See my reply to the other person who made this argument. You ignore my second half of the comment where I debunk the argument with "logic". > The rule of law e

See my reply to the other person who made this argument. You ignore my second half of the comment where I debunk the argument with "logic". > The rule of law exists precisely because of the temptation to think with our "empathy" instead of our brains. Assumptions galore are made here. First off, the rule of law exists because of power heirarchies. People create laws to protect THEMSELVES and THEIR interests. Monarchs didn't create laws for the benefit of everyone, neither do dictators. Furthermore many laws exist to augment our empathy. Speeding laws exist because many people are incapable of comprehending the danger they could pose to someone else. Animal cruelty is illegal because the majority of people understand it's wrong, and we will force that wisdom upon others who don't. > the temptation to think with our "empathy" instead of our brains Where do you think empathy comes from if not our brains? Empathy is a tool of reason, not orthogonal to it. Would you praise someone for only using one of their senses? Or would you think they are ridiculous for constructing a worldview based only around their sense of smell? Thinking that empathy is somehow a trait to be overcome and not a tool is the same as eating soap regardless of how it tastes, because it "smells good". Empathy allows us to consider the conditions and experiences of those outside of our immediate sphere of influence. In a democracy this is especially invaluable, since individuals make decisions that influence society at large. The inability to see outside of your every day experience is not logical or rational, it's the exact opposite. Empirical evidence can be a great tool for analyzing macro trends, but empathy allows us to better understand the causality. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McNamara_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McNamara_fallacy