Freethought & Rationalism Archive

dk · 08-25-2002, 10:17 AM

Quote:

RRH: I think blame plays a part in morality along with empathy. It is, in a sense, the opposite of empathy, in that one tends to blame people with whom one does not empathize. But to try to say that every time you empathize with someone, you are also blaming something, as dk tried to assert with examples, isn't quite getting it right.

dk: I agree because it�s wrong to use empathy as a basis for justice. Justice requires an assessment of facts that terminates with a finding of guilty i.e. �a finding of fact�. Then justice fashions a remedy to restore good order (the victims). The assessment requires the guilty be punished, and the injured restored or compensated for damages. Morality is concerned with justice, and justice is concerned with blame therefore empathy is an insufficient basis for morality.

Quote:

RRH: Let's look at one of dk's examples: "Empathy for gays with AIDs blames the traditional family."
I don't think empathy here requires blame, really. The way I see the relationship between blame and empathy, it leads to situations more like this:

Person A feels empathy for gays with AIDS, just in terms of identifying with someone who has a disease. Because A empathizes with them, he doesn't blame them.
Person B feels that people with AIDS have brought it on themselves, through risky sexual behaviour, and so are to blame for their own fate. Because B blames them, he doesn't empathize as much with their situation.

So, the more one empathizes with someone, the less one is likely to blame them. The more one blames someone, the less one empathizes with them.
Now, we have seen that there are cases where blame has been misplaced, with disastrous results. But what about misplaced empathy?

dk: - Lets talk about AIDs. I think justice requires us to amend person B�s statement.

Person B : feels empathy for gays with AIDS, and blames the disproportionately high rate of infection on high risk behaviors glorified by gay culture.

I think I�ve muted your point, by redirecting the blame from a particular victim of AIDs to institutions that promote dangerous high risk behaviors through bathhouses, drugs, gay media, and pornography. No doubt I�ve stepped into a taboo by blaming Gay Culture, but my intent was to demonstrate again why empathy is insufficient grounds for morality. This is such a hot button issue sometimes emotions overwhelm reason.

[ August 25, 2002: Message edited by: dk ]

Aerik Von · 08-25-2002, 10:08 PM

This turned into a monster...I will have to read and reply to the many threads tomorrow when I am a bit more awake...

echidna · 08-26-2002, 01:55 AM

Dk, blame is not a flipside of empathy, more of a quite reasonable frequent consequence.

Now the negative examples of blame you choose are examples where public sentiment differs from your own view. Contrast another set of examples which I have no problems with :

Empathy for children blames paedophiles
Empathy for women blames rapists
Empathy for immigrants blames racists

Your examples are not so much the fault of empathy, as much as maybe the fault of reasoning, critical thinking and ability to be manipulated by media & social groups.

The flipside of blame might be praise :

Empathy for children praises loving parents
Empathy for women praises women�s support groups
Empathy for immigrants praises volunteer community assimilation programs

In any moral scheme, morality will lead one to try & correct and rectify immoral actions. Of course cause & effect must play a major part, encouraging the positives and discouraging the negatives. How else could you possibly have it ?

echidna · 08-26-2002, 01:58 AM

Now Aerik Von, where DK has a point, is when empathy is taken to the extent of patronising. We are all quite unique in our attitudes & how we want to be treated.

When a child wants the bag of chips just before dinner, do we empathise with her crying & give them to her ? Or do we �know what�s best� & gently explain that she has to wait.

How often does empathy lead to patronising ?

Over-empathising can often be more destructive than the problems which one is trying to solve.

The Other Michael · 08-26-2002, 05:59 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by echidna:
Empathy for children blames paedophiles
Empathy for women blames rapists
Empathy for immigrants blames racists

I think it might be important to qualify these statements to stress that they would only be correct in specific instances, and aren't sweeping "universals".

