One particularly relevant (throughout all of history but perhaps especially as of late) instance of humans running on a faulty and profoundly unreliable hardware might be expressed as follows.
When people start thinking about an issue in moral terms, they tend to stop thinking about it in terms of costs and benefits, dismiss anyone who disagrees with their values as not merely different or even wrong but explicitly “evil”, and desire to harshly punish those they now see as “villains” in order to protect whatever group they have selected as the “victims”. 
Contrary to common wisdom, emphasising empathy is not only unlikely to help in such cases but can exacerbate them and provide additional rationalised justification for them. While the value of understanding how and why people think the way they do cannot be overstated, relying heavily on affective empathy can cause reliance on anecdotal evidence, acting in favour of familiar or similar individuals, and harbour other potentially dangerous biases.  Maintaining impartiality and distance seems to help reasoning about the available facts.
Nothing of this is new or surprising, there is no morale [sic] to this post and I have no readily available solutions for counteracting the outlined issues. If anything, read and think of this as an example of the “This is a reminder that [..]” trope.
The thoughts of all men arise from the darkness. If you are the movement of your soul, and the cause of that movement precedes you, then how could you ever call your thoughts your own? How could you be anything other than a slave to the darkness that comes before?
— R. Scott Bakker, The Darkness that Comes Before