3 ms·

Reduced amount of empathy for who? The victim of the crime, or the suspect that might be spending time in jail?

John23832 9y ago
A judge/jury should never involve empathy for the victim, imo. Empathy for the victim should be baked into sentencing guidelines. Though I guess you could say the same about the perp. Eh... don't practice any empathy. Practice rationality and common sense.
- rhizome 9y ago
  don't practice any empathy Seriously? At the very least I hope you're only narrowly applying this to the jury system, but even then...
  - John23832 9y ago
    I know on the surface it sounds bad, but yea. And yes, this applies solely to the situation I gave.
    - rhizome 9y ago
      I know on the surface it sounds bad, but yea. What is the depth that makes it sound good?
      - John23832 9y ago
        Because people often think that acting rationally and empathetically are two distinct actions, and that's not the case. For example, someone gets caught with some crumbs of weed. You could make the empathetic argument for fining that person rather than jail time because, "They're not hurting anyone. It's just a little weed.", so on and so forth. Or you could make the logical/rational argument that the punishment and what stems from it (housing a person in jail, the economic aspects of ruining this person's life for what really is a victimless crime) does not fit the crime.
        rhizome 9y ago
        Shorter: "logic is not the same as truth." Mundane corollary: "You can make a case for anything."
      - goo 9y ago
        I know how excited we all are to board the moral outrage train, but there's an actual answer to that: http://www.vox.com/conversations/2017/1/19/14266230/empathy-morality-ethics-psychology-science-compassion-paul-bloom http://www.vox.com/conversations/2017/1/19/14266230/empathy-...
  - gnicholas 9y ago
    I don't particularly agree with him, but Yale psychology professor Paul Bloom wrote a book called Against Empathy [1]. I think his definition of empathy is narrower than what many people think of when they think of empathy, so in some ways his argument struck me as a battle against a straw man. But TBH I haven't read the whole book (just coverage of it, and some of his related work). There's a counterpoint here [2]. 1: http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2016/12/paul-bloom-makes-a-weirdly-convincing-anti-empathy-argument.html http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2016/12/paul-bloom-makes-a-weir... 2: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/good-thinking/201310/why-paul-bloom-is-wrong-about-empathy-and-morality https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/good-thinking/201310/wh...
- logfromblammo 9y ago
  That pushes the burden of having empathy for anyone onto the legislature writing the laws. And they decide for all cases, independent of potentially mitigating factors. As I personally believe that a legislature is a juicy target for sociopaths seeking power and impunity, and therefore likely to demonstrate less empathy than the general population, I'd rather leave the cold rationality for writing the laws, and the empathy for interpreting them in a just manner. Practice rationality in determining the facts of the case. Practice empathy in deciding whether to convict or acquit, and in the sentencing for the convicted. Cold rationality is how Jean Valjean gets 20 years in the galleys for stealing bread.
  - John23832 9y ago
    >That pushes the burden of having empathy for anyone onto the legislature writing the laws. And they decide for all cases, independent of potentially mitigating factors. The legislature is supposed to be burdened with this. Empathy for the people living with us is the reason why we all left the wild and came together in the first place. > Practice rationality in determining the facts of the case. Practice empathy in deciding whether to convict or acquit, and in the sentencing for the convicted. I think I disagree. Once we've come to the facts of the case, with the proper (empathetic) laws, it just becomes a matter of execution (no pun intended). >Cold rationality is how Jean Valjean gets 20 years in the galleys for stealing bread. Don't think what you're saying is falling on deaf ears. I definitely get it. I'm a black man in the US. I know what strict mandatory minimums and culturally deaf laws do to people. However, I think that if we fix the laws, the rest shakes out.
    - manarth 9y ago
      Empathy for the people living with us is the reason why we all left the wild Archaeological records indicate empathy amongst neanderthals [1]. It's been with us a while. [1] http://www.evoanth.net/2012/04/26/caring-neanderthals/ http://www.evoanth.net/2012/04/26/caring-neanderthals/
      - John23832 9y ago
- allengeorge 9y ago
  Oh - of course. Which reminds me of this quote by Anatole France: "In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread"

