Empathy as the Source of Morality

[Time for change]

I, like the good majority of humans, consider morality to be an extremely important character trait. I have given it much thought and read much about it throughout my life. Yet, until a few months ago, at the age of 57, I doubt that I had much of an idea where it comes from.

Then I came across a brief mention of the subject by George Lakoff, in his book “Whose Freedom – The Battle over America’s Most Important Ideal”. Just the mere mention of it created in me one of those rare moments in my life when a flash went off in my brain and a previously mysterious and confusing subject suddenly became almost crystal clear. Lakoff’s pertinent quote was “Progressive morality is centrally about empathy”.

As I thought about that I came to realize that, not just progressive morality, but all morality – that is, all morality that is worthy of being called morality – is centrally about empathy. Or, another way of putting it is that empathy is the source of all morality and that there could be no morality without empathy. At least, that’s the way I see it.

Empathy is the quality whereby we imagine ourselves in another’s shoes – what it is like to be that person (or animal) and experience what that person is experiencing. And it’s more than just imagining it, it’s actually feeling it – which is where the expression “I feel your pain” comes from. The reason that I believe morality is impossible without empathy is that I cannot imagine what possible value any morality could have if it is not ultimately based on empathy (though I’m open to reconsider that if someone would give me a single example to prove that opinion wrong).

To solidify the point, let’s consider some other things that have often been mentioned as, and which many people consider to be the source of morality:


Other things that are believed by many to be the source of morality

I can only think of four basic categories:

God
There are of course millions, or maybe even billions of people, of many different religions, who believe God (singular or plural) to be the source of morality.

I am not an irreligious person. I have at times believed in God (kind of) and even kind of still do, in some ways – at least partially. Several years ago, when I belonged to the Unitarian/Universalist church (which is to religion what the DU is to U.S. politics), I wrote an essay as part of a course called “Create your own God” (or something like that), in which I tried to explain how a moral God could allow such terrible things to happen in our world. But I digress.

Anyhow, the point I wanted to make is that my belief in God has not (in any way that I can think of) determined how I act, because as far as I’m concerned S/he hasn’t written down any rules for me to follow. As far as I’m concerned, God expects us to use the brains and hearts that S/he gave us to figure out for ourselves what is moral and what is not. The reason I believe that is that if S/he expected us to merely follow a set of rules written down in His/Her Bible, then we would be more like sheep or robots than humans.

As far as the Jewish and Christian (and all other) Bibles are concerned… Well, first of all, it seems that they’re interpreted in a gazillion different ways, often according to the ideology of the interpreter. And secondly, I’ve never seen any proof that God wrote any of them.

But seriously, I don’t mean to offend anyone by saying all that. I have heard many times from very intelligent people, including those who aren’t religious, that both the Old and the New Testament are filled with great literature and great ideas. I’ve heard that so many times that I believe it’s true. Seriously. But try as I might, I’ve tried to read them, or about them, several times, and I just don’t get it. So my opinion of those books really doesn’t count. But still, I can’t imagine that God wants us to follow a bunch of rules as if we were robots or sheep.

Society, parents, etc
Others say that we learn morality from our parents or from others in our wider society, such as teachers, various other authority figures, or even friends and acquaintances.

Actually, that’s what my dad, who was a psychologist when he was alive, used to tell me, always emphasizing the role of parents. It upset me a good deal when he said that, and we used to argue a lot about it.

I’m sure that we get a lot of ideas about morality from our parents and a lot of other people. But we don’t automatically accept those ideas. Or rather, if we do automatically accept them, without thinking much about them, just because we were told to accept them by an authority figure, then we’re acting more like a sheep or a robot than like a human. And since I don’t believe that sheep or robots have a sense of morality, I don’t believe that ideas acquired in that way really constitute morality. It’s simply a matter of acquiring a set of rules that we follow because we believe that we’re supposed to follow them.

Of course it is possible, and even undoubtedly extremely common, that after being given those ideas by our parents or others, after a period of time thinking about them, we eventually come to internalize them and actually adopt them as part of our moral code. In those cases it could be said that in some sense our understanding of morality comes from our parents (or whoever we get the ideas from).

But my point is that if we accept those ideas as part of our moral code, and if we accept them because we truly feel them as important moral principles, rather than simply because someone told us that we should, then we have internalized them as a human rather than as a robot. And when we do that, empathy is the ultimate quality that allows us to do it.

Evolution
Some have suggested evolution as the source of morality. In other words, those advocates say that morality is a major force that has facilitated the survival of our species, and therefore, a moral action is any action that facilitates the survival of our species. I see some problems with that view, aside from the fact that many of our actions that facilitate survival of our species are performed unconsciously.

When we talk about “survival of our species”, what species exactly are we talking about? Our species has never been static, but rather it has continually evolved over a long time, so that “we” are a different species today than we were a long time ago.

A multitude of factors have contributed to the specific way in which we have evolved. To take one extreme example, genocide has on many occasions influenced the genetic composition of mankind and therefore our evolution. In other words, it has contributed to the specific genetic makeup that mankind has today, and therefore to the way in which we have evolved. Yet genocide is immoral rather than moral

Enough said about that idea.

“Because I say so”
This is the least persuasive reason of all as an argument for why something is immoral, and yet it may be one of the most commonly used. I don’t mean to say that people actually say “because I say so” as an argument. But when a person argues the point that such and such is immoral, with no argument other than the repeated assertion that “such and such is ALWAYS immoral”, then essentially their argument is “because I say so”. I find that type of argument everywhere, even, sadly to say, on DU.

I have two problems with that line of argument. One is that I believe that there is hardly anything that is ALWAYS immoral, regardless of the circumstance. I believe that there are very few things that are that absolute. But more important, when a person uses that line of argument, it cuts off all discussion.


Some examples

In order to explain why I see morality as based on empathy, and how that plays out with respect to various moral issues, I’ll give a few examples, starting with the most obvious and basic and then going on to some very controversial topics:

Murder for profit
Consider the simple act of killing someone for no other reason than to gain possession of what he has – like, for example, George Bush and Dick Cheney starting the Iraq War…. No, sorry, that’s a bad example because their motives are controversial in some quarters, and I said that I’d start with something non-controversial. Ok then, consider a man murdering an old and defenseless woman just to get her purse. I think we can all agree that that would be highly immoral.

How do I know that? I know it simply because I’m able to imagine myself as the victim of that crime and feel what it would be like for her. To the extent that I’m able to do that I can have empathy for the victim and therefore recognize the crime as immoral.

But what about someone who has no empathy – such as, perhaps, the perpetrator of the crime I just described? Would that crime be immoral for that person? Well, the crime would still be immoral, but the perpetrator wouldn’t be able to recognize it as such. How could he? I’m not saying that his lack of empathy and inability to (internally) recognize the crime as immoral in any way excuses it, in my opinion. But still, I don’t see how a person without any empathy could recognize anything as being immoral.

Adultery
Just as with murder, adultery is one of the Ten Commandments that God supposedly wants us to refrain from. But I see adultery as being much more complicated, with the morality of it depending entirely on the specific circumstances.

At one extreme, consider a man and woman who get married with the express understanding that adultery is not off-limits within the bounds of their marriage. One or both of the spouses commits adultery, and neither one feels hurt about it. Furthermore, there is no dishonesty involved in getting the third party to participate in the adultery, and the third party isn’t hurt either. The way I see it is, no victim, no immorality.

At the other extreme, the couple had a definite understanding when they married that adultery is not consistent with their marriage vows. One partner commits adultery for no good reason other than that he wants to, and the result is that his spouse goes into a depression and commits suicide. And, the adulterer had a very good idea of the pain he would cause when he did it. In my opinion it is the callousness of the act, which in turn derives largely from a lack of empathy, which accounts of the immorality of the act.

Of course, most cases of adultery fall somewhere in between those two extremes. My point is that the extent to which it is immoral depends fully on the circumstances of the specific situation, and not merely on the fact that adultery has technically been committed.

Abortion
As we all know, abortion is a very controversial topic, the perceived morality of which differs greatly, as a general rule, between liberals and conservatives.

My personal view is very similar to the Roe v. Wade U.S. Supreme Court decision, which says that a woman has the right to an abortion under almost all circumstances.

