Cirion Spellbinder wrote:It compels us to care, but it often focuses on individuals, as opposed to groups. Consider this excerpt from an article by psychologist Paul Bloom on the New Yorker.
That's true, so it can be very harmful in some cases if it's restricted to groups (which like you say, it often is).
This is still a problem with not enough empathy, though.
Cirion Spellbinder wrote:As demonstrated by this study, empathy compels us to help individuals that we can identify. Without the guidance of well thought out and tested methods, empathy leads us to help the few we can relate to as opposed to the many who are vague and hard to relate to.
It merely demonstrates that people are more likely to feel empathy for people they can relate to. That's bad, but it doesn't make empathy bad.
Though, usually the situation isn't like that anyway; excluding politics, it's little things, like giving food to people who are homeless.
Cirion Spellbinder wrote:
Can you empathize with vague bodies of victims? I certainly can't, I can only understand and feel the feelings of an individual. More empathy results in more compassion being directed towards individuals, not towards bodies.
I care about them, but it is more difficult for me to empathize in situations like that (like hearing numbers of casualties).
Again, this is an issue with there not being enough empathy.
Cirion Spellbinder wrote:Are you trying to say that compassion (which I am defining as avoiding the violation of interests and promoting the completion of interests) is a necessary axiom in for a consistent and coherent moral system? Otherwise I have no idea what you mean.
I'm saying that morality is not based on science; it's based on compassion (I agree with your definition).
Cirion Spellbinder wrote:That example was bad. What if Mercy for Animals was a soup kitchen?
First of all, I don't think that most people aren't deciding between giving to a soup kitchen and a homeless person.
I think they don't really think about these things much, but because of empathy, will give to homeless people. If they didn't have empathy, they might not care at all.
But again, this is an issue with application.
miniboes wrote:You reject consequentialism, then?
I'm not sure where you got that from.
I shouldn't have said that morality is based on empathy; it's based on compassion, and empathy leads to compassion in many situations.