6 ms·

For some reason your comment seems incredibly haughty to me. By all means, enlighten me. Why is it wrong to kill a man? My personal reason is that I am an empa

For some reason your comment seems incredibly haughty to me. By all means, enlighten me. Why is it wrong to kill a man? My personal reason is that I am an empathic person.

simula67 8y ago
> Why is it wrong to kill a man? It is not wrong to kill a man. It is only wrong to murder a man > My personal reason is that I am an empathic person. Lots of things can override empathy. Anger, jealousy, ambition etc. 'Do whatever you feel like' does not sound like much of a moral framework to me
- brobdingnagians 8y ago
  I think that's a good point that lots of things can override empathy. It would require something much stronger to not be overridden by _any_ circumstance encountered in life. (Even being married can be difficult, and it requires a strong belief in marriage and the value of it, to continue working at it and seeking the joy you believe you can have.) Religion with a belief in immortality and eternal justice with eternal possibility of happiness gives a very strong reason to live a certain way in order to get eternal happiness (which is, in some ways, an extension of the idea that living a certain way in this life brings happiness, cooperation, prosperity, industriousness).
  - the_af 8y ago
    I'm unconvinced: religious beliefs seem to get overridden all the time. Religious people can be thieves, murderers, adulterers, and engage in all sort of practices frowned up by their respective religions. Religion offers no stronger assurance than random personal beliefs or empathy.
    - trashtester 8y ago
      I don't know. From my point of view, it seems that empathy-oriented morality tends to divide people into an in-group (worthy of empathy) and an out-group(not worthy). In a situation where there is a perceived conflict of interest between the worthy and the not worthy, this can become quite murderous. Within in-groups, though, empathy is very useful if not overdone. You can have too much, though. My wife is pretty much unable to rinse the wounds when the children hurt themself, because of the short term pain an antiseptic causes when applied. A rule based ethics can, at least in some cases, be more resilient to these issues. Of course, rule based ethics can be of the type "sodomites shall be stoned". And below all that: What values do we use when evaluating what ethical systems are better, and where do THOSE values come from?
      - the_af 8y ago
        You have a point about rule based ethics. But none of this helps religion-based values in particular. Atheists can and do reason out of rules too; and both atheists and religious people make decisions out of empathy too. What you describe about in-groups and out-groups happens all the time with religious communities. Even people sharing the same religion suddenly become "unworthy". > And below all that: What values do we use when evaluating what ethical systems are better, and where do THOSE values come from? Precisely. If you don't believe in any gods, where do you suppose religious value systems come from? :)
        mercer 8y ago
        I think the 'atheist society' experiment is too young to jump to conclusions quite yet.
        the_af 8y ago
        But religious society isn't young, and we can already observe how it failed to prevent theft and murder. More importantly, if you don't believe in any god, religious and secular value systems must at the very least have a common root (which isn't a god). How atheists behave can also be observed now, regardless of how young the "society": some commit crimes, some don't. Some follow strict value systems, some don't. Some are empathic, some aren't. Some are monsters, some are heroes. Some are flawed, common people. Just like religious people ;)
- trashtester 8y ago
  Why is it wrong to murder a man? Does the statement hold under all conditions? For instance, say that a single man legally controls all food in an isolated village, and he is not willing to share. Maybe he is a disgusting man that nobody likes, and your children are about to starve to death. Is it ok to kill that man, in order to prevent your children from starving to death, by taking his food? Whether the answer is yes or no, what id the reasoning behind the answer? Regardless of the answer, I don't judge. I consider both answers valid. Extreme situations like this, just like the gulags, cuts away all moral superstructures and pretences, and reveals your true values. For one person "not murdering" can be fundamental, for another "ensure the survival of your childeren" can be more important.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- the_af 8y ago
  > Lots of things can override empathy Yes, lots of things can override empathy in some people. Likewise, lots of things can override religious beliefs in some people, making them kill another person. So what's the conclusion? There's almost no moral framework that cannot be overridden for some people under certain circumstances. I've seen no evidence religion is a stronger foundation for principles.
  - simula67 8y ago
    > Yes, lots of things can override empathy in some people. Likewise, lots of things can override religious beliefs in some people, making them kill another person. So what's the conclusion? That they are both very useful in restraining murder ?
    - the_af 8y ago
      Yes, both are useful, but more importantly, neither can prevent murder. So while it's true that "lots of things can override empathy", it's also true lots of things can override religious beliefs (not to mention when those beliefs are used to justify the murder). Having empathy for others is not the same as doing "whatever you feel like", by the way.
      - simula67 8y ago
        Empathy is an emotion and is not sufficient to restrain murder. You should use everything you can to restrain it. It is not either or. That is my point. Plenty of irreligious mass murderers out there by the way
        the_af 8y ago
        Empathy can be sufficient to restrain murder, but sometimes fails. Religious sentiments can also succeed at preventing murder, but many times fail as well. You can indeed use every tool at your disposal to restrain murder -- well, any tool you can believe in, of course. > Plenty of irreligious mass murderers out there by the way Yes, there are irreligious murderers. Also plenty of religious murderers, and lots of nasty actions have been committed in the name of religion. So what conclusion can we draw from it, other than "both religious and irreligious value systems have been shown to be not enough to prevent murder"? You single out empathy, but in fact every value system fails.
