Philosophical Vegan Forum

Empathy and morality are strongly negatively associated. A small amount of empathy may be needed in order to accept morality and not be a solipsist, but beyond that it's purely detrimental. Empathy fixates people on single events and individuals. It clouds judgment and distracts from the bigger picture. It makes us forget about the long-term consequences of an action. If empathy ever leads to a good outcome, it is only by chance.

knot wrote:Empathy and morality are strongly negatively associated. A small amount of empathy may be needed in order to accept morality and not be a solipsist, but beyond that it's purely detrimental. Empathy fixates people on single events and individuals. It clouds judgment and distracts from the bigger picture. It makes us forget about the long-term consequences of an action. If empathy ever leads to a good outcome, it is only by chance.

I have no idea where this is coming from, but it makes no sense.

Morality is based on empathy- it's all about being compassionate towards others.

EquALLity wrote:I have no idea where this is coming from, but it makes no sense.

Empathy, as knot is using it, means the following:

On the definition of empathy, Merriam Webster wrote:the ability to share someone else's feelings

The most important function of empathy, is to allow us to recognize the interests of others, and this does not require much empathy to do. The problem that knot is talking about is that people are better at empathizing with individuals than they are at empathizing with collective bodies. This compels them to be altruistic towards individuals instead of bodies, which is ineffective and wasteful altruism. Its the difference between rescuing an abused factory farm hen (who can be easily empathized with) and going vegan (which requires you to empathize with the masses, a harder task).

EquALLity wrote:Morality is based on empathy- it's all about being compassionate towards others.

Morality is based on logic and science, and it's all about being compassionate effectively towards others. Compassion driven by empathy can often lead us astray from effective compassion built on solid methods and facts. Should I give my 50 bucks to the homeless man down the street because I can empathize with his shitty life situation or give my 50 bucks to Mercy for Animals who can more effectively convert my cash to altruism?

Cirion Spellbinder wrote:The most important function of empathy, is to allow us to recognize the interests of others, and this does not require much empathy to do.

It's one thing to recognize the interests of others- but empathy compels us to care about the interests of others.

Cirion Spellbinder wrote:The problem that knot is talking about is that people are better at empathizing with individuals than they are at empathizing with collective bodies. This compels them to be altruistic towards individuals instead of bodies, which is ineffective and wasteful altruism. Its the difference between rescuing an abused factory farm hen (who can be easily empathized with) and going vegan (which requires you to empathize with the masses, a harder task).

That's a problem of a lack of empathy, not too much.

Cirion Spellbinder wrote:Morality is based on logic and science, and it's all about being compassionate effectively towards others.

Morality is based on compassion, and logic and science can help us find solutions that are the most compassionate.

Cirion Spellbinder wrote:Compassion driven by empathy can often lead us astray from effective compassion built on solid methods and facts. Should I give my 50 bucks to the homeless man down the street because I can empathize with his shitty life situation or give my 50 bucks to Mercy for Animals who can more effectively convert my cash to altruism?

Again, that's a problem with a lack of empathy for the animals, not too much.

EquALLity wrote:It's one thing to recognize the interests of others- but empathy compels us to care about the interests of others.

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.
You can see the full article here: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/ ... n-the-well
You can see the study Bloom references here: http://pluto.mscc.huji.ac.il/~msiritov/ ... tified.pdf

Paul Bloom wrote:You can see the effect in the lab. The psychologists Tehila Kogut and Ilana Ritov asked some subjects how much money they would give to help develop a drug that would save the life of one child, and asked others how much they would give to save eight children. The answers were about the same. But when Kogut and Ritov told a third group a child’s name and age, and showed her picture, the donations shot up—now there were far more to the one than to the eight.

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.

EquALLity wrote:That's a problem of a lack of empathy, not too much.

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.

EquALLity wrote:Morality is based on compassion, and logic and science can help us find solutions that are the most compassionate.

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.

EquALLity wrote:Again, that's a problem with a lack of empathy for the animals, not too much.

That example was bad. What if Mercy for Animals was a soup kitchen?

knot wrote:Empathy and morality are strongly negatively associated. A small amount of empathy may be needed in order to accept morality and not be a solipsist, but beyond that it's purely detrimental. Empathy fixates people on single events and individuals. It clouds judgment and distracts from the bigger picture. It makes us forget about the long-term consequences of an action. If empathy ever leads to a good outcome, it is only by chance.

I hope you avoid saying that when you talk with some theist or religious person. Since atheists are capable as well of empathy, love and charity is just because of that, they do not need religion to be better.

I think we evolved around empathy, compassion for one another. Without it maybe we would have gone extinct.

I presume Knot got this idea from listening to Harris' first podcast with Paul Bloom.
https://www.samharris.org/podcast/item/ ... cold-blood

For anyone who is confused by Knot's statement, I would highly recommend listening to it. It's a very interesting conversation.

I find myself disagreeing with both sides of the debates here, so I'll respond to multiple people. The following line indicates moving on to another person.

------------

Knot wrote:Empathy and morality are strongly negatively associated. A small amount of empathy may be needed in order to accept morality and not be a solipsist, but beyond that it's purely detrimental. Empathy fixates people on single events and individuals. It clouds judgment and distracts from the bigger picture. It makes us forget about the long-term consequences of an action. If empathy ever leads to a good outcome, it is only by chance.

Empathy is not purely detrimental, but detrimental compared to reason and science. In general, empathy will lead to an urge to reduce the suffering of others, and to make others happy. For many it appears to be pretty much the only drive to do so. Someone not eating meat out of empathy for animals may not have the best motivation, but it's better than not caring at all. I think it's a hard case to make that the world as it is right now would be better off without empathy.

I agree with the argument Paul Bloom makes. I think you take his argument further and do so incorrectly. If I recall correctly, he argued not that empathy is bad but that it is inferior to reason (and science). He pointed out the flaws of empathy, such as a person caring more about one kid than a million. These are valid criticisms of empathy as a moral guide, and I would say indirectly of democracy. I would still deem empathy as a moral guide superior to religious dogma.

------------

EquALLity wrote:Morality is based on empathy- it's all about being compassionate towards others.
[...]
Morality is based on compassion, and logic and science can help us find solutions that are the most compassionate.

You reject consequentialism, then?

------------

Unkownfromheaven wrote:Since atheists are capable as well of empathy, love and charity is just because of that, they do not need religion to be better.

We don't actually need empathy, love or charity to be 'better'. A rational understanding of morality works way better. For instance. I feel little love, charity or empathy for cows; I am just not a very emotional person. However, I understand rationally that they are sentient, can suffer, and therefore should not be harmed. Without this understanding, I assure you I would still drink four glasses of cow milk every day.

Edit: I realize I wouldn't drink milk due to the fact that it is unhealthy. But the point stands; I would not have been an ethical vegan.

Unkownfromheaven wrote:I think we evolved around empathy, compassion for one another. Without it maybe we would have gone extinct.

I'm not sure what you are trying to demonstrate with this. It is true that empathy is useful in this evolutionary sense, but that does not make it a good thing to base morality on.

miniboes wrote: I'm not sure what you are trying to demonstrate with this. It is true that empathy is useful in this evolutionary sense, but that does not make it a good thing to base morality on.

If you understand the very basis of that, you do not require more explanation to what i meant.

miniboes wrote:
We don't actually need empathy, love or charity to be 'better'. A rational understanding of morality works way better. For instance. I feel little love, charity or empathy for cows; I am just not a very emotional person. However, I understand rationally that they are sentient, can suffer, and therefore should not be harmed. Without this understanding, I assure you I would still drink four glasses of cow milk every day.

You are one and you cannot speak in the name of all atheists..i am quite sure there are differences on the manner of opinions. I ve met plenty who said that. Also i use that argument mostly against theists who say you are going to hell or that you are unable to love or to have feelings...That is a mistake and i very much dislike it .

Unknownfromheaven wrote:

miniboes wrote:
We don't actually need empathy, love or charity to be 'better'. A rational understanding of morality works way better. For instance. I feel little love, charity or empathy for cows; I am just not a very emotional person. However, I understand rationally that they are sentient, can suffer, and therefore should not be harmed. Without this understanding, I assure you I would still drink four glasses of cow milk every day.

You are one and you cannot speak in the name of all atheists..i am quite sure there are differences on the manner of opinions. I ve met plenty who said that. Also i use that argument mostly against theists who say you are going to hell or that you are unable to love or to have feelings...That is a mistake and i very much dislike it .

Yes, there are indeed many atheists who use the empathy and love explanation. I do not deny that; what I deny is that they are right in doing so. The answer I would give - that my morality is based on the well-being of sentient creatures, and that I can be moral through a rational understanding of morality - is, in my opinion, a lot better.