Some women are never raped - so how could empathy for them blame rapists? Some immigrants will never suffer from racism, so how can empathy with their condition result in blame for racists? Etc etc

As an aside, when I noted the various spellings for "battered" that appeared earlier, I found myself wishing that someone had used "buttered", as it might have been interesting to contrast the plights of buttered vs battered wives.

cheers,
Michael

dk · 08-26-2002, 08:21 AM

Quote:

echidna: Dk, blame is not a flipside of empathy, more of a quite reasonable frequent consequence.
Now the negative examples of blame you choose are examples where public sentiment differs from your own view. Contrast another set of examples which I have no problems with :

Empathy for children blames paedophiles
Empathy for women blames rapists
Empathy for immigrants blames racists

Your examples are not so much the fault of empathy, as much as maybe the fault of reasoning, critical thinking and ability to be manipulated by media & social groups.

The flipside of blame might be praise :

Empathy for children praises loving parents
Empathy for women praises women�s support groups
Empathy for immigrants praises volunteer community assimilation programs

In any moral scheme, morality will lead one to try & correct and rectify immoral actions. Of course cause & effect must play a major part, encouraging the positives and discouraging the negatives. How else could you possibly have it ?

dk: Hey,
People should praise good parents, but should people praise abusive parents? Of course not.
Can a parent be abusive yet love their children more than life? Of course they can.
Can I have empathy for an abusive parents that love their children? You bet.
Lets be clear,

Empathy for molested children blames paedophiles
Empathy for paedophiles blames ???? the child)
- One can�t reasonably blame a toddler who hasn�t reached the age of reason,
but in fact statutory rapists do blame the rape victim, and do so with great success.
Empathy for raped women blames rapists
Empathy for rapists blames the women
In fact defense attorneys do blame raped woman.
Empathy for illegal immigrants blames the INS
Empathy for the INS blames the illegal immigrants
In fact people do blame illegal immigrants for INS abuses.
Empathy for children praises loving parents
Empathy for loving parents praises children
-children of loving parents praise (honor) their parents
-loving parents praise their children.
That�s loyalty and duty not empathy
Empathy for women praises women�s support groups
Empathy for women� groups praises women
- Women support groups should praise the women they help,
-women helped should praise their support group.
That�s charity and gratitude not empathy.
Empathy for immigrants praises volunteer community assimilation programs
Empathy for volunteer community assimilation programs praises immigrants
-Voluntary community assimilation programs praise immigrants
-Immigrants should praise the voluntary community assimilation program.
That�s charity and gratitude not empathy.

I agree any moral scheme entails an implicit judgment based on values protected by justice. Seems to me a reasonable basis for morality is contingent upon values and justice that oblige all people to personally uphold. For example... The life of all human beings has great (but unknowable) value, so justice is obliged to protect a person�s life. The liberty of all human beings has great value, so justice is obliged to protect a person�s liberty. Empathy has great value, but are we now going to sue or jail somebody because they stole my empathy, lack empathy or can we somehow redistribute empathy with a progressive tax? Do we now need to hire the empathy police, invent an empathy pill, or augment the IRS with the Empathy Revenue Service?

[ August 26, 2002: Message edited by: dk ]

doubtingt · 08-28-2002, 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Aerik Von:
As "Gods" rules and laws really cannot be proven they could easily be discarded as nothing more than psychological projections of how we feel.

Simply put, how many athiests use Empathy as a moral guide instead of supernatural assurances?

Well, it is likely that all of the worthwhile morality within theistic worldviews stems from natural empathy and a kind of natural morality that existed long before God's authority was invented. Authoritarian moral systems can lead people to act "unnaturally kind", by sacrificing their own well being. However, it can and does, just as easily lead to "unnaturally cruel" acts by canceling out the natural empathy that would prevent such acts. It's all up to the benevolence of the authority. Since those who seek to grasp the power to speak for God are usually less than benevolent, authoritarian morality probably does more harm than good.

