Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Paperstreet · 04-30-2003, 03:23 PM

Is empathy the foundation for morality? Do we do unto others as we would have them do unto us? Considering we are all different, with different needs, do we accept this principle as the final word in moral decision making? Or merely use it as a laying ground for what should be done?

I think it should always be considered, but in the end, our apathy towards different things always has to be considered.

On the other hand, what can make our decisions better then what we feel about others situations?

Im not sure.

kctan · 04-30-2003, 07:54 PM

Nah. In ancient days, morality is not about empathy at all. It's how well you can obey the rules, regulations, rituals etc... as set out by your tribe.

IIRC morality did a change of theme only quite recently.

What I think is that empathy is not the last word, more like how one feels at that moment in time & how one can actually gain from the proceeding itself. Ultimately self-interest & emotions plays the major role in just how one would react to a given situation.

In truth, we don't think so much upon a situation, it's more instinct like when we reacts. It's only when the action have been done that's when we start 'justifying' why we acted the way we did. I think empathy only kicks in at this stage, prior to action, I can't say for sure, I can only think of self-interest & emotions (or maybe instincts ?).

Just remember that even if you've rehearsed a reaction to an imagined situation for millions of time, when it actually happens, you would still end up acting differently.

FWIWs, just to clarify, I don't think anyone actually did stand around & think when some situation happened before they actually reacted right ? Eg. you see a snatch thief snatched the handbag from an old lady, do you immediately give chase or do you stand around & think what to do first then run after the thief ? Is the immediate action a result of empathy or something else ? This, I think would be the answer to your question.

keyser_soze · 04-30-2003, 08:28 PM

I think every one of us should give a word of thanks to the humanist movement....

Without it, we might still be watching public executions with glee and sacrificing animals to mythological explanations for what we don't understand...

Viti · 04-30-2003, 08:50 PM

I try to base all of my moral/ethical decisions on empathy...seems to work for me

Jamie_L · 05-01-2003, 10:16 AM

Empathy alone doesn't cut it. The exact nature of a person's empathy is determined by their upbringing, and it can vary widely. It's possible for people to be raised in such a fashion that they have no empathy at all.

Empathy is the tool we use to instill morality in people, but it cannot be relied upon as a source for morality.

Jamie

Paperstreet · 05-01-2003, 12:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jamie_L

Empathy is the tool we use to instill morality in people, but it cannot be relied upon as a source for morality.

Jamie

Very good point, but can it be a starting point?

Sabine Grant · 05-02-2003, 04:54 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Paperstreet
Very good point, but can it be a starting point?

Salut paperstreet... it can be the starting point IMO. Whether it was impressed in our minds by our upbringing or the result of considering " this is what I missed in my life so far in my difficult times as I recieved no empathy from others and I wish to fix it now by doing for others what was not done for me", it can be the starting point.
I think of empathy as something that can be contagious....it can spread from one individual to the other as we focus on " what is the best thing I can do to improve the conditions of this other human being".
There is always a way to approach others with empathy. But it always depends on the degree of involvement one wants to have with others. Some folks seem to have a personality which affects positively other people. They inspire involvement. They have a healing effect on a broken mind.
I think empathy ought to be the motivator to moral conduct.

Clutch · 05-02-2003, 05:57 AM

There is no "the" foundation of morality, a point that has been generally overlooked in virtually every discussion of the topic.

Morality is a "kludge". There are various causes of and kinds of moral behaviour, some to be explained in terms of evolution, some in terms of socialization, some in terms of rational calculation. Why think that any one (or two, or three) principles should explain the whole shebang, or even most of it?

yguy · 05-02-2003, 03:09 PM

I think empathy is overrated. The most striking example of compassion I've ever heard of was Christ saving the life of the adulterous woman, and I see no reason to think He empathized with her.

Farren · 05-02-2003, 07:25 PM

I think if he didn't, its a pretty damning indictment of the Christian faith.

I empathise with my dog. If you believe your saviour couldn't empathise with a female of the same species, its not a good advert for your faith.

04-30-2003, 03:23 PM	#1
Paperstreet Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Maryland Posts: 175	Is empathy the final word for morality? Is empathy the foundation for morality? Do we do unto others as we would have them do unto us? Considering we are all different, with different needs, do we accept this principle as the final word in moral decision making? Or merely use it as a laying ground for what should be done? I think it should always be considered, but in the end, our apathy towards different things always has to be considered. On the other hand, what can make our decisions better then what we feel about others situations? Im not sure.

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

04-30-2003, 07:54 PM	#2
kctan Senior Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: Heaven, just assasinated god Posts: 578	Nah. In ancient days, morality is not about empathy at all. It's how well you can obey the rules, regulations, rituals etc... as set out by your tribe. IIRC morality did a change of theme only quite recently. What I think is that empathy is not the last word, more like how one feels at that moment in time & how one can actually gain from the proceeding itself. Ultimately self-interest & emotions plays the major role in just how one would react to a given situation. In truth, we don't think so much upon a situation, it's more instinct like when we reacts. It's only when the action have been done that's when we start 'justifying' why we acted the way we did. I think empathy only kicks in at this stage, prior to action, I can't say for sure, I can only think of self-interest & emotions (or maybe instincts ?). Just remember that even if you've rehearsed a reaction to an imagined situation for millions of time, when it actually happens, you would still end up acting differently. FWIWs, just to clarify, I don't think anyone actually did stand around & think when some situation happened before they actually reacted right ? Eg. you see a snatch thief snatched the handbag from an old lady, do you immediately give chase or do you stand around & think what to do first then run after the thief ? Is the immediate action a result of empathy or something else ? This, I think would be the answer to your question.

04-30-2003, 08:28 PM	#3
keyser_soze Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: god's judge (pariah) Posts: 1,281	I think every one of us should give a word of thanks to the humanist movement.... Without it, we might still be watching public executions with glee and sacrificing animals to mythological explanations for what we don't understand...

04-30-2003, 08:50 PM	#4
Viti Contributor Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Down South Posts: 12,879	I try to base all of my moral/ethical decisions on empathy...seems to work for me

05-01-2003, 10:16 AM	#5
Jamie_L Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: U.S. Posts: 2,565	Empathy alone doesn't cut it. The exact nature of a person's empathy is determined by their upbringing, and it can vary widely. It's possible for people to be raised in such a fashion that they have no empathy at all. Empathy is the tool we use to instill morality in people, but it cannot be relied upon as a source for morality. Jamie

05-02-2003, 05:57 AM	#8
Clutch Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Canada Posts: 3,751	There is no "the" foundation of morality, a point that has been generally overlooked in virtually every discussion of the topic. Morality is a "kludge". There are various causes of and kinds of moral behaviour, some to be explained in terms of evolution, some in terms of socialization, some in terms of rational calculation. Why think that any one (or two, or three) principles should explain the whole shebang, or even most of it?

05-02-2003, 03:09 PM	#9
yguy Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 2,199	I think empathy is overrated. The most striking example of compassion I've ever heard of was Christ saving the life of the adulterous woman, and I see no reason to think He empathized with her.

05-02-2003, 07:25 PM	#10
Farren Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: South Africa Posts: 2,194	I think if he didn't, its a pretty damning indictment of the Christian faith. I empathise with my dog. If you believe your saviour couldn't empathise with a female of the same species, its not a good advert for your faith.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.