My main reason for seeing it that way is that I empathize with women who don’t want to carry their fetus to full term, either because they don’t feel equipped to take care of a child or because they don’t want to go through the pain of child birth, or even because they would be terribly embarrassed to have their parents or other people find out that they’re pregnant. And I have even more empathy for women who, for any of the above reasons, would choose to obtain a dangerous and illegal abortion if it wasn’t legal.

On the other hand, I have little or no empathy for the aborted fetus. I’m not proud of that. It’s just a fact. I could spend some time trying to defend why I have little or no empathy for the aborted fetus, but I won’t, since it’s not highly relevant to this post.

I recognize, of course, that there are many millions of people in this country who believe that abortion should be illegal, that women should go to prison for having one, and/or that doctors should go to prison for performing them. I’m not sure why so many people feel that way. For those who feel that way simply because they believe that God says abortion is immoral, I don’t have much sympathy. For those who feel that way simply because they want vengeance against women who get abortions, I have even less sympathy.

But what about those who believe abortion should be illegal because of empathy they feel for the aborted fetus? I’ve been flamed on DU for saying this, but though I don’t agree with the conclusions of the “pro-life” people (that abortion should be illegal), if they believe abortion should be illegal because of empathy they have for the fetus, then I respect their beliefs on this issue. I believe that there are such people – and I’ve gotten flamed on DU for saying that too. What percent of “pro-lifers” fall into that category? I wouldn’t even want to hazard a guess. For all I know, I may be wrong, and there are no “pro-lifers” who actually feel empathy for the fetus, because it’s not humanly possible (other than for the mother, father, or other close relative) to do so.

Torture
The reason why empathy would lead many of us to believe torture to be immoral should be obvious, so I won’t belabor the point.

Of all the many crimes of the Bush administration, this may be the one that bothers me the most. I’ve posted more than 20 long OPs on this subject on DU over the past three years or so, and you can find most of them in my journal. I’ve also discussed the issue in many other posts where it wasn’t the main topic, such as when I castigated Tim Russert (See the section called “Mischaracterizing the torture issue) for slyly advocating torture (under some circumstances) at a Democratic primary debate, and at the same time putting the Democratic candidates in a very difficult and unfair situation. I’ve never been so proud of Hillary Clinton as when she told Russert where he could go with his torture mongering, after being repeatedly badgered by him on the subject:

You know, Tim, I agree with what Joe and Barack have said. As a matter of policy it cannot be American policy period… But these hypotheticals are very dangerous because they open a great big hole in what should be an attitude that our country and our president takes toward the appropriate treatment of everyone. And I think it's dangerous to go down this path.

Whereas the reason why empathy leads many of us to believe torture to be immoral is obvious, it should also be obvious why some Americans believe that torture should be legal and not considered immoral under some circumstances. Fear of course is one reason.

Another reason is that many Americans mistakenly believe that torture is often useful in preventing the perpetration of terror and death on American civilians. An abundance of evidence shows that when torture is legal (or even when it’s not, but when a nation’s leader doesn’t consider himself subject to his nation’s laws), far more innocent (and guilty) people get tortured than anything good that comes from it (I discuss that in this post, among others).

Nevertheless, I believe that many (perhaps millions) Americans are largely or totally ignorant of the fact that torture is almost always useless. For those people, their empathy for the people whose lives and health they believe are being saved through torture may outweigh their empathy for those who are tortured, and that probably accounts for why many of them believe torture not to be immoral. Whereas I strongly disagree with their conclusion (that torture should be legal and is usually not immoral as practiced in this country), at least I can understand the logic of their thinking and don’t disagree with that logic. It is just that they are terribly misinformed (Of course, I also recognize that a certain unknown number of Americans don’t consider George Bush’s torture program to be immoral mainly because they have little or no empathy for those who are tortured).


Understanding consequences

In writing this post I do not mean to give the impression that empathy is the only characteristic that is involved in moral issues. Morality is a complex issue, and there are probably characteristics other than empathy that are involved in it – though I can’t quite put my finger on what they are.

One thing that is certain though, is that an understanding of the consequences of actions is essential in determining their morality. Several of the examples that I gave above make that point.

For example, I’m sure that many who believe that abortion is immoral and should be illegal never stopped to consider or are almost totally ignorant of the many terrible deaths that so many women suffered prior to the Roe v. Wade decision, as a result of the fact that they couldn’t get a legal abortion. Similarly, many millions of Americans are ignorant of the real motives for the Iraq War or of the suffering and deaths incurred by millions of innocent Iraqis as the result of that war. That being the case, it is no wonder that there is not more outrage than there is in this country over the immorality of that war.


Conservative “morality”

I hope it’s clear from what I’ve written here that I generally have a fair amount of tolerance for other peoples’ views. However, when it comes to certain ideas that the conservative right espouses about morality – which itself indicates a profound lack of tolerance – my tolerance level is not very high. I’ll end this post with some eloquent examples cited by Lakoff in his book, of conservative “morality”, which in my opinion is not really morality at all:

With regard to the conservative “Culture of life”:

So-called pro-life conservatives are typically in favor of the death penalty… They favor conservative policies that result in America having the highest infant mortality rate in the industrialized world… These deaths are a result of conservative policies against prenatal and postnatal care, universal child health insurance…, Medicaid…

If they were really pro-life… they would support programs for pre- and postnatal care, health care for all children, programs to feed and house the hungry and homeless, antipollution programs, and safe food programs. Instead, they let strict father morality dominate over issues of life – that the poor are responsible for their own poverty and that they and their innocent children should suffer for it, and that government should not interfere with corporate profits through public health regulations for clean air and water.

And with regard to the conservative idea of “freedom”:

The focus of (George Bush’s) presidency is defending and spreading freedom. Yet, progressives see in Bush’s policies not freedom but outrages against freedom. They are indeed outrages against the traditional American ideal of freedom… It is not the American ideal of freedom to invade countries that don’t threaten us, to torture people and defend the practice, to jail people indefinitely without due process, and to spy on our own citizens without warrant…

It applies to just about every issue. Take the 2005 bankruptcy bill, which had the effect of keeping poor people (though not wealthy corporations) from declaring bankruptcy in the face of overwhelming debt – in most cases debt from emergency medical care. This will keep tens of thousands of families enslaved to debt, often at the cost of their homes! It was sponsored and passed by conservatives. It was an anti-freedom bill…

Freedom and liberty are progressive ideas that are precious to Americans. When the right wing uses them, it sounds as if aliens had inhabited, and were trying to take possession of, the soul of America. It is time for an exorcism.

[sammythecat]

1. Great post.

I'm not entirely finished yet, but I've read enough to give this a well deserved K&R.

[Time for change]

38. Thank you.

I hope you enjoy the rest of it.

[roguevalley]

58. a person without empathy is no one I want to know. I love this post. thank you.

[randr]

2. You have touched upon a key issue

and an important difference between progressive thinkers and conservatives.
The elemental emotion of empathy, like all of our emotions, has either been nurtured or neglected along our life paths
The recognition and acknowledgment of the sameness and unity of all mankind is a most powerful spiritual awakening. Beyond a "belief" in god, or any other religious doctrine, our empathy for each other is our greatest asset.
When you can not escape the connection to others you have become an "empath".
Thank you for your thoughts and I hope many others find that your words bring meaning to their lives.

[checks-n-balances]

16. I agree, and would only tweak a bit what you say about it being emotion

I agree that usually empathy involves our emotions, but sometimes it acts more as an attitude or belief. When it's ingrained into our thinking as a WAY OF LIFE, it doesn't always have to rely on a feeling. Sometimes we're too tired or too overwhelmed to have those feelings, but we can call upon an ingrained habit of seeing things a certain way (the way of empathy) when it's needed.

Generally speaking, our parents didn't always feel positive emotions towards us (the same for those of us who have children now), but their attitude and commitment of love carried them (and their children) through the times when they didn't have the feeling. The general way they approached their children was grounded in their commitments and steadfastness.

Kind of like understanding what it means to be a Democrat, which IMHO is built upon the ability to empathize.

