So what is the difference between a potential and an actual human being?

[Freddy]

Freddy:

C’mon, Gorgias. Don’t make me post a definition of the word. You know what it means and it’s not applicable.

There may well be an emotional attachment

Isn’t that precisely what “empathize” means? Isn’t that precisely what you’re expressing with your “do you empathize with your daughter” example? To feel for a person based on your relationship to them?

I think what’s in play is that you’ve dug in your heels on your side of the argument, and I’ve dug in mine on my side, and neither of us will be budged by the other’s arguments. It doesn’t mean that one or the other of us is being unreasonable… just that we’ve each reached personal certainty on the matter.

Please use the term as it’s defined.

I think I am. I also notice that you’ve decided that it cannot be applied as defined. I disagree.

I agree on the impasse. At least it’ll save us time the next time the subject comes up…

But as to empathy, it’s the ability to understand the emotions of others. You don’t have to feel a positive emotional attachment. Someone can empathise with a person and understand the fear they are feeling and get satisfaction from that. And work to increase the fear. Too often we find that people use it as a synonym for sympathy. They mean something entirely different and are not interchangeable.

 

[blackforest]

The life of a sociopath or a psychopath has no value to his victims . It may be valuable to his parents, but that is no “intrinsic” value.

“Intrinsic” applies to essential nature. It’s there whether or not someone personally believes it’s there.

Bigotry holds that there’s little to know intrinsic value in humans of certain ethnicities, abilities, sexual orientations, or levels of development.

A group of cells is not a person and it’s not possible to empathise with it. By definition.

I’m a group of cells, and I’m a person. How many cells does one need to have before it’s no longer OK to take one’s life?

 

[Gorgias]

But as to empathy, it’s the ability to understand the emotions of others.

Ahh! That’s wonderful! I think having a definition in common really is going to move the conversation along!!!

OK: so, I think there are a couple important points to discuss, now that we know that we’re talking about our subjective ability to understand the emotions of another:

• first, I think your arguments aren’t about “empathy.” They’re about “personal relationship” or, more precisely, the feelings we have for a loved one, and not an understanding of their emotions. So, in a certain sense, I think we need to name this for what it is – not ‘empathy’, but ‘love’.
• But, even if you claim “no, it really is empathy that we’re talking about”, then I think it’s an empty claim. After all, we’re not talking about how I feel – it’s about understanding how an arbitrary person feels. This is where it gets interesting: the context of our discussion is “human value”. So, in this context, we’re asking the question “do I understand how person X feels about their own value as a human?”. See how easy this becomes? Each and every rational person is going to answer ‘I feel that my life is valuable! Very valuable!!’ … so, it doesn’t matter whether it’s your daughter or a stranger: if your measuring stick is ‘empathy’, then you can’t choose one over the other on that basis – both your daughter and the stranger are sitting there thinking “I’m valuable! Save me!”… and if your standard is empathy, then you must answer “I empathize equally with them – they both value their lives highly!”

So… I think we need to drop this “empathy” label, since it clearly has no impact on the discussion. If you want to label it as “personal relationship” or “love”, though, the discussion becomes “the value of a person’s life depends on how much I love them.”

And that’s a horse of a whole 'nother color…

 

[Elf01]

A group of cells. A blastocyst for example. Not a child. One can empathise with a child. Or even a gazelle. But not a group of cells. As you said you could. But it’s not possible by the very definition of the word ‘empathise’.

I was a human blastocyst once, and am glad I wasn’t killed. Therefore I feel no other human blastocysts should be killed.

 

[o_mlly]

I was a human blastocyst once, and am glad I wasn’t killed. Therefore I feel no other human blastocysts should be killed.

A necessary first step before engaging in mass murder is the dehumanization of the intended victims. To wit:

The detailed analysis of Rosenberg’s doctrine will show that his racist anthropology grounds both the belief in the German privilege (section ‘Nordic humanity: identity and culture’) and the dehumanization of the Jews (section ‘Ideological dehumanization: the “Jewish parasite”’).
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21567689.2018.1425144

The privileged and the parasites; reads disgustingly familiar to the arguments of direct abortion advocates.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

A group of cells is not a person and it’s not possible to empathise with it. By definition.

I’m a group of cells, and I’m a person. How many cells does one need to have before it’s no longer OK to take one’s life?

A few cells just after conception? Not a problem for a lot of people. A group of cells just before birth? A problem for almost everyone.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

A group of cells. A blastocyst for example. Not a child. One can empathise with a child. Or even a gazelle. But not a group of cells. As you said you could. But it’s not possible by the very definition of the word ‘empathise’.

I was a human blastocyst once, and am glad I wasn’t killed. Therefore I feel no other human blastocysts should be killed.