A judge/jury should never involve empathy for the victim, imo. Empathy for the victim should be baked into sentencing guidelines. Though I guess you could say the same about the perp. Eh... don't practice any empathy. Practice rationality and common sense.

rhizome 9y ago
don't practice any empathy Seriously? At the very least I hope you're only narrowly applying this to the jury system, but even then...
- John23832 9y ago
  I know on the surface it sounds bad, but yea. And yes, this applies solely to the situation I gave.
  - rhizome 9y ago
    I know on the surface it sounds bad, but yea. What is the depth that makes it sound good?
    - John23832 9y ago
      Because people often think that acting rationally and empathetically are two distinct actions, and that's not the case. For example, someone gets caught with some crumbs of weed. You could make the empathetic argument for fining that person rather than jail time because, "They're not hurting anyone. It's just a little weed.", so on and so forth. Or you could make the logical/rational argument that the punishment and what stems from it (housing a person in jail, the economic aspects of ruining this person's life for what really is a victimless crime) does not fit the crime.
      - rhizome 9y ago
        Shorter: "logic is not the same as truth." Mundane corollary: "You can make a case for anything."
    - goo 9y ago
      I know how excited we all are to board the moral outrage train, but there's an actual answer to that: http://www.vox.com/conversations/2017/1/19/14266230/empathy-morality-ethics-psychology-science-compassion-paul-bloom http://www.vox.com/conversations/2017/1/19/14266230/empathy-...
- gnicholas 9y ago
  I don't particularly agree with him, but Yale psychology professor Paul Bloom wrote a book called Against Empathy [1]. I think his definition of empathy is narrower than what many people think of when they think of empathy, so in some ways his argument struck me as a battle against a straw man. But TBH I haven't read the whole book (just coverage of it, and some of his related work). There's a counterpoint here [2]. 1: http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2016/12/paul-bloom-makes-a-weirdly-convincing-anti-empathy-argument.html http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2016/12/paul-bloom-makes-a-weir... 2: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/good-thinking/201310/why-paul-bloom-is-wrong-about-empathy-and-morality https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/good-thinking/201310/wh...
logfromblammo 9y ago
That pushes the burden of having empathy for anyone onto the legislature writing the laws. And they decide for all cases, independent of potentially mitigating factors. As I personally believe that a legislature is a juicy target for sociopaths seeking power and impunity, and therefore likely to demonstrate less empathy than the general population, I'd rather leave the cold rationality for writing the laws, and the empathy for interpreting them in a just manner. Practice rationality in determining the facts of the case. Practice empathy in deciding whether to convict or acquit, and in the sentencing for the convicted. Cold rationality is how Jean Valjean gets 20 years in the galleys for stealing bread.
- John23832 9y ago
  >That pushes the burden of having empathy for anyone onto the legislature writing the laws. And they decide for all cases, independent of potentially mitigating factors. The legislature is supposed to be burdened with this. Empathy for the people living with us is the reason why we all left the wild and came together in the first place. > Practice rationality in determining the facts of the case. Practice empathy in deciding whether to convict or acquit, and in the sentencing for the convicted. I think I disagree. Once we've come to the facts of the case, with the proper (empathetic) laws, it just becomes a matter of execution (no pun intended). >Cold rationality is how Jean Valjean gets 20 years in the galleys for stealing bread. Don't think what you're saying is falling on deaf ears. I definitely get it. I'm a black man in the US. I know what strict mandatory minimums and culturally deaf laws do to people. However, I think that if we fix the laws, the rest shakes out.
  - manarth 9y ago
    Empathy for the people living with us is the reason why we all left the wild Archaeological records indicate empathy amongst neanderthals [1]. It's been with us a while. [1] http://www.evoanth.net/2012/04/26/caring-neanderthals/ http://www.evoanth.net/2012/04/26/caring-neanderthals/
    - John23832 9y ago
allengeorge 9y ago
Oh - of course. Which reminds me of this quote by Anatole France: "In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread"