Hitler’s DNA and the problem of evil

Historians, and the world in general, have been in agreement that Adolf Hitler was a bad man who committed heinous deeds. But now that his DNA has been analysed (from a scrap of fabric stained with his blood found in his bunker), there are fresh speculations as to whether his disabilities, rather than his choices, prompted him to act with such evil intent and consequences.

DNA

The DNA test revealed, according to geneticists Alex J. Kay and Turi King, that Hitler was probably autistic, had ADHD (attention deficit disorder) was bipolar and likely to have been schizophrenic. He also had Kallmann’s syndrome, a disorder which affects the genitals and impairs puberty. The squaddies’ rude ditty that “Hitler/has only got one b***” was not wrong.

But does this mean he was not responsible for the evil he perpetrated – the mass murders of Jew, gypsies, homosexuals and all those perceived to be his opponents? Was his madness driving him towards these unspeakable crimes, rather than his free will?

Although DNA has brought a new aspect to this discourse, this has long been a debate among moral philosophers. Are we to be blamed for the bad things we do, or are we just “born that way”?

One of the reasons why the Catholic Church objected to Freudianism was that psycho-analysis seemed to excuse sin – offering a psychological, rather than a moral, reason for differentiating between right and wrong. The growing influence of genetics has taken this a stage further with the suggestion that a physical condition can cause an individual to have no sense of right and wrong.

Prof. Simon Baron-Cohen of Cambridge University says that ‘going from biology to behaviour is a bit of a jump’”

In law, there has always been a plea of “criminal insanity”: but the offender is still punished for his actions by incarceration.

Other geneticists have criticised the Hitler DNA findings as “reductionist”. Prof. Simon Baron-Cohen of Cambridge University says that “going from biology to behaviour is a bit of a jump”. There are many different factors at play in any individual’s make-up.

Britain’s National Autistic Society has called the Hitler DNA “a cheap stunt” which could stigmatise autistic people.

Predisposition

Christian doctrine has always taught we have free will to choose between right and wrong, with the added provision of possessing “an informed conscience”.

But the analysis of Adolf Hitler’s genetics will surely add to the debates of whether our genes predispose us to behave in a certain way; as well as the profound question that has always troubled philosophers – the nature of evil.

***

On November 11, RTÉ ran a fitting documentary on the life of President Michael D. Higgins as he retired from office; it was mentioned that Michael D. and his wife Sabina first met at a party in my (chaotic) Dublin flat in 1969.

I recall how Michael D. was accompanied to the said soirée by a politician then considered a real high-flyer – the handsome and clever Labour TD Michael O’Leary (not to be confused with the Ryanair chap of the same name.)

O’Leary TD seemed to have all the gifts, and people would have then predicted that he would ascend to the glittering prizes of political life, rather than Michael D.

Michael O’Leary became a successful leader of the Labour party, but his career was marred by several ill-judgements, rooted, it was said, in his low boredom threshold and inclination to engage in party spats. He eventually joined Fine Gael, possibly influenced by his alliance with Conor Cruise O’Brien; then his political career faltered and he became a district judge, after studying for the bar.

He died in 2006, aged 70, while swimming near Biarritz, although he was already afflicted by Parkinson’s disease and had been treated for cancer.

I encountered Michael, by chance, on a train in the 1990s. He remained amiable and didn’t seem bitter about the fact that his brilliant political promise hadn’t been fulfilled. Fate (or character?) decreed that his companion at my party was the one who would reach the top.

***

I was struck down by a chest infection recently which confined me to the chaise-longue for rest and recuperation while the coughing and wheezing ran its course. It made me consider that there is a usefulness in experiencing a period of illness (if it is not too debilitating): it gives you time to reflect, and an excuse to do nothing physical for a time.

“The devil makes work for idle hands,” is a phrase I heard much of in my early years: indolence was considered, if not a vice, then certainly a failing. But there’s a time to stop and stare, and a bout of bad health has that halting effect.  Being unwell gives you permission to let go.

Illness also makes you realise the blessing of good – or even fair – health, and, above all, of energy.  It’s energy that propels action; and lassitude which drains the energy of life.