(Edited for grammar)

[tavalon]

22. I completely agree with your addition to this great thesis

As any parent can tell you, there are times when one must rely on other than emotion, because those little ones can evoke every emotion and every intensity of emotion but a good parent must think as well as feel and thank the Goddess for time outs on both ends!

[Time for change]

93. Very important point IMO

We can’t always feel empathy for those who need it. It would be too emotionally exhausting for anybody. But we can at least, as you say, “call upon an ingrained habit of seeing things a certain way (the way of empathy) when it's needed.”

[Time for change]

32. “Our empathy for each other is our greatest asset”

Isn’t that the truth? Just think how much better this world would be if everyone had that asset.

[azygous]

34. Difference between liberals and conservatives

are in the psychological makeup. A University of California Santa Cruz study found that conservatives were much more fearful than liberals, even having more nightmares. Conservative morality is based more on fear (fear for themselves and fear of punishment) than empathy, would be my guess. Liberals have a more reasoned approach to morality.

As far as freedom and liberty, a conservative probably feels it has more to do with being kept safe from the fear of foreign tyranny (fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here) than the civil rights we liberals hold dear.

[volstork]

117. I find that your comment

really rings true.
Thanks for posting and welcome to DU.

[alittlelark]

3. Excellent post... I related to every word of it.

Thank You! Well done!

[Time for change]

42. Thank you.

It’s interesting that you “related to every word of it” because our DU avatars have been almost identical. The other DU avatars other than my current one that I’ve used in my 3 and a half years on DU have been those of John Edwards and Barbara Boxer, which I believe are the ones you’ve used.

[Fredda Weinberg]

4. Simpler than that ... see my tagline for details n/t

[Triana]

5. It makes sense because empathy..

...is what those currently in the highest echelons of power typically LACK. Empathy and conscience. Many of them are psychopaths and sociopaths/narcissists and they rose to power by trampling upon others with no remorse - that is the secret to their success - a certain ruthlessness and a "do anything to anyone to profit/win" attitude. They simply lack any sense of morality (ie: conscience or empathy).

Not that you need lack morality or empathy to "win", survive, prosper, or to be profitable - you don't. They don't. We don't. But it's certainly easier and quicker that way - and well, that's the way they've always done it: The Robber Barons vs. The Working Class/Poor/Everyone Else. The Elite - and those whose backs they glomb off of to get rich and become and stay Elite.

Read: Snakes in Suits by Robert Hare

It doesn't have to be that way though. If we could just somehow get those who DO possess a real sense of morality (not the pretentious morality that some of our Elite claim to possess by being against abortion or gay marriage - but REAL morality) into power, that might change. But it is said that those who want to be in power are not those we'd want there -- and those who don't want to be in power, are often the ones who should be.

Conundrum.

[Time for change]

43. What you say here reminds me very much of a book that I’ve posted about 3 times

It’s called “Political Ponerology”, which is the science of evil used for political purposes:
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Time%20for%20...
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Time%20for%20...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

It is true that those who totally lack empathy are relatively likely to try to amass vast amounts of power over other people. But then, we’ve had several U.S. Presidents who had quite a bit of empathy to – FDR, Lincoln, and Carter to name a few – which is not to say that we haven’t had plenty others with empathy. My belief is that we’ve had very few who totally lacked it, most especially including our current one.

[Wiley50]

6. K&R n/t

[nankerphelge]

7. Thank you...

for including animals in your description of empathy. Far too many people leave them out. "The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated." - Mahatma Gandhi.

[Time for change]

96. Yes – No question that most people have at least some empathy for animals

And some people have quite a bit of empathy for them.

[FiveGoodMen]

8. Exactly

[Time for change]

100. Thank you.

[tkmorris]

9. I think you touched on something important there

I couldn't agree more that morality stems at it's root from empathy, one's ability to feel what another person (or animal etc.) feels. However I was struck more by your mention of differences in what people believe to be moral, based upon who they empathize with. Your example of people who are genuinely against abortion because they empathize with the unborn fetus was spot on in my view. I have a similar position in that I am supportive of abortion rights for women, but feel no rancor towards those who disagree for reasons of empathy.

I find that some of the most difficult people to converse with about controversial topics are those who are steadfastly convinced that their moral viewpoints are not only correct, but are absolutely certain that their view is the only possible correct view, i.e. anyone who has a different viewpoint is, by default, wrong. They are unable to conceive that some people might reach a different conclusion about what is morally correct due to a difference in perspective, or as you put it, by empathizing with a different character in the drama.

It occurs to me that many of the political divisions in this country can be explained in this fashion, simply by observing who of their fellow Americans each of us empathizes with the most. That may seem an idea too simple to be even worth voicing aloud, but I think many of us tend to forget that SOME people who disagree with us aren't evil personified, they just have a different perspective. I for example am fairly solidly middle-class currently, but that was not always the case. I grew up quite poor, and as such am very empathetic towards the plight of those living in poverty, even though I no longer am. I am appalled at some of the views people who are a lot like me hold towards the poor, but I realize this is mainly because they really have no experience that tells them what it is like to BE poor, and so are operating from misconceptions they have formed themselves or that have been imposed upon them by those with an agenda of their own.

We would all benefit by remembering that our moral viewpoint is not the ONLY possible genuinely principled one, and by trying to understand what it is like to walk that proverbial mile in each others shoes.

[Time for change]

44. Selective empathy

It is true, as you say (and as I alluded to), that people tend to have more empathy towards some groups of people than others.

It has always been my belief, and I believe that this has been born out by experience, that racism tends to dissipate as people have more experience interacting with other races (as long as they aren’t in desperate competition with each other). I believe that if Obama is elected President, and especially if he has a very successful Presidency, prejudice towards black people in our country will decrease remarkably.

But still, I have a very low opinion of people whose empathy is so selective that they contribute to or passively accept genocide, or those who, for example, reserve all their empathy for the rich and powerful.

[undergroundpanther]

10. morality empathy and those without this function

This politics we do the left VS right, under it all is clash of two kinds of personality types, one can feel empathy,remorse guilt,and cares ,the other cannot will not and does not care.The right wing caters to the "morality " of the don't care crowd.

Psychopathy is what prompted ordinary caring people to create a justice system,jails,police,everything laws bureaucracy,all of that stuff was designed to manage and do damage control on a significant toxic part of the population that exploits us and uses our empathy to harm us more.But it isn't working anymore.
About fake empathy...
http://www.naturalchild.org/elliott_barker/partial_psyc...
http://members.aol.com/JehanaS/c_basics/c_bas5.html


Psychopaths unlike people who care succeed in life because they FAKE it,Fake empathy,fake love,fake loyalty,fake effort..Faking their way as they plot and mark you for their own benefit.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Empathy, defined by the American Dictionary Heritage as the “identification with and understanding of another’s situation, feelings, and motives,” is a capacity that is extremely essential to the development of social relationships between humans. Empathy is a type of emotional intelligence that not only helps us to build strong, rewarding relationships, but also reduces friction in our social interactions.
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/exchange/node/425
Empathy in stages a view on the way ethics change theoretically from authoritarian led rule to self directed empathy.
http://a4a.mahost.org/moral.html

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Psychopaths are eager to dominate infiltrate,use our empathy against us,they lie,cheat,bribe,charm,inspire pity,manipulate and weasel their way into positions of power in any way that gets it..So many psychopaths are in positions of power in this country they have destroyed the government,ruined the fairness of laws, and made the corporations worse,and they are slowly killing us and fucking up the planet bad.This is because the one thing psychopaths lack and thus prevents them from EVER reforming or ever getting insight into why they must change is the thing that puts humane into humanity,empathy and they never feel guilt.Psychopaths seek power to abuse power.

This is why each person with empathy must learn what psychopathy is.Why we cannot tolerate psychopaths being among us, Accept psychopaths are NOT like us, To never treat a psychopath like our non-psychopath peers, And we must never trust them, or EVER let them get near places and positions of power,wealth or access to other situations that give them social/political/financial or domination power. Somehow Permanently they must be separated from us,and to be sure a psychopath is a psychopath ,study them,than look to behavior ,it shows what they are and it is clear to see in the patterns of their actions observed over time.They leave trails of lies,broken lives,picked pockets,trauma and ruin behind them.They do not care.We cannot help them to care.They cannot be cured only contained.If containing fails ,people might not like to hear this but killing works.Sometimes misplaced tolerance and empathy can lead to incalculable harm.That is the reality we have to face.

