Context matters. Seems the problem is people that are highly empathetic to their “in group” but low empathy to the “out group”. Honestly it’s a puzzling trend to me.
I think it still happens. One of the standard parental admonitions, when your child has been less than friendly to another is: ‘How would you like it if someone did that to you!’
Why – if empathy is simply the capacity to understand someone else’s feelings – is empathy preferable to moral objectivity?
That’s kind of the point of the OP, that empathy can just as easily lead to hatred, as it can to compassion, depending upon one’s subjective bias as to the motives and intentions of others. We view the virtuosity of others’ actions differently depending upon whether they’re for us, or against us.
nowhere near at the same rate, which is the point
No , peer to peer learning is best way to learn empathy since empathy is itself a peer to peer skill. Authoritative entity is worst teacher of empathy its nature is compulsory not voluntary. Forced empathy is an oxymoron.
Because even an objective moral position would need a basis in reason for it to hold. ‘It is written’ doesn’t cut much ice I’m afraid. ‘It is written because…’ is more likely to gain some traction.Freddy:
Why – if empathy is simply the capacity to understand someone else’s feelings – is empathy preferable to moral objectivity?
Why are feelings, either our own or someone else’s, the determiners of any moral decision or action?
You say yourself that empathy could lead to “disgust, anger, indifference…very many emotions.” If that is so, why cloud moral issues by piling on more emotional baggage?
Why not objectively – without reference to emotional murkiness that might distort the clarity of what is at issue – base responses to morally relevant issues and situations on the dispassionate clarity of truth by rational analysis untrammelled by the clouds of emotion?
No real argument there. But I can’t consider my example as forced empathy. It’s an ability. We all have it (except psychopaths). You can’t force someone to feel as others do. But you can remind them that they can and to ruminate on it.Freddy:
nowhere near at the same rate, which is the point
No , peer to peer learning is best way to learn empathy since empathy is itself a peer to peer skill. Authoritative entity is worst teacher of empathy its nature is compulsory not voluntary. Forced empathy is an oxymoron.
Yes, an ability to surrender to authority. And it has been mastered by those who grew up with those type of parents. They frequently don’t challenge any higher authority. Why would they? If they dared to as children, it meant removal of the most basic needs (parental love biggest of all). Thus, as adults no challenge to authority is permitted, the inner child screams out and becomes terrified.
Empathy can’t be classed as a problem any more than feeling hungry can be classed as a problem. It’s just an ability that we posess. But bias is definitely a major problem. Again, it’s entirely natural - we’re biased towards our ‘in-group’ and against our ‘out-group’. It evolved to keep small societies together and protect your society against someone else’s.Freddy:
That’s kind of the point of the OP, that empathy can just as easily lead to hatred, as it can to compassion, depending upon one’s subjective bias as to the motives and intentions of others. We view the virtuosity of others’ actions differently depending upon whether they’re for us, or against us.
Thus the title…is empathy the problem? Or is it our biases that are the problem? And how easy is it to form those biases, or alternately, to overcome those biases?
Someone once said, “It’s easier to fool people, than to convince them that they’ve been fooled.”
This is a straw man. No intelligent Catholic would claim that “it is written” by itself is the reason we ought to act morally. “It is written,” is a proxy for the underlying Creator of the universe, being purposeful and the source of all existence, the ground of Being Itself, determines that reality carries within its very nature a fundamental moral dimension. It is from that moral dimension fundamental to the nature of existence that we derive moral principles.HarryStotle:
Because even an objective moral position would need a basis in reason for it to hold. ‘It is written’ doesn’t cut much ice I’m afraid. ‘It is written because…’ is more likely to gain some traction.Freddy:
Why – if empathy is simply the capacity to understand someone else’s feelings – is empathy preferable to moral objectivity?
Why are feelings, either our own or someone else’s, the determiners of any moral decision or action?
You say yourself that empathy could lead to “disgust, anger, indifference…very many emotions.” If that is so, why cloud moral issues by piling on more emotional baggage?
Why not objectively – without reference to emotional murkiness that might distort the clarity of what is at issue – base responses to morally relevant issues and situations on the dispassionate clarity of truth by rational analysis untrammelled by the clouds of emotion?
Difficult to parse that to see if you agree that there should be concrete reasons for any moral position. So I guess we can cut to the quick…Freddy:
This is a straw man. No intelligent Catholic would claim that “it is written” by itself is the reason we ought to act morally. “It is written,” is a proxy for the underlying Creator of the universe, being purposeful and the source of all existence, the ground of Being Itself, determines that reality carries within its very nature a fundamental moral dimension. It is from that moral dimension fundamental to the nature of existence that we derive moral principles.HarryStotle:
Because even an objective moral position would need a basis in reason for it to hold. ‘It is written’ doesn’t cut much ice I’m afraid. ‘It is written because…’ is more likely to gain some traction.Freddy:
Why – if empathy is simply the capacity to understand someone else’s feelings – is empathy preferable to moral objectivity?
Why are feelings, either our own or someone else’s, the determiners of any moral decision or action?
You say yourself that empathy could lead to “disgust, anger, indifference…very many emotions.” If that is so, why cloud moral issues by piling on more emotional baggage?
Why not objectively – without reference to emotional murkiness that might distort the clarity of what is at issue – base responses to morally relevant issues and situations on the dispassionate clarity of truth by rational analysis untrammelled by the clouds of emotion?
The nature of good comes from the nature of existence, which isn’t mere blind, purposeless matter.
In fact, my neighbors lawn mower is killing the Earth via Climate Change since he refuses to use an electric one and still uses one that blows toxic fumes all over Mother Earth, causing her further damage. We need to cease this barbaric act! Not only does it decapitate the glorious roots of Mother Nature but it further kills Mother Nature with these toxic fumes. Let’s end Climate Change denial and take the lawn mowers out of circulation. Anyone opposed to taking this lawn mower out of circulation is a Climate Change denier.