Aerik Von · 08-31-2002, 10:18 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by doubtingt:


Well, it is likely that all of the worthwhile morality within theistic worldviews stems from natural empathy and a kind of natural morality that existed long before God's authority was invented. Authoritarian moral systems can lead people to act "unnaturally kind", by sacrificing their own well being. However, it can and does, just as easily lead to "unnaturally cruel" acts by canceling out the natural empathy that would prevent such acts. It's all up to the benevolence of the authority. Since those who seek to grasp the power to speak for God are usually less than benevolent, authoritarian morality probably does more harm than good.

I would agree 100% with this statement.

dk · 08-31-2002, 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by doubtingt:


Well, it is likely that all of the worthwhile morality within theistic worldviews stems from natural empathy and a kind of natural morality that existed long before God's authority was invented. Authoritarian moral systems can lead people to act "unnaturally kind", by sacrificing their own well being. However, it can and does, just as easily lead to "unnaturally cruel" acts by canceling out the natural empathy that would prevent such acts. It's all up to the benevolence of the authority. Since those who seek to grasp the power to speak for God are usually less than benevolent, authoritarian morality probably does more harm than good.

I don't think it�s likely at all. Seems to me that a Christian view of morality is theistic, and morality stems from the concepts of sacrifice and suffering. What someone suffers for the sake of envy, hatred, selfishness, greed, lies or apathy is wrong, unjust and illegitimate. What someone sacrifices for God, spouse, children, neighbor or peace is good, righteous, and just.

doubtingt · 09-05-2002, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by dk:


I don't think it’s likely at all. Seems to me that a Christian view of morality is theistic, and morality stems from the concepts of sacrifice and suffering. What someone suffers for the sake of envy, hatred, selfishness, greed, lies or apathy is wrong, unjust and illegitimate. What someone sacrifices for God, spouse, children, neighbor or peace is good, righteous, and just.

Exactly!!!! The key to your statement is that anything that a person "sacrafices for God"
is righteous. This includes sacrificing the lives,
well-being, and freedom of others. Monotheism
defines morality as obedience to God's will.
Since there is no objective criteria to determine
his will anyone is free to arbitrarily decide
what his will is. This inherently self centered
and arbitrary moral system is precisely why
God can and is used to justify inhumane acts.
Such justification is both historically and logically consistent with the central theistic assumptions. Genocide is not an abberation of
theistic morality, it is a predictable outcome of it.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-25-2002, 10:08 PM	#22
Aerik Von Regular Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Hell, New York Posts: 151	This turned into a monster...I will have to read and reply to the many threads tomorrow when I am a bit more awake...

08-26-2002, 01:55 AM	#23
echidna Veteran Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 2,832	Dk, blame is not a flipside of empathy, more of a quite reasonable frequent consequence. Now the negative examples of blame you choose are examples where public sentiment differs from your own view. Contrast another set of examples which I have no problems with : Empathy for children blames paedophiles Empathy for women blames rapists Empathy for immigrants blames racists Your examples are not so much the fault of empathy, as much as maybe the fault of reasoning, critical thinking and ability to be manipulated by media & social groups. The flipside of blame might be praise : Empathy for children praises loving parents Empathy for women praises women�s support groups Empathy for immigrants praises volunteer community assimilation programs In any moral scheme, morality will lead one to try & correct and rectify immoral actions. Of course cause & effect must play a major part, encouraging the positives and discouraging the negatives. How else could you possibly have it ?

08-26-2002, 01:58 AM	#24
echidna Veteran Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 2,832	Now Aerik Von, where DK has a point, is when empathy is taken to the extent of patronising. We are all quite unique in our attitudes & how we want to be treated. When a child wants the bag of chips just before dinner, do we empathise with her crying & give them to her ? Or do we �know what�s best� & gently explain that she has to wait. How often does empathy lead to patronising ? Over-empathising can often be more destructive than the problems which one is trying to solve.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.