trashtester 8y ago
Empathy is part of agreeableness, one of 5 "big" personality traits. It is perhaps the biggest predictor that a person has a left-leaning political view. In the article, communits party workers were listed as the first group to lose their humanity. Personally, I don't believe in any objective source of morality, but rather that morality is a superstructure on top of the more fundamental values of individuals in a given population/culture. If everyone followed their deepest values directly, it would lead to a chaotic society, so morality represents a compromize that we may be willing to follow if others also do so. The degree to which we follow this morality, depends on the degree to which it promotes our deeper value systems. If our environment changes, our actions will (slowly or quickly) adapt. At the most fundamental level, I think these values are expressions of selfish replicators (genes and memes), as well as some random elements. Unless a moral axiom is actually within this bottom level value system (which could be the case for religious values), we will be willing to break them, if the right situation occurs. Generally, we are not fully aware of these fundamental values. It is only when we are experiencing extreme conditions that we meet our true selves in this way. When we do this, we are often surprised, and sometimes we refuse to even believe it, which can be a cause of PTSD. Note that everything above is descriptive. This is my hypothesis, it does not hold any value judgement, and is not intended to. From introspection, I don't think "do not kill" is part of my most fundamental values. I think the reason I have that value, is a result of how my deeper values interact with a western european society, and that it might change if I lived under very different circumstances. On the other hand, I think I have an appetite for (scientific) truth, even when brutal, that may very well be fundamental.
finnthehuman 8y ago
The role of empathy in decision making is allowing us to understand the other, and bring their mental state into our own larger decision making process. Empathy in and of itself is not a decision making tool. I suspect you really do have firmer grounding for your position, but haven't performed the introspection necessary to figure out the boundaries of your position, or how to articulate them. And that's fine. Many people have the luxury to never be tested. If we take the reductive approach of only using empathy, we wind up doing whatever it is that the other wants. Such a system has no room for doing what we think is the right response to the situation, because it has no mechanism for determining responses beyond those considered by the other. It leaves no room for personal self-determination because it has no way to evaluate our wants against another's. And has no way to handle a situation where you empathize with two people holding conflicting desires. I know I'm unfairly stretching an idea past it's breaking point, but that's sort of my point... There must be a higher-order decision making process. Frankly, I consider the way people frequently speak of "empathy" as an attempt to hide that process. Hiding it from just me, the world, or maybe from themselves too.
- trashtester 8y ago
  Well put. Especially the last part. "empathy" when used by certain groups, especially SJWs, can assume an almost religous ideal, very similar to "faith" used by Christians or Moslims. For religous people, experiencing doubt is turn into a test of faith, and if you pass the test, you are seen as extra virtous. For SJW, if you really feel hateful and resentful towards someone (ie the opposite of empathy), you can reclaim your virtue by showing even more empathy for the people that are seen as victimized or oppressed by the person or group they hate or resent. Similarly, "empathy" can be used by fundamentalists to justify pretty much the same things that religious fundamentalists can justify by "faith". For instance: - to display virtue, often with the intent to gain status - to separate in-group from out-group (often with poor justification) - to punish members of the out-group when they "transgress" - dehumanize the outgroup. Sometimes to the extent that they do not deserve to be treated according to ethical rules. - to deny or make taboo science that contradict their dogma (sociobiology, iq research) - to classify certain positions as heretical or evil (if you believe X is a fact, even if it is a proven fact, you are a nazi, and must be neutralized) - to promote ideas that contradict scientific facts when it promotes the "cause" (ie tabula rasa, ghost in the machine)
ramblerman 8y ago
> My personal reason is that I am an empathic person. But is that a result of your cultural upbringing, or something innate. I would argue the former, in which case culture and religion actually do matter more than we think. Would you be an emphatic person if you grew up in a different time and place.
- trashtester 8y ago
  I think it has been shown to be a fact that both culture and genes affect this. Psychopathy has a large genetic component, and strips a person of most empathy. At intermediate levels, we call it sociopathy, etc. For the cultural aspect, there are two interpretations: 1) Humans (non psychopaths) are born to feel empathy, and you only take that away if you inflict harm on the person 2) Humans (non psychopaths) are born with some latent capacity to develop empathy, but it must be actively taught in order to develop From my experience as a father, it seems like empathy develops without much actual teaching. Maybe teaching it can boost it, but at least for my children that has not been needed so far. But empathy is very definitive limits. It is much easier to feel it towards smaller children, cute pets, etc, and not very easy for children to feel empathy towards authority figures, scary/ugly animals. Also, when hungry, sleepy, scared or angry empathy seems to vanish. I think this is typical. Nobody feels empathy for everyone all the time. And it is when dealing with people that you DON'T feel empathy for, that you are most likely to break ethical rules or convensions. And with (my) children, teaching them to behave morally when not feeling empathy, that requires dedicated effort from the parent.
Koshkin 8y ago
Being empathic to an enemy soldier running towards you pointing the bayonet at you would get you killed.
- the_af 8y ago
  ...but empathy might help prevent the war and that particular situation in the first place?