That’s a reasonable point. I disagree but I’ll accept that the argument is valid for so many people.

 

[Freddy]

… if your measuring stick is ‘empathy’, then you can’t choose one over the other on that basis – both your daughter and the stranger are sitting there thinking “I’m valuable! Save me!”… and if your standard is empathy, then you must answer “I empathize equally with them – they both value their lives highly!”

That might be true if your measuring stick was only empathy. And (yet again) empathy isn’t isn’t concerned with emotional attachment. It only allows you to understand someone else’s emotional state. What you do with that information is another matter entirely.

So I like your idea of us having common definitions. But then to say ‘But we’ll ignore yours’ kinda defeats that idea.

 

[Gorgias]

It only allows you to understand someone else’s emotional state.

Precisely. Are you suggesting that your daughter (or the other guy caught in the fire with her) are in an emotional state that says “my life has no value; please let me fry to a crisp”?

That’s what’s at stake here.

But then to say ‘But we’ll ignore yours’ kinda defeats that idea.

Nah. I’m not ignoring yours. I just think that, now that I realize what you’re really saying, it’s clear that it doesn’t hold up to scrutiny.

On the other hand, I deeply suspect that what you’re talking about isn’t “empathy”, but rather, “love”. That leads to a completely different discussion. That doesn’t defeat the idea of discourse – it helps us understand each other (and our own selves) more fully!

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

It only allows you to understand someone else’s emotional state.

Precisely. Are you suggesting that your daughter (or the other guy caught in the fire with her) are in an emotional state that says “my life has no value; please let me fry to a crisp”?

That’s what’s at stake here.

But then to say ‘But we’ll ignore yours’ kinda defeats that idea.

Nah. I’m not ignoring yours. I just think that, now that I realize what you’re really saying, it’s clear that it doesn’t hold up to scrutiny.

On the other hand, I deeply suspect that what you’re talking about isn’t “empathy”, but rather, “love”. That leads to a completely different discussion. That doesn’t defeat the idea of discourse – it helps us understand each other (and our own selves) more fully!

No…I’m not talking about love. You can empathise with someone and actually hate them. I really am talking about empathy. It was actually a minor point I was making but it was rejected in such a nonsensical way that I have had to spend time supporting it.

 

[MamaJewel]

I wasn’t the one suggesting that empathy can apply to inanimate objects (such as a piece of wood) as well as people. That’s a comparison that you have made.

So I can attribute feelings of sadness to a person - as I know that person is capable of that emotion. But you say I can also do it to a piece of wood.

Um, you were the one who said that I said you can contribute feelings to a piece of wood.

In reality, I shared the Merriam Webster definitions of empathy and projection because I felt like you attempted to minimize and invalidate o-mlly and goout’s ability to empathize with a human blastocyst.

Here, let me link for you the Merriam Webster definitions of empathize, empathy and projection (projection is a word within the empathize definition, so I included it). Also, Merriam Webster has been around since 1828, almost 200 years doing their word meanings, so this is an established credible source I’m linking to.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/empathize

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/empathy

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/projection

In addition, I had linked a very credible scientific resource on human embryology showing Stage 1 of a new, unique human being. If you looked at the site, you could observe how a human being grows and changes throughout the various embryonic stages. That is how we human beings roll.
Again, we can’t escape our biology.

And can we be clear here? You are suggesting that an embryo outside the womb can be considered differently to one that’s been implanted.

Am I suggesting it or is it a fact?

When dealing with an embryo outside of the womb, doctors have 14 days. Under ethical rules, the study ceases beyond that and that embryo is destroyed.

When dealing with an embryo in the womb, doctors have many more options for direct contact with the embryo, depending on the circumstances and maternal consent.

Like my daughter and I were discussing earlier, how does society ask a doctor to cease study of an embryo at 14 days because it has come into its own being? An embryo that far along is distinguishable from the placental and amniotic cell lines.

While at the same time, society expects a doctor to take the tools of abortion and use them on healthy embryo or fetus to terminate a healthy pregnancy because it is the patient’s desire not to be pregnant?

There is a disconnect and it is becoming philosophically more dangerous each passing day. Sooner or later, doctors will push to study and experiment on older human embryos. In fact, they have already started.
And we won’t have a defense against science running amok because a human embryo will be considered lacking any human qualities that would otherwise keep it protected from a mad scientist’s whims.

 

[Gorgias]

No…I’m not talking about love. You can empathise with someone and actually hate them. I really am talking about empathy.

I was willing to go with your objection… till I examined the definition of the word. You’d described the distinction in terms of the relationships you have – your daughter (‘empathy’) and a stranger (‘not empathy’). If empathy is an understanding of a person’s feelings, and the current context is “a person’s value”, then it’s pretty evident that if you want to claim ‘empathy’, you’re gonna have a hard time explaining why you don’t understand that the stranger values his life highly.

It might have been a minor point… but it’s pretty evident that it doesn’t hold up in the way you want it to.

(I still believe that you value your daughter’s life more than you value a stranger’s. That has nothing to do with ‘empathy’ and everything to do with ‘relationship’, though…)

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

I wasn’t the one suggesting that empathy can apply to inanimate objects (such as a piece of wood) as well as people. That’s a comparison that you have made.

So I can attribute feelings of sadness to a person - as I know that person is capable of that emotion. But you say I can also do it to a piece of wood.

Um, you were the one who said that I said you can contribute feelings to a piece of wood.

Yes, I did. The definition that you used said as much:

2 …the imaginative projection of a subjective state into an object.

So I used a block of wood as an example. Would you like me to use a different inanimate object? Or failing that, perhaps you could stop using definitions with which you disagree.

And you also differentiated between an embryo outside the womb and one that has been implanted implying that they could be treated differently. I’ve just asked you why you think that.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

No…I’m not talking about love. You can empathise with someone and actually hate them. I really am talking about empathy.

I was willing to go with your objection… till I examined the definition of the word. You’d described the distinction in terms of the relationships you have – your daughter (‘empathy’) and a stranger (‘not empathy’).

Where on earth have I said that you can’t empathise with a stranger? I’ve never said or implied any such thing. You can empathise with anyone on the planet. Post a picture of a random person and anyone will be able to empathise with her. And there’s an argument that you can do it with creatures other than ourselves. Certainly with our closest cousins the apes and probably with other animals that appear to share the same emotions as us.

What you cannot do is empathise with something that doesn’t share your emotional characteristics. A dolphin? You probably could. A rodent? Probably not. An insect? Almost certainly not. A group of cells? Most definitely not.

 

[Gorgias]

Where on earth have I said that you can’t empathise with a stranger? I’ve never said or implied any such thing.

Are you certain? Let’s look back at what you’ve written on this very thread:

You obviously can’t empathise with someone unknown

Whoops! Guess you have “said or implied that very thing”!

 

[MamaJewel]

So I used a block of wood as an example. Would you like me to use a different inanimate object? Or failing that, perhaps you could stop using definitions with which you disagree.

Don’t kill the messenger.
It’s Merriam’s definition, not mine.
If anybody wants to project feelings onto an inanimate object, Merriam’s says it’s reasonable. You have expressed to o-mlly and goout that there positions are unreasonable. So what is it?

That said, is a blastocyst inanimate…
semantics will play a role. Some would say a blastocyst does not have “feelings” like we know feelings to be, so yes, it’s inanimate.
Others would say, if the blastocyst is actively processing through to the next stage of human being, it is alive, and therefore animate, and thus not inanimate.

So in the case of o-mlly and goout, they would be empathizing with an animate human being in it’s uni- or multi-cellular stage of being.

A piece of wood is an inanimate object. It is dead. There is no active process, in and of the wood itself, transitioning it through to the next stage of it’s being.

And you also differentiated between an embryo outside the womb and one that has been implanted implying that they could be treated differently. I’ve just asked you why you think that.

Did you read what I wrote in my previous response? A human embryo in a petri dish and an embryo in a human womb are treated differently in medicine. That is fact.

When dealing with an embryo outside of the womb, doctors have 14 days. Under ethical rules, the study ceases beyond that and that embryo is destroyed.

When dealing with an embryo in the womb, doctors have many more options for direct contact with the embryo, depending on the circumstances and maternal consent.

Like my daughter and I were discussing earlier, how does society ask a doctor to cease study of an embryo at 14 days because it has come into its own being? An embryo that far along is distinguishable from the placental and amniotic cell lines.

While at the same time, society expects a doctor to take the tools of abortion and use them on a healthy embryo or fetus to terminate a healthy pregnancy because it is the patient’s desire not to be pregnant?

Please tell me why such a great difference?
Why 14 days of research in the petri dish for that “clump of cells” as you call it.
But up to 24 weeks for elective abortion, per a patient’s choice, for a “clump of cells”?

Can you give a reasonable answer? I can’t. I can only state the facts, which I find to be very odd, in the least.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Where on earth have I said that you can’t empathise with a stranger? I’ve never said or implied any such thing.

Are you certain? Let’s look back at what you’ve written on this very thread:

You obviously can’t empathise with someone unknown

Whoops! Guess you have “said or implied that very thing”!