Plato said You cannot teach morality.
He was right.

Either you have empathy for others or you do not.The difference between a non-psychopath and a psychopath,moral wise IS that stark.
Empathy feeling people need to learn to TURN OFF the empathy when they detect psychopathy and realize they are dealing with a human body that cannot feel empathy.This means you 'relate' to a psychopath in terms psychopaths "get" you become the alpha over psychopaths. First you reject them,you tear off their masks,expose the games and if that does not work,do what it takes to fight them,lock them up, or kill them..As soon as the asshole is gone or disabled,restrained or dead ..You go back to being an equal among your peers but you must remain vigilant.We as a species need to learn how to do this,our survival depends on it. If we keep thinking psychopaths are like us we will not be able to help each other when psychopaths start the crimes,abuses, manipulations and bullying around us.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Objectively and tenaciously review your negative perceptions of an individual in an effort to neutralize a potential psychopath’s advantage. You may need to fight that natural desire to “see the good” in everybody. That is the point to Predator Awareness ~ battling preconceived perceptions that may lead you to immeasurable harm.
http://predator-awareness.healthylifestylegeek.com/psyc... /
The price of freedom(from psychopathy) is Vigilance.

The psychopath:Enemy of empathy.
Imagine - if you can - not having a conscience, none at all, no feelings of guilt or remorse no matter what you do, no limiting sense of concern of the well-being of strangers, friends, or even family members. Imagine no struggles with shame, not a single one in your whole life, no matter what kind of selfish, lazy, harmful, or immoral action you had taken. And pretend that the concept of responsibility is unknown to you, except as a burden others seem to accept without question, like gullible fools. Now add to this strange fantasy the ability to conceal from other people that your psychological makeup is radically different from theirs. Since everyone simply assumes that conscience is universal among human beings, hiding the fact that you are conscience-free is nearly effortless. You are not held back from any of your desires by guilt or shame, and you are never confronted by others for your cold-bloodedness. The ice water in your veins is so bizarre, so completely outside of their personal experience that they seldom even guess at your condition.
http://www.cix.co.uk/~klockstone/spath.htm

Many assume everyone’s brain function similar to their own in the realm of emotion. This is a false assumption.
Get this assumption out of your mind. Psychopath’s primary benefit is that most people they have contact with have no concept that their mind functions differently. Rather than relating to a psychopath on their terms, we relate to them on ours. As a result your empathy gets in your way.A psychopath’s lack of empathy means their actions are unconstrained. Regardless of whom they hurt in the process they are left without guilt.
http://predator-awareness.healthylifestylegeek.com/bene... /

[Time for change]

45. Psychopathy

Thank you for all those links.

What you discuss here reminds me of a book I recently read on Political Ponerology, the Science of Evil used for political purposes. You might be interested in that:

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Time%20for%20...
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Time%20for%20...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

BTW, I got some of the ideas for this post from reading your recent post on the death penalty. I don’t necessarily agree with your major conclusion, but I thought you made some very important points, and you got me to thinking about it more.

[djp2]

11. Golden Rule

Isn't the Golden Rule basically EMPATHY for others?

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"

The basis for Christianity...

[Skittles]

14. actually the Golden Rule is basic common courtesy n/t

[FloridaJudy]

17. And the basis for *many* religions

I attend a Unitarian church, and the Sunday school room where my Zen group meets has a poster on the wall with versions of the Golden Rule from a variety of traditions. I get really creeped out whenever I encounter people whose "god/s" tell them to behave any differently: that is not a deity with the best interests of humanity or the planet at heart.

[Skittles]

19. you don't need religion to practice common courtesy n/t

[Midwest_Doc]

29. The Golden Rule is NOT the Basis for Christianity

The basis for Christianity is belief in the trinity and the resurrection.

The Golden Rule is situational ethics in its purest form, and therefore contrary to the rigid, rule-based Abrahamic theologies (including Judaism, Christianity, and Islam).

The Golden rule is a sound PHILOSOPHICAL standard adhered to by many freethinkers.

[Romulox]

33. Many Christians don't believe in "the Trinity", at least not in the Catholic sense...nt

[Bluenorthwest]

39. Indeed that is the case

In some Protestant denominatioins, the idea of the Trinity is considered rather blasphemous. They baptize not in the name of 'Father Son and HG' but 'in the name of Jesus' for just that reason. They believe there is no seperation of any kind in the dieity.

[Midwest_Doc]

41. I stand corrected

Thanks

[Time for change]

47. I think that the Golden Rule captures the essence of empathy in action

It is one of the important tenets of not only Christianity, but many other religions as well. To the extent that those religions have encouraged people to practice it, they have done a great deal of good. But at the same time, I feel quite sure that there are millions of people throughout the world who practice the Golden Rule without the aid of religion, based on the empathy that they have acquired through whatever means.

[Greyskye]

59. The Golden Rule and World Religions

This Secular Humanist loves this graphic:

[FloridaJudy]

107. Thank you!

That's the poster I referred to up thread. Works for this Buddhist Unitarian of Jewish descent.

[FloridaJudy]

108. self delete - dupe

[Connonym]

12. I think it's even more easily summed up between empathy and fear

whether it's fear of reprisal, fear of god, fear of the law. That kind of morality has no altruism and, I would argue, that it's really not morality when it's not voluntary.

[Time for change]

98. Yes, there is no such thing as forced morality

[FloridaJudy]

13. Excellent post

My own thinking is something along those lines, but you've stated the case far more eloquently than I ever could. Recommended.

[Time for change]

50. Thank you – I’ve thought and read a lot about this subject, yet

I wasn’t able to say it like this until after 57 years of life.

[BlooInBloo]

15. Have you perchance considered what some other passingly bright folks thought about it?

People like Aristotle, Kant, Mill, and Nietzsche, just to name 4 of the big players in this space.

[Time for change]

53. Yes -- I've read some of the works of all those people

Aristotle defended slavery, so I have a real difficult time identifying with his ideas on the subject.

It’s been a couple of years or so I believe since I’ve read anything from Mill, but as far as I can recall his ideas were quite consistent with what I say in this OP, though I don’t believe he talked about the role of empathy.

I’ve tried to read Kant, but I just couldn’t understand him – it was almost as if I was reading another language. But what I’ve read about him suggests that his ideas are consistent with what I say in this OP, though I’m not aware that he talked about the role of empathy.

Nietzsche I have also found very difficult to me. I found him to be very cynical, and his glamorizing of his so-called “superman” is something I find very difficult to relate to. However, I’ve been told that I totally misunderstand what he’s trying to say, which I guess is probably true.

I've read several other philosophers as well, but I don't recall any of them emphasizing empathy as the main source of morality -- until I saw it mentioned by Lakoff in the book I referred to in the OP. It's possible that I did read about it before that, but I can't recall ever doing so -- and I think it would have stuck out in my mind if I had.

[snot]

18. For some of us,

morality is based upon a rational suspicion that we have nothing better or more satisfying to do in life than helping to build a better universe, and it seems to be the case that genuinely, creatively constructive action usually turns out to seem "moral."

[Time for change]

97. That sounds good to me.

[snot]

118. thanks.

[Greyhound]

20. K & R.

& R

[tavalon]

21. In the Southern Baptist church I went to as a teenager (my grandparents made me)

they called themselves the flock or the sheep and Jesus was supposed to be the shepherd. I didn't last long there because I asked questions and was told too many time to take things on faith. I've always had a deeply spiritual bent but that religion didn't work for me because I wasn't mindless enough. "Because I said so" never worked for me.

By the time I was in my mid twenties, I was pretty soured on Christianity and decided to go the anti-Christian route and become a pagan, but lucky for me, I picked a coven that had a magnificent High Priest and as part of my training, I was required to watch all of the Joseph Campbell recordings that were available, one each week and then the Priest and I would discuss and debate. I came out of my second degree with a healthy respect and even love for all things religious. It made it much better that we all stole from everyone, it's like a giant collective out there. What's hilarious is too many people think they have the "one true way" but it's all so borrowed and stolen and morphed from one another that there is no way to call any one of them the "one true way". I find it highly amusing that I found my way back to an appreciation of Christianity via my Pagan Priest.

