Empathy

[peanutaxis]

1. If one could truly put one's self into another's shoes, one would have exactly the same opinion as that other.

2. Therefore my neighbour's opinion is just as valid as my own.

3. If one is truly empathetic, then democratically-selected law should serve as an ought.

[arkirk]

1. If one could truly put one's self into another's shoes, one would have exactly the same opinion as that other.

2. Therefore my neighbour's opinion is just as valid as my own.

3. If one is truly empathetic, then democratically-selected law should serve as an ought.

1. True or at least you may get his case of athelete's foot.
2. Would this be "true" if your neighbor's opinion was that you should place your head in a bucket of water three times and only take it out twice? There's some serious holes in tyour argument.

3. Then we should be required to pray to Jesus? Chances are that is your neighbor's idea of what is right.

I feel empathy is feeling for how others feel without necessarily giving it validation. You can know of a feeling or idea yet not necessarily accept that feeling is appropriate to the situation. You can also know your own feelings.

[Simen]

1. If one could truly put one's self into another's shoes, one would have exactly the same opinion as that other.

2. Therefore my neighbour's opinion is just as valid as my own.

I can entertain a notion, and even understand the reasons why someone would come to that conclusion, without thereby being committed to believing in it. If I could truly put myself in the shoes of a Young Earth Creationist, I might see all the reasons they believe what they believe; or I may not, because I suspect they don't always know themselves (obviously it can't be the evidence, as they sometimes delude themselves to). But either way, this understanding would not mean that the YEC's got it right.

It's not surprising that if you could somehow transform yourself into another person, believe everything they believe and reason exactly as they do, feel the same emotions and so on, you would come to the same conclusions. But then you wouldn't be you.

(2) doesn't follow from (1). My neighbor's opinion isn't just as valid as my own just because I would come to the same conclusions if I were my neighbor. Why you would think that (1) entails (2) is beyond me. Maybe I'm not empathic enough?


3. If one is truly empathetic, then democratically-selected law should serve as an ought.

That is not true. There are at least two distinct concepts that go under the "empathy" term: cognitive and affective empathy. Cognitive empathy is understanding: you see a person's facial expression and understand that you're boring them, and so on. Affective empathy is feeling: you know your neighbor is hurting, so you feel hurt too, etc. (These are separate: autists score high on affective and low on cognitive empathy; I suspect psychopaths would score high on cognitive and low on affective empathy.) Now, cognitive empathy doesn't entail affective empathy, so even if I can completely understand the emotions and reasons my neighbor thinks and feels as he does, I might not be compelled to feel the same. And it's impossible to feel affective empathy for everyone, because people's feelings are often contradictory.

And even given all this, I might still think that the majority is wrong. You're basically suggesting that one ought to follow whatever the majority thinks, and there are many issues on which I feel the majority is wrong, and so I won't follow their recommendations if I can get away with it. I'm pretty certain everyone feels like this.

Legally right (determined by democratic processes or not) does not equal morally right (nor prudentially right).

[s-o-i-d-p]

1. If one could truly put one's self into another's shoes, one would have exactly the same opinion as that other.

2. Therefore my neighbour's opinion is just as valid as my own.

3. If one is truly empathetic, then democratically-selected law should serve as an ought.

Are all opinions of equal value?

I wouldn't say all opinions are of equal moral value.

[Simen]

All opinions aren't of equal factual value either. Or any other kind of value, for that matter.

[Tom Sawyer]

1. If one could truly put one's self into another's shoes, one would have exactly the same opinion as that other.

2. Therefore my neighbour's opinion is just as valid as my own.

3. If one is truly empathetic, then democratically-selected law should serve as an ought.

#1 is a fallacy. If you can put yourself in someone's shoes and understand the complete logical process that led them to their opinion, it does not therefore follow that you would agree with the validity of the premises that led them to that opinion. You'd be able to understand why they had that opinion, but you would not necessarily end up having the same opinion yourself.

#2 is based on #1 and therefore equally false. Also, you clearly haven't met my neighbours - one of them is just an idiot.

#3 is also based on #1. I have put myself in your shoes and understand the thought process that you used to come to this opinion, yet I disagree with the validity of your premises and find your conclusion to be flawed.

[peanutaxis]

All opinions aren't of equal factual value either. Or any other kind of value, for that matter.

But the epistemological frame with which you decide what 'fact' is (and all other values) is a schism to which yet others will be opposed (even if that schism is a majority) via:

...there are many issues on which I feel the majority is wrong...

There is simply no way to objectify knowledge/values other than mass-opinion.

[Simen]

All opinions aren't of equal factual value either. Or any other kind of value, for that matter.

But the epistemological frame with which you decide what 'fact' is (and all other values) is a schism to which yet others will be opposed (even if that schism is a majority) via:

...there are many issues on which I feel the majority is wrong...

There is simply no way to objectify knowledge/values other than mass-opinion.

Hah! I beg to differ.

[peanutaxis]

Hah! I beg to differ.

See!

[Lógos Sokratikós]

1. If one could truly put one's self into another's shoes, one would have exactly the same opinion as that other.

2. Therefore my neighbour's opinion is just as valid as my own.

3. If one is truly empathetic, then democratically-selected law should serve as an ought.

It depends. Your neighbor's opinion about what?

If it's about him/herself or anything theirs, thier opinion should be taken into account. Empathy isn't just guessing. Social behavior is something done while communicating so your behavior can adjust to the needs of the other and find a consensuated response which will therefore be an optimal one.

