Reply to your edit: 1. Keyword: "your". Your version of empathy is not scalable. It's literally, "my way or the highway," and a bunch of grandstanding on thing

Reply to your edit: 1. Keyword: "your". Your version of empathy is not scalable. It's literally, "my way or the highway," and a bunch of grandstanding on things pretty much everyone agrees on, but you must be evil and not if you don't agree with my more radical proposals. 2. I consider "I don't want to die, thus I shouldn't kill others," to have more of a Kantian/evolutionary genesis than an empathetic one. For the most part, all the people that failed to recognize this were killed off and weren't allowed to enter into the Kingdom of Ends. Unless you're talking about emotivism, I don't see how empathy has anything to do with morality/society, except as a quick symmetry trick to help you make smarter decisions (while you could logically deduce that the rational response to a member of your group being killed is to punish the killer to prevent more killings, if you just assume symmetry, then things that are bad for you are bad for others, and taking those actions will get you punished). 3. 5% as many people die from starvation or exposure as suicide in the United States (that's 1–2,000/year). If people want food, or want shelter, they can find it (99.8% of homeless people do), even if it's not the particular food or shelter they want. What do you actually want? "Food, shelter, and all the basic necessities of life" are available. Almost no one is arguing that we should let people just die. It really sounds like you're arguing for a flavor of ice cream, but you don't even know what flavor that is.