But, I still have such a kneejerk response to the "one true wayism" of mainstream Christianity that the only church I could imagine going to would be a UU.

I totally agree that morality is based on empathy. Heck, some of the most morally upstanding individuals I've ever met have been athiests. I think many of them really think through their pov and that helps them to discover their own way. Those who don't think things through tend to inherit their parents' beliefs and that which is inherited is not truly ours.

[tavalon]

23. Wow, there is so much here!

I've learned through the years that my beliefs in the macrocosm don't always fit with the way I believe or feel in the microcosm. An easy example is that I have held and still hold the controversial view that too much money is spent avoiding death both at the end of the life spectrum and at the beginning. Last year, I became a NICU nurse. In the microcosm, I am fully able to realize the love felt both directions (parent to baby - baby to parent) and some of these premies are barely older than an aborted fetus could be and yet, I see the personalities and the engagement of these wee ones, and I am swayed, by these specific babies, by their fierce determination and gentle doe eyes to fight as hard as I can for them and yet, my macrocosmic beliefs still hold. It's an odd balance and yet, it works.

[Time for change]

64. Interesting points about macrocosm and microcosm

I think it’s true that we need to experience both and develop ideas that are based on a blending of the two. Without personal experiences, how would we actually develop empathy? But a good understanding of history, sociology, and other similar sciences gives us an understanding of consequences in the real world that we could never acquire with just a lifetime of personal experiences alone.

[eridani]

24. Conservatives might be basically brain-damaged

The parts of the brain that process the information "How would I like it if somebody did that to me?" don't function, or function only intermittently.

[Time for change]

99. Yeah, I think that’s true

[FloridaJudy]

110. They're called "mirror neurons"

Their existence has been postulated for years by neuroscientists, and I've read that recently scientists at a number of universities had finally succeeded in detecting them.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/0711061237...

[CoffeeCat]

113. Thank you for this...

Sometimes on DU, people say such brilliant, succinct things. Sometimes it's one line. Other times
it's a lengthy dissertation.

I really needed to hear this line today. It made a different in my day.

So...thanks for writing it.

[kitfalbo]

25. heh

The Christian Republican at my work says morality can only belong to those who believe in "his" god.

[mnhtnbb]

35. Tell your colleague to give himself a pat on the back for being so righteous!

And then remind him of that old adage about pride...and falls.

[BrklynLib at work]

26. Excellent post. It is empathy that sociopaths like B*sh and Bundy lack.

The minions that follow BushCo are of the same ilk.." I have mine. Screw the rest of you."

[Time for change]

71. Thank you. Yes, it’s a terrible shame that such a man received enough votes in

two U.S. Presidential elections that he was able to steal them both. Americans really need to wake up and smell the coffee.

[BrklynLib at work]

111. Could not have said better than you did.

[Echo In Light]

27. Thanks for posting

[Lydia Leftcoast]

28. Excellent and well-thought post

As a matter of fact, the great religions and philosophies have empathy at the core of their morality: "Do under others as you would have them do unto you." Variations of this statement are found in every major tradition.

When I discuss ethical or social matters with conservatives, I find a distinct lack of empathy and a high degree of solipsism, the idea that one's self is the measure of all things. For example, when I came back from volunteering in Mississippi after Hurricane Katrina and described the devastation, one of my conservative relatives said, "Why don't they just get to work and rebuild their own houses?" It never even crossed his mind that the Mississippi Gulf Coast is highly dependent on tourism and fishing, and that both industries had been devastated, so that people were living without any source of income. In fact, a few of the most affluent houses along the coast HAD been rebuilt five months after the storm, but they were obviously the homes of the wealthy.

Take health care debates. Conservatives think there's no problem as long as they have a great health insurance policy themselves. Their attitude is, "Why can't everyone just be like me?"

In matters of education, their attitude can range from, "I don't have kids. Why should I worry?" to "My child is in a terrific private school. Why should I worry?" to "Let's privatize the school system and give everyone vouchers (so I can get a bit of help in putting my child in an even more expensive private.)"

It's an adolescent attitude, and apologies to the real adolescents who frequent DU and are more empathetic than the average conservative. It's the feeling of invulnerability that some teenagers have: "I'm fine now, and I'll always be fine." If they happen to be "not fine" in some aspect of their lives, this becomes a major cause. Look at George F. Will. He's the epitome of the snooty, pseudo-intellectual conservative, but he's an advocate for retarded people--because he has a retarded son.

So yes, TFC, I think you've hit upon it. The conservatives are black-and-white thinkers and think in terms of "Good People Like Me" and "Those Other Bad, Lazy People Who Don't Deserve Anything." Liberals think in terms of, "I wouldn't want that to happen to me."

[Time for change]

82. Thank you for your insights on this based on your experiences

I have often thought in those terms but wondered if that wasn’t somewhat of an oversimplification. Probably in a lot of cases it’s not.

[LWolf]

30. There is a general lack of empathy

embedded into modern American culture.

We operate on gang mentality, and empathy is not extended to "them," or to "losers."

It's harder to get my middle school students to tap into empathy in this decade, and we see that same pattern with younger students, as well.

[Time for change]

101. I think that has a lot to do with lack of leadership

FDR and some of our other more liberal Presidents didn’t encourage that kind of thinking.

[LWolf]

104. I think it has to do with mass media marketing campaigns, as well. n/t

[Time for change]

106. Yes, that too

[ananda]

31. You have to know what it's like..

.. to be poor..

.. to be discriminated against..

.. to be attacked..

.. to live in danger..

.. to not be able to afford a house..

.. to see the foundations of equality and the
Constitution destroyed for the sake of corporate
and warzone profit..

.. have your life, the lives of those around you,
and your entire infrastructure destroyed or
compromised by a bully aggressor..

.. to have a one for all and all for one attitude
towards the whole world not just your little greedy,
fearful, smarmy, arrogant clique.

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

52. Amen, sister.

A-men.

[Time for change]

102. Yes, and you don’t have to actually personally experience all those things to

Have a pretty good idea what they’re like.

FDR never experienced poverty, but he certainly had empathy for those who did, as shown by the many programs that he put in place to deal with it.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

115. Not necessarily--sometimes people who have not experienced a hardship

can have empathy. Living a sheltered life and then discovering the misery in the world can be a mind-blowing experience. The archetypal example is the Buddha, but I've seen many examples in the contemporary world, as well.

[Political Heretic]

36. "The greatest evils in the world are the absence of empathy and the persistence of ignorance"

[indepat]

37. Profound, as all your essays always are, for each epitomizes critical thought given to an

issue of vital societal importance with each conclusion being fully supported and brilliantly expressed. Unfortunately most Americans are lacking critical-thinking skills, or else we would not find ourselves in this fine mess, one now in which at least three major European financial institutions are warning of some sort of financial meltdown.

[Time for change]

84. Thank you so much

That’s very nice of you to say.

[gorfle]

40. Moral Relativism.

I did not have time to read your excellent post thoroughly, but wanted to post this quick thought:

I agree with you that often times the "goodness" or "badness" of an act depends on the circumstances.

But we have to be careful to avoid falling into the trap of moral relativism. That is, that all moral judgments have equal merit.

For example: Religious uman sacrifice. I think it is safe to say that religious human sacrifice is morally wrong. And yet there were cultures who engaged in this practice, no doubt feeling it was morally the right thing to do.

You might say that empathy drives us to determine, by feeling how the victim feels, that it is wrong. But what if the victim is willing, and believes his sacrifice moral as well? You could say, from empathy, that this is a victimless act. And yet I would say that the victim has merely been brainwashed into accepting his immoral fate.

[Time for change]

90. I do not advocate moral relativism

I didn’t talk much about it in this post, but I think that what I said about people who lack empathy makes my point on that. I said that when they commit immoral acts because of their lack of empathy, though they undoubtedly do not recognize their acts as immoral, they are immoral nonetheless.

[slipslidingaway]

46. Excellent and thank you n/t

[sui generis]

48. Believe it or not I disagree.

the "ugh" factor (or it's inverse) as a rationale for ethics does not yield a stable morality.