For some reason your comment seems incredibly haughty to me. By all means, enlighten me. Why is it wrong to kill a man? My personal reason is that I am an empathic person.

simula67 8y ago

> Why is it wrong to kill a man? It is not wrong to kill a man. It is only wrong to murder a man > My personal reason is that I am an empathic person. Lots of things can override empathy. Anger, jealousy, ambition etc. 'Do whatever you feel like' does not sound like much of a moral framework to me

brobdingnagians 8y ago
I think that's a good point that lots of things can override empathy. It would require something much stronger to not be overridden by _any_ circumstance encountered in life. (Even being married can be difficult, and it requires a strong belief in marriage and the value of it, to continue working at it and seeking the joy you believe you can have.) Religion with a belief in immortality and eternal justice with eternal possibility of happiness gives a very strong reason to live a certain way in order to get eternal happiness (which is, in some ways, an extension of the idea that living a certain way in this life brings happiness, cooperation, prosperity, industriousness).
- the_af 8y ago
  I'm unconvinced: religious beliefs seem to get overridden all the time. Religious people can be thieves, murderers, adulterers, and engage in all sort of practices frowned up by their respective religions. Religion offers no stronger assurance than random personal beliefs or empathy.
  - trashtester 8y ago
    I don't know. From my point of view, it seems that empathy-oriented morality tends to divide people into an in-group (worthy of empathy) and an out-group(not worthy). In a situation where there is a perceived conflict of interest between the worthy and the not worthy, this can become quite murderous. Within in-groups, though, empathy is very useful if not overdone. You can have too much, though. My wife is pretty much unable to rinse the wounds when the children hurt themself, because of the short term pain an antiseptic causes when applied. A rule based ethics can, at least in some cases, be more resilient to these issues. Of course, rule based ethics can be of the type "sodomites shall be stoned". And below all that: What values do we use when evaluating what ethical systems are better, and where do THOSE values come from?
    - the_af 8y ago
      You have a point about rule based ethics. But none of this helps religion-based values in particular. Atheists can and do reason out of rules too; and both atheists and religious people make decisions out of empathy too. What you describe about in-groups and out-groups happens all the time with religious communities. Even people sharing the same religion suddenly become "unworthy". > And below all that: What values do we use when evaluating what ethical systems are better, and where do THOSE values come from? Precisely. If you don't believe in any gods, where do you suppose religious value systems come from? :)
      - mercer 8y ago
        I think the 'atheist society' experiment is too young to jump to conclusions quite yet.
        the_af 8y ago
        But religious society isn't young, and we can already observe how it failed to prevent theft and murder. More importantly, if you don't believe in any god, religious and secular value systems must at the very least have a common root (which isn't a god). How atheists behave can also be observed now, regardless of how young the "society": some commit crimes, some don't. Some follow strict value systems, some don't. Some are empathic, some aren't. Some are monsters, some are heroes. Some are flawed, common people. Just like religious people ;)
trashtester 8y ago
Why is it wrong to murder a man? Does the statement hold under all conditions? For instance, say that a single man legally controls all food in an isolated village, and he is not willing to share. Maybe he is a disgusting man that nobody likes, and your children are about to starve to death. Is it ok to kill that man, in order to prevent your children from starving to death, by taking his food? Whether the answer is yes or no, what id the reasoning behind the answer? Regardless of the answer, I don't judge. I consider both answers valid. Extreme situations like this, just like the gulags, cuts away all moral superstructures and pretences, and reveals your true values. For one person "not murdering" can be fundamental, for another "ensure the survival of your childeren" can be more important.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
