Empathy is bad

[EquALLity]

I wasn't defining compassion as only being about suffering; I was agreeing with Cirion's definition:
"avoiding the violation of interests and promoting the completion of interests"

Well, if you change the definition to something it doesn't mean, then sure.

I'm also a potato, if you define potato as a human being.

Compassion (Google definition):
"sympathetic pity and concern for the sufferings or misfortunes of others."

Misfortunes could mean violation of interest.

[EquALLity]

The level of empathy needed for it to be useful, appears to be practically impossible to achieve.

Not in most situations.

In other words, individuals.

I think people are more likely to care about groups they can relate to also.

Empathy might be difficult for people to have in certain situations, but that means there isn't enough of it.

I'm not sure what this means.

Usually the situation isn't someone choosing between helping a homeless person and giving to a soup kitchen. It's not usually a person helping an individual over a group- it's a person doing something extra when he wouldn't have done anything as a result of empathy.

Can we achieve this level of empathy for it to be useful?

When it comes to the uncommon situations you're talking about:

I think it's easier for people to empathize when a situation becomes humanized.
You might not care about the Syrian refugees, but if you see an image of a mother clutching her child while standing in ruins, that could inspire you to actually take a look at the issue.
That shouldn't be necessary, but it often is.

If morality isn't based on science and reason, then it has no objective foundation.

I don't think it's based on science at all. I think science can help us discover what is the most compassionate, but that morality is ultimately about compassion. Compassion is not subjective (using your definition).

That's true, but its besides the point. I was trying to demonstrate how the empathetic person would give to the homeless man, but the reasonable man would give to the soup kitchen or animal charity. The former being less effective altruism than the latter.

Empathetic and reasonable are not mutually exclusive.

My point is that, in practice, empathy is mostly a good thing.

Empathy is not a necessary component of morality. Why would it be necessary to feel the feelings of others in order to care about doing the right thing?

I don't think it's necessary, but I think it motivates many people.

[brimstoneSalad]

Compassion (Google definition):
"sympathetic pity and concern for the sufferings or misfortunes of others."

Misfortunes could mean violation of interest.

It would be a bit of a stretch to include concern for a realization of other's interests, though. It's not also a concern for the fortunes of others, unless you consider not having a fortune being a form of misfortune. I think we'd have to consult a usage panel on that; I feel like the word being used like that could be confusing.

[Cirion Spellbinder]

The level of empathy needed for it to be useful, appears to be practically impossible to achieve.

Not in most situations.

Do you think most situations call for narrow empathy, the common and practically achievable form of empathy?

I think people are more likely to care about groups they can relate to also.

Sure, but that has nothing to do with their ability to empathize with these groups.
Empathy ≠ Caring

Empathy might be difficult for people to have in certain situations, but that means there isn't enough of it.

The broad empathy called for in these situations is probably not practicable. I know that I cannot practice it, and brimstoneSalad has vocalized that she / he / it thinks such a thing is probably not practicable.

Usually the situation isn't someone choosing between helping a homeless person and giving to a soup kitchen. It's not usually a person helping an individual over a group- it's a person doing something extra when he wouldn't have done anything as a result of empathy.

When a person does something extra and it is compelled by empathy, they are most likely helping an individual because most empathy is narrow and focuses on a single individual. In doing so they are choosing the individual over the group and practicing ineffective altruism as a result.

I think it's easier for people to empathize when a situation becomes humanized.
You might not care about the Syrian refugees, but if you see an image of a mother clutching her child while standing in ruins, that could inspire you to actually take a look at the issue.
That shouldn't be necessary, but it often is.

If I allowed empathy to make my moral decisions, then this imagery would compel me to give money to individual refugees or maybe take a refugee into my home, both of which are ineffective altruism. Helping Syrian refugees in any way practicable by middle class westerners doesn't get them the most bang for their buck in terms of altruism. This time and resources dedicated to Syrian refugees could be better spent on animal rights issues.