The fact of the matter is we are RATIONAL humans, and our ethos should be one of reasoning, not emotive response.

Yes, the golden rule can follow as a realization of the critical application of logic, but it's the measuring stick of a simpleton, easily digestible by people who don't believe we can or should rely upon reason.

If you're proposing "empathy" under the mistaken belief that everyone has the ability to empathize then we're already in trouble. However, nearly everyone has the ability to reason to a greater or lesser degree.

That's where we should focus.

[argeec]

54. Anyone who has had a dog

knows that empathy can be abundant in simple animals.

A very good discussion of this, and the whole topic of human nature is in "The Blank Slate" by Steven Pinker.

[sui generis]

55. EXACTLY. What differentiates us from dogs is our ability to reason.

I have a zoo, by the way.

[Time for change]

63. Humans have both reasoning AND emotional capacities

Humans who lack empathy do not necessarily lack reasoning capability. Yet they are psychopaths who tend towards terribly destructive behavior.

Reasoning ability alone is not good enough.

I am not under the mistaken belief that everyone has the ability to empathize. Some don't. Our president and VP are two outstanding examples, and that explains a great deal of the trouble that our nation is in.

[Frank Cannon]

109. Just as some lack empathy, some lack the ability to reason

Or why do many Americans vote against their own best interests time and time and time again?

[Time for change]

112. That is indeed true. We need BOTH

[defendandprotect]

49. Interesting comments . . ..

which right now I had to read quickly . . .

I thing we all share these concerns ---
However, my daughter always thought that smoking was a "moral" decision --
figure that out? Maybe she was right as Mom smoking/me . . . was effecting her health!
But I did stop the moment I figured that out ---

Basically, we have a world turned upside down --
In many of these issues I see the murderous hand of patriarchy which we so little
discuss -- its hatred of women, its use of violence.

It's tools: organized patriarchal religions and capitalism --- hierarchies.

But always VIOLENCE, which in my opinion is the act of those expressing self-hatred.

I don't see that morality could ever be connected to Christianity -- either earlier or
now. Any original message of love and compassion was corrupted long ago.
And professions to protect life while sending out terrorists to kill abortion doctors
also turned the "pro-life" argument into bloody hypocrisy.
Meanwhile, organized patriarchal religions' two thousand year war on women --
its sexual abuse of children which Italians make clear goes back to the beginning days
of the church -- payoffs to victims and their families for silence --- suggest that
if members aren't thinking of avoiding middle-men to "god," that they should be.

Further, we have Global Warming and may have already reached the "tipping point."
Certainly patriarchy/religion and it's "Manifest Destiny" and "Man's Dominion Over Nature"
issued the license for exploition of nature, natural resources, animal-life --- and
even exploition of other individuals according to various myths of inferiority.

We need to be talking about turning the world right side up again ---
and patriarchy is the wrong direction unless you want more violence, more war --- ???

If I had to guess where morality originates, I'd guess in the spirit and the hunger for
justice --

They say if you want to fight for justice --- fight prejudice.

Prejudice against females is a good place to start, perhaps?

[Time for change]

60. The warmongers and war profiteers will always justify war and violence with whatever they think they

can get people to believe.

Humanity, and especially Americans, need to come to grips with that and understand what's going on.

[Joe Chi Minh]

51. There is a commandment of Yahweh in the Old Testament which, apparently, appears three

times in the Old Testament, to the effect that the Hebrews in the Old Testament were not to "seethe a kid in its mother's milk".

On the face of it, it seems such a trifling precept, yet I believe it's purpose is of paramount importance, as it touches upon the very matter that you bring up here: empathy and moral beauty. Moral ugliness is in a sense an oxymoron. Essentially, spiritual ugliness is immoral, evil, "a priori". Of course, we human beings never have a perfect sense of moral beauty, or perhaps, more accurately, if we can, we can certainly never maintain it completely consistently or faithfully.

Nevertheless, most of us substantially share it in varying degrees, with overlaps and lacunas. But that Old Testament commandment lays down that the Jewish religion is not essentially about rules and laws, but about empathy and compassion. We joke about "Mom and apple-pie", but whatever the gustatory merits of apple-pie, the fact is that in all human affairs, there is nothing more primordially important or more consuming than a mother's pretty unconditional love. That is to say the love of most mothers. Good fathers too love their children beyond measure, although the leaders of our societies have, particularly in recent times, loaded increasingly grievous pressures on parents, as well inevitably, on their children. It is interesting to note from an article on the Hebrew laws on slavery of the Old Testament, that in some ways Jewish slaves were better treated than we are by our respective governments and their sociopathic, mercantile sponsors.

Very closely associated with this special love of parents for their children and most notably of course that of mothers, since it tends to be more "crazily" unconditional, is the metaphor we use, "the milk of human kindness". Discontinuance of the issuing of free milk to school-children, as an elementary safeguard against malnourishment through poverty, was one of the first actions implemented by a certain right-wing female politician in the UK - which seems particularly perverse and sad, yet, alas, symbolic of the cruelty of the historic right of the right throughout most of our history. The worst of them, like the worst of the Pharisees of old, scoured the earth for converts, who then turned out worse than they were themselves. Meet New Labour (not to speak of their very unconservative but very far-right heirs.

After WWII, we did have Christian, one-nation Tories until said puppet politicians was put in place by the psychopaths of the far right, and unsurprisingly, they were immeasurably better than almost all of the politicians we have in our country today, crooked, lying and depraved as they are. Moral depravity is not only sexual, by any means.

And the fact of our country being in the state it is in, is a reflection of the failure of our Government, indeed, our whole polity, national and local, to understand, wittingly or subiminally, the primordial and seminal truth that "seething a kid in its mother's milk" is an egregious offence against moral beauty (empathy, love): a more subtle truth than slaughtering the kid in front of its mother, but we are, nevertheless, all too aware of the unspeakably cruel nature of factory-farming, and the caging, vivisection and various forms of torture that laboratories inflict on animals, even a kindred "farming" of human embryos, in the name of science and humanitarian concern - which spring from this very blindness to moral beauty and ugliness. The fact that diseases are proliferating just the same - maybe more than ever - is evidently an inconvenient consideration. Mankind's most virulent disease, alas, tends to be its leaders, the people for whom plenty is never enough, and devil take the hindmost.

"On these two Commandments, Christ stated, hang the whole of the Law and the Prophets". And elsewhere, "Love is the fullness of he Law. The relationship of love with the First Commandment, of course, is disputed, and indeed, to some extent, this too was endorsed by Christ, himself, in his description of the Last Judgment in, I think, Matthew 25. Lip-service, obsession with the letter of the Law, rather than its spirit was the mark of some of the worst of sinners, the Pharisees, who occupied the chair of Moses.

This excerpt from Amos is striking in this connection:

".... I have made my decree and will not relent:
because they have sold the virtuous man for silver
and the poor man for a pair of sandals,
because they trample on the heads of ordinary people
and push the poor out of their path,
because father and son have both resorted to the same girl,
profaning my holy name,
because they stretch themselves out by the side of every altar
on clothes acquired as pledges,
and drink the wine of the people they have fined
in the house of their god..."

Atheists very seldom acknowledge how much our society had been dependent on substantial elements of Christian morality in the ethos of the country; indeed they seem unaware of it, and unable to comprehend it, even as our society is turning into a jungle before our eyes though without the compassion and decency of the dumb beasts, at least when they have a full belly.

Christianity istimes in the Old Testament, to the effect that the Hebrews in the Old Testament were not to "seethe a kid in its mother's milk".

On the face of it, it seems such a trifling precept, yet I believe it's purpose is of paramount importance, as it touches upon the very matter that you bring up here: empathy and moral beauty. Moral ugliness is in a sense an oxymoron. Essentially, spiritual ugliness is immoral, evil, "a priori". Of course, we human beings never have a perfect sense of moral beauty, or perhaps, more accurately, if we can, we can certainly never maintain it completely consistently or faithfully.