the_af 8y ago
> Lots of things can override empathy Yes, lots of things can override empathy in some people. Likewise, lots of things can override religious beliefs in some people, making them kill another person. So what's the conclusion? There's almost no moral framework that cannot be overridden for some people under certain circumstances. I've seen no evidence religion is a stronger foundation for principles.
- simula67 8y ago
  > Yes, lots of things can override empathy in some people. Likewise, lots of things can override religious beliefs in some people, making them kill another person. So what's the conclusion? That they are both very useful in restraining murder ?
  - the_af 8y ago
    Yes, both are useful, but more importantly, neither can prevent murder. So while it's true that "lots of things can override empathy", it's also true lots of things can override religious beliefs (not to mention when those beliefs are used to justify the murder). Having empathy for others is not the same as doing "whatever you feel like", by the way.
    - simula67 8y ago
      Empathy is an emotion and is not sufficient to restrain murder. You should use everything you can to restrain it. It is not either or. That is my point. Plenty of irreligious mass murderers out there by the way
      - the_af 8y ago
        Empathy can be sufficient to restrain murder, but sometimes fails. Religious sentiments can also succeed at preventing murder, but many times fail as well. You can indeed use every tool at your disposal to restrain murder -- well, any tool you can believe in, of course. > Plenty of irreligious mass murderers out there by the way Yes, there are irreligious murderers. Also plenty of religious murderers, and lots of nasty actions have been committed in the name of religion. So what conclusion can we draw from it, other than "both religious and irreligious value systems have been shown to be not enough to prevent murder"? You single out empathy, but in fact every value system fails.

trashtester 8y ago

Empathy is part of agreeableness, one of 5 "big" personality traits. It is perhaps the biggest predictor that a person has a left-leaning political view. In the article, communits party workers were listed as the first group to lose their humanity. Personally, I don't believe in any objective source of morality, but rather that morality is a superstructure on top of the more fundamental values of individuals in a given population/culture. If everyone followed their deepest values directly, it would lead to a chaotic society, so morality represents a compromize that we may be willing to follow if others also do so. The degree to which we follow this morality, depends on the degree to which it promotes our deeper value systems. If our environment changes, our actions will (slowly or quickly) adapt. At the most fundamental level, I think these values are expressions of selfish replicators (genes and memes), as well as some random elements. Unless a moral axiom is actually within this bottom level value system (which could be the case for religious values), we will be willing to break them, if the right situation occurs. Generally, we are not fully aware of these fundamental values. It is only when we are experiencing extreme conditions that we meet our true selves in this way. When we do this, we are often surprised, and sometimes we refuse to even believe it, which can be a cause of PTSD. Note that everything above is descriptive. This is my hypothesis, it does not hold any value judgement, and is not intended to. From introspection, I don't think "do not kill" is part of my most fundamental values. I think the reason I have that value, is a result of how my deeper values interact with a western european society, and that it might change if I lived under very different circumstances. On the other hand, I think I have an appetite for (scientific) truth, even when brutal, that may very well be fundamental.