The point I was making that you need to know that person exists as a person to be able to empathise. Hence ‘post a picture’ and I have someone with whom I can empathise. Hence our indifference to faceless people in need and a greater desire to help if we’re shown individuals in need.

I was going to use an example some months back in a similar thread. I scanned a Delhi newspaper until I found an article about an Indian boy who needed some surgery. His parents couldn’t pay for it and unless someone came up with the money, he was going to die. I was going to use him as the example.

Just knowing something about him meant you could empathise with him and feel his fear. Knowing nothing about him, it’s impossible. But being told about his story makes you think about how valuable he then is compared to…that case of beer I was going to buy myself perhaps.

I didn’t use it because I felt it wrong to use his plight as part of an argument to win a point I was trying to make. Nevertheless, I spent quite some time feeling guilty about personally not trying to help. I could easily afford it. But are we meant to scan newspapers on a daily basis for those in need and help everyone? I’ve spent a few weeks travelling around India and the poverty is a tough thing to deal with. You can’t help everyone so you end up helping almost no-one.

 

[Freddy]

Please tell me why such a great difference?
Why 14 days of research in the petri dish for that “clump of cells” as you call it.
But up to 24 weeks for elective abortion, per a patient’s choice, for a “clump of cells”?

Can you give a reasonable answer? I can’t. I can only state the facts, which I find to be very odd, in the least.

I’ve been trying to explain why for umpteen posts. I’m sorry you don’t understand the point I’ve been making. It’s really not difficult to follow but it seems that some are reluctant to acknowledge an argument for fear of being seen to accept it.

But I really can’t make it any clearer and I’m not going to repeat myself.

 

[chercheur]

What you cannot do is empathise with something that doesn’t share your emotional characteristics. A dolphin? You probably could. A rodent? Probably not. An insect? Almost certainly not. A group of cells? Most definitely not.

I’m not sure if “empathy” is perhaps not the most accurate word, but I actually think @o_mlly’s response in post 202 is very reasonable here. I don’t think emotion has to have anything to do with it. To me, this is sort of the foundation of ethics – recognition of the essential sameness of all life. I don’t think the Catholic position actually acknowledges this in the same way, but it’s still an idea along the same lines. Where it leads in particular situations…well, that’s a way more complicated question.

Of course, empathy actually involving emotions we experience (as in your example in post 261) can be motivation for us to act morally, or influence the way we feel about how we should act. But as far as moral decision-making being affected by how we relate to someone or something else, I don’t think it’s the only factor there.

 

[MamaJewel]

I’ve been trying to explain why for umpteen posts. I’m sorry you don’t understand the point I’ve been making. It’s really not difficult to follow but it seems that some are reluctant to acknowledge an argument for fear of being seen to accept it.

If this is how you’re trying to explain it, you’re terrifying me big time.

His parents couldn’t pay for it and unless someone came up with the money, he was going to die. I was going to use him as the example.

Just knowing something about him meant you could empathise with him and feel his fear. Knowing nothing about him, it’s impossible.

Fie, fie, fie, bad, bad, bad, on any healthcare system that has the capability to save a child’s life but refuses to do so if the parents can’t pay.

I am a student majoring in healthcare info technology.
I get disparities and I don’t have to know anything about any patient that walks through the front door in order to be able to empathize with them. By nature, human beings get sick and they also need preventative care.

Have you ever heard of HIPAA?
It’s the federal law governing a patient’s right to privacy.
I don’t need to know a person’s reason for accessing medical care to empathize with their need to have their privacy protected.

Yes, protection of patient privacy is mandated.
But it wasn’t always legally protected in the way we know it today.
And rest assured, many of those protections came out of the desire for medical professionals to keep the mental, financial, and spiritual well-being of perfect strangers they would never meet in mind.

Are you following what I am saying?

People can empathize with another human being just because we are human.
In fact, there was a time in recent history when most humans did. Even with all the ugly wars and such, at the end of the day, civilized human beings came together and compiled lists on human rights.

I can’t understand, for the life of me, why you believe that we have to know anything about a human being to be able to empathize with them.

If people want to collectively minimize and deny human rights and human capacity, that is their choice. But I’ve noticed that it’s these same collective groups of people who get their proverbial panties in a knot when another group does the very same to them.

In other words, I acknowledge your argument, but it falls flat on its face at the end of the day simply because those who minimize and disregard others are the very ones who scream the loudest when their perceived rights is violated.

I hope you get what I am saying.

Either human rights are human rights at every stage of being human, or they aren’t human rights at all. No more cherry picking on a potential human vs actual human. Science shows us what we are as living, metabolizing human beings from our earliest zygote stages and on.

I can’t help if some people refuse to acknowledge the scientific truth. In the meantime, I will continue to push for ethics in medicine and in other human endeavors as well.