Nevertheless, most of us substantially share it in varying degrees, with overlaps and lacunas. But that Old Testament Commandment lays down that the Jewish religion is not essentially about rules and laws, but about empathy and compassion. We joke about MOm and apple-pie, but whatever the gustatory merits of apple-pie, the fact is that ina ll of human affairs, there is nothing more primordially important or more consuming than a mother's pretty unconditional love. That is to say the love of most mothers. Good fathers too love their children beyond measure, although the leaders of our societies have, particularly in recent times, loaded increasingly grievous pressures on parents, as well inevitably, as their children.

Very closely associated with this special love of parents and most notably of course that of mothers, since it tends to be more "crazily" unconditional, is the metaphor we use, "the milk of human kindness". Discontinuance of the issuing of free milk to school-children was one of the first actions implemented by a certain right-wing female politician in the UK - which seems particularly perverse and sad, yet, alas, symbolic of the cruelty of the historic right of the right throughout most of our history.
We did have one-nation Tories until said puppet politicians was put in place by the psychopaths of the far right, and unsurprisingly, they were immeasurably better than almost of the politicians we have in our country today, crooked, lying and depraved as they are. Depravity is not only sexual, by any means.

And the reason why our country is in the state it is in is a reflection of the failure of our government, national and local, to understand, wittingly or subiminally, the primordial and seminal truth that "seething a kid in its mother's milk" is an egregious offence against moral beauty (empathy, love): a more subtle truth than slaughtering the kind in front of its mother, but we are, nevertheless, all too aware of the unspeakably cruel nature of factory-farming, and the caging, vivisection and various forms of torture that laboratories inflcit on animals, in the name of science and humanitarian concern. The fact that diseases are proliferating just the same - maybe more than ever - is evidently an inconvenient consideration. Mankind's most virulent disease, alas, tends to be its leaders, the people for whom plenty is never enough, and devil take the hindmost.

"On these two Commandments, Christ stated, hang the whole of the Law and the Prophets". And elsewhere, "Love is the fullness of he Law. The relationship of love with the First Commandment, of course, is disputed, and indeed, to some extent, this appears to have been endorsed by Christ, himself, in his description of the Last Judgment in, I think, Matthew 25. However, it seems that the love of God is very present in the hearts of some people who claim no knowledge of him, while others pay lip-service to Him, though their hearts are from from Him. . Lip-service, obsession with the letter of the Law, rather than its spirit was the mark of some of the worst of sinners, the Pharisees, who occupied the chair of Moses. All this, however, certainly does not signify that evangelisation and the formal worship of God prescribed by it, are redundant.

This excerpt from Amos is striking in this connection:

".... I have made my decree and will not relent:
because they have sold the virtuous man for silver
an the poor man for a pair of sandals,
because they trample on the heads of ordinary people
and push the poor out of their path,
because father and son have both resorted to the same girl,
profaning my holy name,
because they stretch themselves out by the side of every altar
on clothes acquired as pledges

Christianity is blamed by many atheists for everything, yet it was the Church, shockingly corrupt though elements of its hierarchy has been for much of its history, who provided hospitals and medical carers for European societies. When Charlemagne conquered most of Europe, he didn't want his soldiers to live off the land, preying on the populace of the countries they passed through, but ordered that they take carts along with them, carrying provisions sufficient for 18 months (if my memory serves me correcty).
While one of the first questions put to the Pope was how the sale of a slave for pagan sacrificial offering should be treated. The unexceptionable answer was, as murder. Human sacrifice, mostly women and children, I believe, was the customary practice of the pagan religions, so it is little wonder that the abolition of slavery was not to come quickly. That it took so long, and was fought so fiercely by the Great and the Good, is a sin that cries to Heaven for vengeance. "Vengeance is mine", says the Lord. "I shall repay."

Here is an interesting article on the slaves of Hebrew masters:

http://www.rationalchristianity.net/slavery_ot.html#gen...

Since the Hebrews were forbidden from abducting their own people into slavery, it follows that since nominally Christian slave-owners converted their slaves (presumably, to encourage submissiveness, but maybe also to salve ther own consciences), even under the Old Testament dispensation, they were criminal miscreants in God's eyes. But this is digressing somewhat. The point is that few atheists have much understanding of their debt to Christianity, and even less to Judaism, without which there would be no Christianity.

[Time for change]

61. I agree that Christianity had a lot of very good things to teach humanity

How quickly we could have learned those things without Christianity is a question I can't answer.

There were also some very bad things, including many wars, that were perpetrated in the name of Christianity. Some blame Christianity for that, but I think that's unfair. George Bush invades Iraq in the name of democracy. That doesn't say anything bad about democracy, just because George Bush chooses to use it for that purpose.

[Joe Chi Minh]

75. I agree with your second point, of course, but it seems very clear to me that

"opiate of the people" or not, the more marginalised Christianity has become in our societies, the more Gadarene our descent into anomie and right-wing anarchy - the law of the jungle.

Of course, the picture in the US has been clouded by Bush and the so-called "fundamentalists" who nevertheless, in their worship of money and worldly bounty, are not so much un-Christian as fundamentally anti-Christian. Only some of our perjured media would be shameless enough to peddle Brown's "son of the manse" schtik, true though it was, alas, in actual fact. Of course that doesn't mean that the fundamentals Pope Benedict commended Bush for promoting were spurious; just that Christ's teachings concerning the lust for money and status cannot be set aside as unimportant. Matthew 25 makes it clear that helping those in need and suffering tribulations of other kinds in practical ways is the one and only sine qua non; a fact reiterated again and again by St John the Evangelist in his epistles.

[UrbScotty]

56. It's been a while since I've seen a post like this here.

Thank you so much.

[Jackpine Radical]

57. I guess I don't see the various proposed sources of morality

as mutually exclusive. In fact, I do think that empathy is the root source in psychological terms. But I would say that empathy is derived from parent-child interactions. Modern developmental theory suggests that infants develop a certain area of the brain (the right orbitofrontal cortex) largely as a result of interaction with the primary caregiver, whose behavior is responsive to the infant, and who serves as a homeostatic regulating mechanism for the infant. There is also the discovery of the mirror-neuron system, of course. People (and monkeys, for that matter) who observe other people (or monkeys) doing something will display activation in their brains that corresponds to the activation patterns in the brains of the actors whom they observe. Watch somebody shooting hoops, and your hoop-shooting circuitry will be activated. Thus there is a neural substrate for empathy, and for learning through modeling experiences. I have long believed that true psychopaths never develop the neural mechanisms for empathy. I have worked with many psychopaths, probing their developmental histories, and I almost always come up with reason to suspect that they missed out on the caregiver-child feedback experience.

[Time for change]

62. With regard to the hoop shooting analogy

Certainly there are many behaviors that can be learned by copying them from other people or reading instructions in a book, or by a variety of other means.

But isn't empathy something that must be felt, not merely copied?

[Jackpine Radical]

65. Indeed. I didn't mean to suggest anything simply mechanical or behavioral.

One of the better statements of the process I was alluding to is Allan Schore's book Affect Regulation and the Origin of the Self: The Neurobiology of Emotional Development. Also see Dan Siegel. In short, I think the homeostatic interaction between the caregiver & infant, in which the caregiver (read: "mother") regulates the infant's emotional and arousal states, is the matrix wherein the infant learns that other people are more-or-less like him inside, and empathy depends upon this fundamental insight. Psychopaths never "get it" that others are like them, and they don't particularly care.

[Time for change]

68. Thanks for the reference -- I have 2 questions

Is that a book that a non-psychologist could read without too much difficulty? And
Do you think that learning that other people are "more-or-less like him inside" is sufficient for empathy to develop, or just necessary?

[Jackpine Radical]

73. a) I don't know how hard the book would be for non-psychologists.

I do know that most psychologists find it pretty impenetrable.

b) Necessary, but not sufficient. I'm not too sure about what is sufficient.

[argeec]

66. I mentioned Steven Pinker's book

"The Blank Slate" above and he has another which is very relevant to your question - it's called "How The Mind Works".
And no, I am not his agent.

[Time for change]

69. Thank you and welcome to DU

Are those books something that a non-psychologist could read without too much difficulty?

