1. Where is the empathy for aggression? 

Blogger's thoughts: If we want to be consistent with where we direct our empathy, then we should be very careful about what that means. If the foundation of our empathetic response is an ethical principle that aims to include individuals who cannot help themselves, including those predisposed to certain undesirable traits, then maybe a predisposition to aggression should be treated with the same seriousness and compassion as a predisposition to depression. 

The etiological factors of depression i.e. adverse life conditions, experiencing trauma, biological predisposition, loss etc, largely overlap with those of aggression. Just as males are highly susceptible to depression, they are also highly prone to aggressive behaviour. However, one condition is taken more seriously and viewed more favorably than the other. This brings into question the cause of this inconsistency.  

Interestingly, the biological underpinnings of aggression are better understood relative to those of depression. This, I suppose, can largely be attributed to the phylogenetic continuity of aggression among animals, particularly mammals, as it serves a crucial role in survival. The same cannot be said of depression, which although not unique to humans, seems to be restricted to certain classes of animals. As such, why do we ascribe full moral agency to individuals exhibiting aggressive behaviour while displaying greater empathy towards those experiencing depression? What are the roots for the stigma on aggression? 

As the scientific literature suggests, a person can suffer from aggression. Through no fault of their own, a combination of genetic predispositions and environmental factors can set the stage for the manifestation of this trait. Should societal attitudes towards aggression change, and be more empathetic? What would that change look like? Is depression met with less stigma than aggression?