisted of close range projectiles, blunt force trauma weapons and those used to inflict stabbing wounds. It seems that people in those times needed to put a lot more effort into killing than they do today.
In 2013, during the Syrian conflict, images emerged on TV of a rebel commander killing a Syrian soldier, cutting out his heart and eating it. This act resulted in worldwide disgust and condemnation. It prompted many countries to reconsider their backing of the rebel army. In stark contrast, back in the 13th century, Vlad III, Prince of Wallachia AKA Vlad the impaler, was infamous for his excessive cruelty, violence and torture towards his enemies. Estimates put his number of his victims at up to one hundred thousand. Although tyrants before and since have had far higher death counts, Vlad specifically stands out in the history books due to the way in which he dispatched of his victims. He ruled by fear and one of his favorite methods of torture was to impale his enemies on spikes. In one account, an invading Ottoman army was advancing on his position when they came upon thousands of bodies impaled on spikes and rotting. The shock of seeing this was enough to change their minds about invading prompting them to do an ‘about turn’ and retreat.
Nowadays, it is difficult to imagine that any tyrant, no matter how perverted, brutal or disturbed, would attempt to recreate Vlad the impaler’s unmitigated level and display of cruelty and violence. Why is this? Is it because we have mentally evolved past this level of brutality? Individually, many would say “no” but collectively evidence would say “yes”.
Society’s Influence on Our Morality
Humans on the whole are social creatures. Therefore, and to a large extent, we allow society to dictate our actions and beliefs in a bid to conform to the norm. Those who deviate from the norm are deemed to be outcasts and looked down upon. Our brains have evolved to put two things above all others. Those are procreation and self preservation. Both of these require us to be somewhat social. Self preservation dictates that we get along with others. This leads me to believe that in Vlad the impaler’s time, social norms and interrelations between the ruling elites were far removed from what they are today. Sure, there are many atrocities all around the world today, but if anyone dared to openly replicate or outdo Vlad’s level and display of cruelty, there is no doubt that the world’s collective level of morality would demand action against the perpetrator. Governments, dictators, violent psychopaths, serial killers and the average man, all realize that in order to prolong their existence, they must either abstain from deeds deemed immoral by society or mask them with lies and cover ups.

Attempts to Quantify the Morality of Man
Attempts to answer the question of whether man is good or bad have been made and pondered as far back as records have existed. One of the most famous attempts was first carried out in the 1960’s and is known as the ‘Milgram experiment’ (Milgram, 1961). It was conducted by Stanley Milgram, a psychologist from Yale University. In his experiment, Milgram wanted to see how far people would go when inflicting pain and suffering on others. It involved three people, one ran the experiment, one pretended to be a volunteer and receive shocks but was actually an actor hired by Milgram, the third was the actual subject of the experiment and administered the shocks. The main subjects were under the belief that the experiment was to find out about the effects of electric shocks on memory. They were told that their counterparts were to memorize a sequence of pictures and if they got any wrong, the main subject was to administer a shock. Each shock administered was to be more powerful and severe than the last. In total there were thirty switches which went up in increments of fifteen volts per switch beginning at fifteen volts and going all the way up to four hundred and fifty volts. The actor was not actually shocked during the experiment but instead was given a script containing various responses which they were to act out depending on the voltage administered. The actor’s responses ranged from a small grunt at fifteen volts to screaming in pain at higher volts and eventually no response to reflect unconsciousness at the highest voltage which was marked XXX. Both were in separate rooms which meant the subject could hear but not see the actor. Surveys conducted prior to Milgram’s experiment predicted that less than one percent of people would actually go all the way and administer the highest voltage available. Upon completion and analysis of the experiment, it was found that sixty five percent of participants went all the way to the end and administered the strongest shock available in spite of the pleas and screams of pain from the subject’s counterparts.
Although this experiment was based more on obedience and following orders than it was on morality, it was obvious from the results generated that people are more capable and willing to inflict pain upon others than we would have ever imagined. Our propensity towards violence is multiplied even further when someone is in charge and giving orders as in the case with military organizations and militias all across the globe.
Conclusion
Each and every day, we tend to see the worst that humanity has to offer in the news. Media seems to be the driving force behind the opinions of those who think the human race is descending into the bowels of madness and mayhem. However, if equal time was devoted to the good that people do and broadcast in the same way as ‘bad news’, many people’s opinions of the human race would most likely be more balanced. In the end, even though the ‘bad news’ stories tend to show humanity in a more negative than positive light, they are vital to the progress and evolution of morality in that they depict the plight of those less fortunate than ourselves and prompt us into action which inevitably will be the dominant driving force of human nature.
We all have the ability of extreme acts of savagery and brutality, but equally we have the ability of extreme acts of kindness and compassion. Man is neither good nor bad. The majority of the human race tends to toe the line between both worlds, occasionally straying off course for the briefest of spells to one side or the other. The hope for all humanity is that we begin to dwell on the side of good for longer and longer spells as we progress in our plight for a better future.

References
Milgram, S. (1963). journal of abnormal and social psychology. American Psychological Association Retrieved from http://www.stanleymilgram.com/references.php