[argeec]

86. They are written for a general audience.

[Time for change]

88. I take it that you would recommend them?

[DailyGrind51]

67. It is as simple as "Do unto others...", however, the sociopathic

personality never sees himself as ever being in a vulnerable situation. Sure, Rush would deny universal health coverage to others, because he knows he will always have enough money to pay for his health problems. In his "People of the Lie", M. Scott Peck writes that a characteristic of "evil" people is "cheapness", the willingness to deny others some basic need for one's own material gain, the "Let them eat cake!" "Are there no prisons?" prescriptions of archetypal misers.

[Time for change]

70. I thought "People of the Lie" was one of the most interesting books I ever read

I would think that "cheapness" would in some degree indicate a person who was afraid of being in a vulnerable situation -- so they hoard their money for future emergencies.

[DailyGrind51]

94. Your interpretation is probably more common than most of us would like

to acknowledge. A lot of fear came from Depression era parents who remembered what it was like "to do without", fostering almost neurotic saving, turning off of electric lights and appliances, even when needed, wearing tattered clothing, etc. Occasionally, you read about the miserly old hermit who dies and they later discover thousands of dollars stuffed in his mattress or sealed in his walls.

If you liked "People of the Lie", I recommend "The Psychopath: A Comprehensive Study of Antisocial Disorders and Behaviors" by William H. Reid, M.D.,M.P.H. It is a bit more clinical, but more comprehensive.

[Uncle Joe]

72. I believe empathy is the true bedrock for morality.

You can be told by your parents not do to something, they perceive as bad and you may not do it, but it may be more out of fear from displeasing your parents and receiving some form of punishment, I don't characterize this as morality. On the other hand if your fear is based on the reluctance of hurting your parent's feelings by your actions, this would be something else. The same holds true for your God/Gods/Goddess/Goddesses, you may fear their wrath with that being the deterrent to your actions or you may fear simply disappointing him/her/them, I view the former as selfish and the latter as moral.

I believe true morality or the highest form of it anyway is based in empathy, as in the Good Samaritan, or walking in someone else's moccasins, or loving your enemy/neighbor as your self, only then will your actions be determined by the effects on someone other than you, I believe most people have difficulty walking on this narrow path, myself included. But in the final analysis, I believe the more people that can walk on it, ultimately has the effect of widening the path.

Thanks for the thread, Time for change.

[Time for change]

77. That's about the way I see it too

[Lydia Leftcoast]

116. Reminds me of Ericsson's stages of moral development

There's an early stage where you behave out of fear of punishment, another where you believe that morality is a matter of following specific rules, and the highest stage, where you act on principles of empathy and fairness.

[mmonk]

74. I like to think of moralty as being of two kinds, natural and contrived.

One is an ability to relate to another which comes from a developed brain's ability to reason. The other is contrived and basically comes from the mores of a particular culture, belief, and religion. Many times, the reasoned based one comes in conflict with the mores based one and actually in some circumstances, become opposites.

[Time for change]

78. Are you saying that you don't see a role for empathy?

[mmonk]

79. I see empathy more in terms of natural morality.

I have more problems with the term or idea of moralty given that what may be moral in one culture may be immoral in another.

[Time for change]

81. I have a problem with the idea of moral relativity -- for example,

consider George W. Bush. One could say that he's a very moral person, according to his culture, that is, the Neocon culture. Starting a war for oil, killing over a million innocent people, torturing people by the thousands. That's all quite moral within the Neocon culture. I just can't buy that as real morality.

[mmonk]

83. Yes, that's true. To many he is moral but to me, he isn't

anything I would call moral. For example, it may be moral in one culture, belief, or religion, to cut off the hand of a thief that stole a loaf of bread. To me, the act of cutting off the hand is way more immoral than stealing the loaf of bread.

[bobbolink]

76. Jim Wallis on this subject, from his latest book, The Great Awakening

p.119 Neither the political conservatives nor the liberals much engaged with actual poor people. .... Compassion for the poor is usually the first step, but it is only the doorway to change. Finally seeing and feeling what life is truly like for half the world's people and an embarrassing number of our fellow citizens right here in America is always the beginning of change. Social services, religious ministries, and volunteer opportunities expose millions of middle-class people to a new world of hurt and injustice, and their conscience is pricked for the first time. Caring is certainly the beginning of change; but it is only the beginning.

Second is the call for social justice, which flows directly from compassion. Feeding hungry people isn't enough; asking why they are hungry is the justice question. Caring for HIV/AIDS sufferers is wonderful, but asking why affluent AIDS patients can buy their health and their futures with lifesaving antiretrovirals while the disease is literally a death sentence for the poor is the justice question. Working on a new Habitat for Humanity home for a poor family or volunteering in a homeless shelter is an inspiring experience, but asking why there isn't more affordable housing available or why home ownership is only for the middle class is the justice question. The same is true about the relationship between tutoring an inner-city kid and fixing failed school systems, starting a health clinic and reforming the health care system, rescuing women and children from sex trafficking and fighting the practice and the industry. But even in calling for social justice, there is still the possibility of keeping a safe distance from the poor themselves, still the temptation to see the problems to be fixed as concerning "them" and not "us".

The third step is the critical movement into solidarity, community, or interdependence with the poor. That only comes when we see our destinies ultimately tied up with one another. It is the insight that what happens to the poor, or any of my neighbors, will finally also affect me and the people I love. James Wolfensohn, former president of the World Bank, made much the same point when he said, "There is no wall." Walls don't protect us from environmental degradation and pollution, the social costs of poverty, the social instability of inequality, the political costs of anger and resentment, and the results of injustice and hatred in the forms of crime, insurrection, terrorism, and other forms of random violence. the costs of the urban poverty we accept for children of color in America are finally revealed in a dysfunctional criminal justice, in crumbling social safety nets, unsafe neighborhoods, and dangerous social alienation. And the consequences of global poverty are evident in the spread of pandemic disease, environmental degradation, endless military conflicts, and the regional anarchy that leads directly to chaos and terrorism.

[Time for change]

80. That sounds like an interesting book, thank you

[bobbolink]

114. You're very welcome! I mentioned it in another thread, and two people

got it for their fathers for Father's Day.



No, I'm not hawking books...

[jeff30997]

85. Empathy.

If there's something that separates us from the other animals roaming on this planet I would say

that it is Empathy.But don't get me wrong,some animals show strange behaviors (Strange?) like for

example dolphins saving a human from drowning and so on.

But some human beings are heavily handicapped:The don't have an once of fucking Empathy!

The extreme cases would be serial killers but the example I would give for peoples without

Empathy is...yes you guessed it the crooked politicians like the Bush Gang and the other scums like

CEOs of war profiting corporations like Bechtel,Halliburton,Blackwater etc.

What a waste of neurons!

What a tragedy!

[Time for change]

87. But George Bush has other qualities

We're told by our corporate media that he's lot's of fun to have a beer with.

But you're right, the Bush gang doesn't have one fucking ounce of empathy. Maybe the American people have learned to tell the difference after the past 7 and a half years.

[Greyhound]

89. According to Hunter Thompson he was an ass at parties too. n/t

[jeff30997]

91. Lol.Yeah...

And I bet he's good in farting contests too.

But IMHO Lack of empathy should be considered as a mental illness.

A dangerous one.

[Time for change]

92. VERY dangerous

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Time%20for%20...

[jeff30997]

95. Thanks for the link Time for change!

Very interesting reading.(Yep,I love to learn).

[provis99]

103. I wonder where we could fit the concept "the ends justify the means"

Bush might feel morally right in his actions in Iraq if he believes it will lead to a long-term stability in the region.

We probably felt we had the moral high ground in World War II, even though it included execution of prisoners, torture, mass carpet bombing of civilians, and the only two uses of the nuclear bomb.

What I mean is, we are moral through empathy, but in the real world we are forced to weigh empathy for one person against empathy for another.

So empathy as an explanation for morality is seriously incomplete.

Hannah Arendt did write a well-known book on empathy and morality, using the case study of the Nazis, in "The Banality of Evil."

[Time for change]

105. I don't see why that makes empathy an inadequate explanation for morality

It just makes it more complicated. We must think of consequences of our actions, long term as well as short term. If our child does things that are dangerous to his health or safety we may have to punish him to save him from himself. Our empathy for our child in the short term in tempered by our realization of long term consequences.

Bush is a totally different matter. There isn't the slightest bit of evidence that he gives a damn about the stability of the region, long term or otherwise.