I don't think it's based on science at all. I think science can help us discover what is the most compassionate, but that morality is ultimately about compassion. Compassion is not subjective (using your definition).

brimstoneSalad is right, I arbitrarily redefined the word, so we probably shouldn't call "avoiding the violation of interests and promoting the completion of interests" compassion.
This is probably better described as follows:
• violating others' interests is the root of evil
• fulfilling others' interests is the root of good
It would probably be better to state that reason is the base of morality, and science provides the necessary means to be sure that our premises are true. The root of evil and root of good cannot exist without the foundation of reason and science to back them up.

Empathetic and reasonable are not mutually exclusive.

True, but a person driven solely by empathy will not be a moral person, while a person driven solely by reason or reason and empathy (where reason takes control when empathy is not useful) will be a moral person.

I don't think it's necessary, but I think it motivates many people.

Sure, it motivates them to practice ineffective altruism.

[EquALLity]

Compassion (Google definition):
"sympathetic pity and concern for the sufferings or misfortunes of others."

Misfortunes could mean violation of interest.

It would be a bit of a stretch to include concern for a realization of other's interests, though. It's not also a concern for the fortunes of others, unless you consider not having a fortune being a form of misfortune. I think we'd have to consult a usage panel on that; I feel like the word being used like that could be confusing.

I don't think it's clear, but this really doesn't matter anyway.

[EquALLity]

Do you think most situations call for narrow empathy, the common and practically achievable form of empathy?

Yes, do you?

Sure, but that has nothing to do with their ability to empathize with these groups.
Empathy ≠ Caring

I also mean empathize, but it's not really relevant anyway. I was just saying people are generally more understanding towards others who they can relate with.

The broad empathy called for in these situations is probably not practicable. I know that I cannot practice it, and brimstoneSalad has vocalized that she / he / it thinks such a thing is probably not practicable.

Perhaps, but empathy is still usually a positive thing in that it motivates people to do the right thing.

When a person does something extra and it is compelled by empathy, they are most likely helping an individual because most empathy is narrow and focuses on a single individual. In doing so they are choosing the individual over the group and practicing ineffective altruism as a result.

I don't understand your logic here.

You agreed with me that most people aren't choosing between donating to charities and individuals.
So the situation, with that given:

A person is walking down the street on her way to a CVS, and she stumbles upon an old homeless man. She feels empathetic for him, so she gives him ten dollars. She wasn't going to give the ten dollars to charity; she would just buy stuff with it for herself. But because she had empathy, it went towards helping another person. If she didn't have empathy, she probably would've just bought a new hat.

If I allowed empathy to make my moral decisions, then this imagery would compel me to give money to individual refugees or maybe take a refugee into my home, both of which are ineffective altruism. Helping Syrian refugees in any way practicable by middle class westerners doesn't get them the most bang for their buck in terms of altruism. This time and resources dedicated to Syrian refugees could be better spent on animal rights issues.

I don't think so. I think that seeing the struggle of individual people in a group will compel you to be more understanding and compassionate towards that group as a whole.

It's like how people are more likely to not be bigoted against gays and Muslims, as groups, if they meet people who fit those demographics.

brimstoneSalad is right, I arbitrarily redefined the word, so we probably shouldn't call "avoiding the violation of interests and promoting the completion of interests" compassion.
This is probably better described as follows:
• violating others' interests is the root of evil
• fulfilling others' interests is the root of good
It would probably be better to state that reason is the base of morality, and science provides the necessary means to be sure that our premises are true. The root of evil and root of good cannot exist without the foundation of reason and science to back them up.

No, I don't think that reason itself is the basis of morality. You can use sound reason to do immoral acts.
A psychopathic sadist could use reason to decide that she should slit the throats of babies, but it's not moral. Morality has to be about altruistically caring for others, and reason and science should be used to determine what solution is the most altruistically caring.

True, but a person driven solely by empathy will not be a moral person, while a person driven solely by reason or reason and empathy (where reason takes control when empathy is not useful) will be a moral person.

What about people who use reason to do evil things?
Reason can be used to do good and bad things. In and of itself, it just helps us determine the reality of a situation.

Sure, it motivates them to practice ineffective altruism.

Not usually.

[Cirion Spellbinder]

Do you think most situations call for narrow empathy, the common and practically achievable form of empathy?

Yes, do you?

No, I don't.

I also mean empathize, but it's not really relevant anyway. I was just saying people are generally more understanding towards others who they can relate with.

Sure, if it is an individual.

You agreed with me that most people aren't choosing between donating to charities and individuals.

I don't recall agreeing with that, but if I did, I no longer do. By choosing to engage in ineffective altruism, you choose to not dedicate the time and resources spent on said ineffective altruism on effective altruism, amoral actions, ineffective evil, and effective evil. Choosing ineffective altruism is certainly better than amoral actions, ineffective evil, and effective evil, but inferior to effective altruism.

A person is walking down the street on her way to a CVS, and she stumbles upon an old homeless man. She feels empathetic for him, so she gives him ten dollars. She wasn't going to give the ten dollars to charity; she would just buy stuff with it for herself. But because she had empathy, it went towards helping another person. If she didn't have empathy, she probably would've just bought a new hat.

By giving to that old homeless man she is gambling for positive consequences. Given our current knowledge of said homeless man, we can't be sure what he'll do with the money. If he is going to use it to eat, he'll probably go buy some meaty junk food, increasing the demand for animal products, harming animals. Or maybe he'll use it to pay for his drug addiction, which will increase the demand for illegal drugs, allowing drug cartels to harm people. He could also buy some type of clothes or tool, which, if purchased from a poor nation, will help their economy and improve their standards of living. Otherwise purchasing clothes or tools would probably qualify as amoral.

Let's instead assume that the woman gives the homeless man ten dollars worth of healthy vegan food (beans, veggies, whole grains) in order to guarantee that the woman is producing a positive consequence, which is probably what you intended. Also, like you said, if she doesn't give the homeless man anything, then she spends her ten dollars on a hat. Given this information, it is best for the woman to be empathetic and feed the homeless man, because it is the best possible altruism she can practice. However, if the woman was motivated by reason and a desire to practice effective altruism, she could instead donate her ten dollars to Mercy for Animals and get the most bang for her buck in terms of altruism.

Maybe its better for emotionally driven people, like this woman, to practice empathy in order to get them to practice the bare minimum of altruism, but for reasonable people who want to be as moral as practicable, empathy should not be a guiding force.

I don't think so. I think that seeing the struggle of individual people in a group will compel you to be more understanding and compassionate towards that group as a whole.

Maybe. More information to verify this would be best.

It's like how people are more likely to not be bigoted against gays and Muslims, as groups, if they meet people who fit those demographics.

I don't think your comparison works. I'm a homosexual, and none of my friends seem any more interested in participating in gay rights events after meeting and getting to know me (to be fair, neither am I).

You can use sound reason to do immoral acts. A psychopathic sadist could use reason to decide that she should slit the throats of babies, but it's not moral.

This is only true if morality is arbitrary and relative.

Morality has to be about altruistically caring for others, and reason and science should be used to determine what solution is the most altruistically caring.

I think you agree that science and reason are the only accurate means of determining objective truth. If not ignore the following question, as they assume that you agree with me on that:
Why should anyone care about being altruistic if morality is not based on objective truth (which can only be found using science and reason)?

What about people who use reason to do evil things? Reason can be used to do good and bad things. In and of itself, it just helps us determine the reality of a situation.

People who use reason to do evil things only do so by making some unsubstantiated beforehand, rendering their reasoning fallacious and untrue. Maybe a murder would justify their actions in this way:

The reasoning before and after the second line is valid, but the statement "Actions that are natural are good" is an unsubstantiated assumption, rendering the entire argument fallacious. Try to provide a reasonable justification for unnecessary murder if you think you can.

[EquALLity]

Sorry for the delay.

No, I don't.

I address why I do throughout the post.

Sure, if it is an individual.

Which it usually is.

I don't recall agreeing with that, but if I did, I no longer do. By choosing to engage in ineffective altruism, you choose to not dedicate the time and resources spent on said ineffective altruism on effective altruism, amoral actions, ineffective evil, and effective evil. Choosing ineffective altruism is certainly better than amoral actions, ineffective evil, and effective evil, but inferior to effective altruism.

I said, "First of all, I don't think that most people aren't deciding between giving to a soup kitchen and a homeless person."
You replied, "That's true, but its besides the point. I was trying to demonstrate how the empathetic person would give to the homeless man, but the reasonable man would give to the soup kitchen or animal charity. The former being less effective altruism than the latter."

You seemed to be saying you agreed most people aren't deciding between effective and ineffective altruism, but that ideally we should practice effective altruism (which I completely agree with).

By giving to that old homeless man she is gambling for positive consequences. Given our current knowledge of said homeless man, we can't be sure what he'll do with the money. If he is going to use it to eat, he'll probably go buy some meaty junk food, increasing the demand for animal products, harming animals.

I value the homeless person over the animals.

Or maybe he'll use it to pay for his drug addiction, which will increase the demand for illegal drugs, allowing drug cartels to harm people.

Maybe.

It's not really relevant, though- this one particular example says nothing about whether or not empathy overall is bad.

Let's instead assume that the woman gives the homeless man ten dollars worth of healthy vegan food (beans, veggies, whole grains) in order to guarantee that the woman is producing a positive consequence, which is probably what you intended. Also, like you said, if she doesn't give the homeless man anything, then she spends her ten dollars on a hat. Given this information, it is best for the woman to be empathetic and feed the homeless man, because it is the best possible altruism she can practice. However, if the woman was motivated by reason and a desire to practice effective altruism, she could instead donate her ten dollars to Mercy for Animals and get the most bang for her buck in terms of altruism.

Most people don't care around ten dollars worth of healthy vegan food, and giving it to the homeless man would involve empathy (presumably), so I don't really see your point here.

As for the donation to Mercy for Animals- most people weren't going to donate to Mercy for Animals anyway; they were going to do nothing. Giving it to the homeless man doesn't subtract a strong good and add a little good, creating a smaller net good. It adds a little good to a net neutral, producing a net good.

Also, even if empathy did create smaller net goods, that wouldn't make it bad- it would still make it good, just not very good.

Maybe its better for emotionally driven people, like this woman, to practice empathy in order to get them to practice the bare minimum of altruism, but for reasonable people who want to be as moral as practicable, empathy should not be a guiding force.

I agree that empathy shouldn't be a guiding force.

Maybe. More information to verify this would be best.

Seeing pictures of Syrian refugees humanizes the situation, even if you don't see them all.
It's completely different from vague numbers of 'collateral damage'.

At least, that's the case for me. And studies about similar things suggest this is the case for most people.

I don't think your comparison works. I'm a homosexual, and none of my friends seem any more interested in participating in gay rights events after meeting and getting to know me (to be fair, neither am I).

I didn't just pull that out of the air; studies prove that meeting gay people makes you more supportive of gay rights.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COLGHwZ1wdA

This is only true if morality is arbitrary and relative.

Maybe it's not clear what I'm trying to say here.

All I'm saying is that reason doesn't necessarily lead to good moral decisions, because you can use logic to do immoral things.
Something can be logical in terms of helping your personal pleasure but still be immoral.

Reason is a tool we should use to determine what is most moral based on compassion (or caring about the interests of others), but reason alone isn't something that necessarily leads to a positive moral outcome.

Do you see what I'm saying?

I think you agree that science and reason are the only accurate means of determining objective truth.

Are you counting philosophy as reason?
If so, I agree.

Why should anyone care about being altruistic if morality is not based on objective truth (which can only be found using science and reason)?

Give me an example of a situation in which you think morality is based on reason and science, and I'll try to explain how I think there's more to it.

People who use reason to do evil things only do so by making some unsubstantiated beforehand, rendering their reasoning fallacious and untrue. Maybe a murder would justify their actions in this way:

I think we're talking about different things here.