finnthehuman 8y ago

The role of empathy in decision making is allowing us to understand the other, and bring their mental state into our own larger decision making process. Empathy in and of itself is not a decision making tool. I suspect you really do have firmer grounding for your position, but haven't performed the introspection necessary to figure out the boundaries of your position, or how to articulate them. And that's fine. Many people have the luxury to never be tested. If we take the reductive approach of only using empathy, we wind up doing whatever it is that the other wants. Such a system has no room for doing what we think is the right response to the situation, because it has no mechanism for determining responses beyond those considered by the other. It leaves no room for personal self-determination because it has no way to evaluate our wants against another's. And has no way to handle a situation where you empathize with two people holding conflicting desires. I know I'm unfairly stretching an idea past it's breaking point, but that's sort of my point... There must be a higher-order decision making process. Frankly, I consider the way people frequently speak of "empathy" as an attempt to hide that process. Hiding it from just me, the world, or maybe from themselves too.

trashtester 8y ago
Well put. Especially the last part. "empathy" when used by certain groups, especially SJWs, can assume an almost religous ideal, very similar to "faith" used by Christians or Moslims. For religous people, experiencing doubt is turn into a test of faith, and if you pass the test, you are seen as extra virtous. For SJW, if you really feel hateful and resentful towards someone (ie the opposite of empathy), you can reclaim your virtue by showing even more empathy for the people that are seen as victimized or oppressed by the person or group they hate or resent. Similarly, "empathy" can be used by fundamentalists to justify pretty much the same things that religious fundamentalists can justify by "faith". For instance: - to display virtue, often with the intent to gain status - to separate in-group from out-group (often with poor justification) - to punish members of the out-group when they "transgress" - dehumanize the outgroup. Sometimes to the extent that they do not deserve to be treated according to ethical rules. - to deny or make taboo science that contradict their dogma (sociobiology, iq research) - to classify certain positions as heretical or evil (if you believe X is a fact, even if it is a proven fact, you are a nazi, and must be neutralized) - to promote ideas that contradict scientific facts when it promotes the "cause" (ie tabula rasa, ghost in the machine)

ramblerman 8y ago

> My personal reason is that I am an empathic person. But is that a result of your cultural upbringing, or something innate. I would argue the former, in which case culture and religion actually do matter more than we think. Would you be an emphatic person if you grew up in a different time and place.

trashtester 8y ago
I think it has been shown to be a fact that both culture and genes affect this. Psychopathy has a large genetic component, and strips a person of most empathy. At intermediate levels, we call it sociopathy, etc. For the cultural aspect, there are two interpretations: 1) Humans (non psychopaths) are born to feel empathy, and you only take that away if you inflict harm on the person 2) Humans (non psychopaths) are born with some latent capacity to develop empathy, but it must be actively taught in order to develop From my experience as a father, it seems like empathy develops without much actual teaching. Maybe teaching it can boost it, but at least for my children that has not been needed so far. But empathy is very definitive limits. It is much easier to feel it towards smaller children, cute pets, etc, and not very easy for children to feel empathy towards authority figures, scary/ugly animals. Also, when hungry, sleepy, scared or angry empathy seems to vanish. I think this is typical. Nobody feels empathy for everyone all the time. And it is when dealing with people that you DON'T feel empathy for, that you are most likely to break ethical rules or convensions. And with (my) children, teaching them to behave morally when not feeling empathy, that requires dedicated effort from the parent.

Koshkin 8y ago

Being empathic to an enemy soldier running towards you pointing the bayonet at you would get you killed.

the_af 8y ago
...but empathy might help prevent the war and that particular situation in the first place?