I'm not talking about justification; I'm saying that morally unjustifiable actions can be taken for logical reasons based on selfishness (among other things).
I'm not saying that basing morality on reason and science renders those actions moral.

[Cirion Spellbinder]

Sorry for the delay.

Unacceptable- I'll see you beheaded for this!

I said, "First of all, I don't think that most people aren't deciding between giving to a soup kitchen and a homeless person."
You replied, "That's true, but its besides the point. I was trying to demonstrate how the empathetic person would give to the homeless man, but the reasonable man would give to the soup kitchen or animal charity. The former being less effective altruism than the latter."

Oh, okay. Sorry.

You seemed to be saying you agreed most people aren't deciding between effective and ineffective altruism, but that ideally we should practice effective altruism (which I completely agree with).

Well I no longer agree with that statement, because the consequence of practicing ineffective, empathetic altruism is choosing to not practice effective altruism (even if not consciously).

I value the homeless person over the animals.

That's even more reason to prevent him from eating shitty food that'll leave him weak and susceptible to disease.

Or maybe he'll use it to pay for his drug addiction, which will increase the demand for illegal drugs, allowing drug cartels to harm people.

It's not really relevant, though- this one particular example says nothing about whether or not empathy overall is bad.

Right, I was just pointing out that the example had problems and then tried to fix them after.

Most people don't care around ten dollars worth of healthy vegan food, and giving it to the homeless man would involve empathy (presumably), so I don't really see your point here.

I was trying to create a situation where giving to the homeless man was guaranteed to produce good (even if ineffective), which your example did not. I don't claim that this example is practical.

As for the donation to Mercy for Animals- most people weren't going to donate to Mercy for Animals anyway; they were going to do nothing. Giving it to the homeless man doesn't subtract a strong good and add a little good, creating a smaller net good. It adds a little good to a net neutral, producing a net good.

Sure, ineffective altruism is better than no altruism, but we should encourage reason over empathy when trying to have them make moral decisions.

Also, even if empathy did create smaller net goods, that wouldn't make it bad- it would still make it good, just not very good.

Agreed.

At least, that's the case for me. And studies about similar things suggest this is the case for most people.

Can I see said studies?

I didn't just pull that out of the air; studies prove that meeting gay people makes you more supportive of gay rights.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COLGHwZ1wdA

That's interesting, thanks.

All I'm saying is that reason doesn't necessarily lead to good moral decisions, because you can use logic to do immoral things.
Something can be logical in terms of helping your personal pleasure but still be immoral.

If they chuck morality out of the window, yes, I suppose they can.

Reason is a tool we should use to determine what is most moral based on compassion (or caring about the interests of others), but reason alone isn't something that necessarily leads to a positive moral outcome.

Do you think caring about the interests of others is unreasonable?

Do you see what I'm saying?

Unfortunately, no, sorry.

Are you counting philosophy as reason?
If so, I agree.

Yes, philosophy is the result of exercising reason.

Give me an example of a situation in which you think morality is based on reason and science, and I'll try to explain how I think there's more to it.

Any and all moral dilemmas. The example of giving the homeless man food works.

I'm not talking about justification; I'm saying that morally unjustifiable actions can be taken for logical reasons based on selfishness (among other things).

Only if you can build a valid system, with true premises based on selfishness.

[Volenta]

Empathy can be a force for good if properly used. Of course in reality this isn't always (maybe even scarcely) the case, so it's good to talk about how it could be directed in a way so that it becomes to good use. To single out empathy as a force of bad is provocative, but I think not useful. The problem is with all intuitions and instinctive tendencies. An obvious example would be the feeling of injustice being done and the anger associated with it and all it's bad consequences. Before wanting it all to be thrown overboard -- with all of it's problems -- it actually is really important that it exist as well. Without all these intuitions, moral philosophy most likely wouldn't have existed today. It is all highly imperfect (especially with different cultures/races/tribes colliding), but good enough to let the human species come to where it is today. The issue is: how to continue from here, and how to let moral philosophy play a bigger role in normal life?