[dettus]

If I put MYSELF into one's shoes I am still MYSELF but I am placing MYSELF in a situation that another person is in.

Now if you said, "if you were him, what would you do?" then that's a different question.

[peanutaxis]

My whole point is that we all have justification for our ideas. Every poster here fell for that. We all do. via Constructivism, Confirmation Bias.

But our justification is merely to point to authorities which agree with our ideas. Authorities which we deem authoratitive simpy because they agree with us. Anyone can do that. And everyone does!

The delusion is to think "only these particular people are correct". In doing this one is no different from one's opposition. Surely our enemy have equally valid justifications for their beliefs. Justifications which to them sound just as valid. How do we know that WE are not that enemy? We don't. Therefore their opinion is just as valid.

[Deleet]

1. If one could truly put one's self into another's shoes, one would have exactly the same opinion as that other.

2. Therefore my neighbour's opinion is just as valid as my own.

3. If one is truly empathetic, then democratically-selected law should serve as an ought.

Are you getting at something or just throwing out a non-sequitur?

[spikepipsqueak]

1. If one could truly put one's self into another's shoes, one would have exactly the same opinion as that other.

No, if you can empathise you understand another's feelings and thoughts, and perhaps the experiences that led them to feel and think that way. you have a different set of life experiences which will probably have led you to differing conclusions about the nature of the world based on your observations.

2. (Therefore) my neighbour's opinion is just as valid as my own.

Your neighbour's opinion has the same validity as yours, but that is not predicated on whether you understand or agree with it.

3. If one is truly empathetic, then democratically-selected law should serve as an ought.

Democracy is a consensus method of determining laws for a group. But if one individual recognises a facet of the legislation which is unjust and keeps silence because they "ought" to bow to the majority, then the mechanism for forming good legislation is perverted. Empathy has a role in each decision as to whether the majority is best served by a change, not the formation of the opinion as to what is right or wrong.

My whole point is that we all have justification for our ideas. Every poster here fell for that. We all do. via Constructivism, Confirmation Bias.

But our justification is merely to point to authorities which agree with our ideas. Authorities which we deem authoratitive simpy because they agree with us. Anyone can do that. And everyone does!

Yes, as children (some people never grow up!) we do this. We are born into a set of ideas and use the above circular arguments to justify the security of remaining within those ideas. But a wide enough experience (this is why it's child abuse to raise kids in social isolation) allows people to question and learn. This is true of religion, science, knitting, concreting....ideas.

The delusion is to think "only these particular people are correct". In doing this one is no different from one's opposition. Surely our enemy have equally valid justifications for their beliefs. Justifications which to them sound just as valid. How do we know that WE are not that enemy? We don't. Therefore their opinion is just as valid.

Thinking in terms of "enemies" is pretty scary stuff when the topic is disagreement. Yes, empathy lets us recognise that our neighbour's opinion is as dear to them as ours is to us. Basing your opinion on which people agree with you is a good way to arrive at that "enemy" stance, and the US and THEM mentality, and the fighting and the choosing of sides.

Having acknowledged emotionally the validity of our neighbour's rights to feel and think the way they do, only rational debate (the exchange of experience and understanding) will then create resolution.

[peanutaxis]

Originally Posted by peanutaxis View Post
My whole point is that we all have justification for our ideas. Every poster here fell for that. We all do. via Constructivism, Confirmation Bias.

But our justification is merely to point to authorities which agree with our ideas. Authorities which we deem authoratitive simpy because they agree with us. Anyone can do that. And everyone does!
Yes, as children (some people never grow up!) we do this. We are born into a set of ideas and use the above circular arguments to justify the security of remaining within those ideas. But a wide enough experience (this is why it's child abuse to raise kids in social isolation) allows people to question and learn. This is true of religion, science, knitting, concreting....ideas.

You vindicate my point entirely! You are appealing to so many authorities/ideas/axioms. You state this as though it's objective, but many would disagree, and if you had their perspectives you'd disagree too!

Thinking in terms of "enemies" is pretty scary stuff when the topic is disagreement. Yes, empathy lets us recognise that our neighbour's opinion is as dear to them as ours is to us. Basing your opinion on which people agree with you is a good way to arrive at that "enemy" stance, and the US and THEM mentality, and the fighting and the choosing of sides.

Having acknowledged emotionally the validity of our neighbour's rights to feel and think the way they do, only rational debate (the exchange of experience and understanding) will then create resolution.
Yes I chose 'enemy' but I mean someone with conflicting opinion. Couldn't think of a better word at the time. I agree, a lack of empathy leads to outgroup hostility. It would be nice if rational debate was the 'ticket' (indeed, I think your invocation of it shows that you do not consider your opponents ratonal at all). But some will defy all attempts of 'rational' appealings. What recourse does one then have then?

[arkirk]

Originally Posted by peanutaxis View Post
My whole point is that we all have justification for our ideas. Every poster here fell for that. We all do. via Constructivism, Confirmation Bias.

But our justification is merely to point to authorities which agree with our ideas. Authorities which we deem authoratitive simpy because they agree with us. Anyone can do that. And everyone does!


You vindicate my point entirely! You are appealing to so many authorities/ideas/axioms. You state this as though it's objective, but many would disagree, and if you had their perspectives you'd disagree too!

Thinking in terms of "enemies" is pretty scary stuff when the topic is disagreement. Yes, empathy lets us recognise that our neighbour's opinion is as dear to them as ours is to us. Basing your opinion on which people agree with you is a good way to arrive at that "enemy" stance, and the US and THEM mentality, and the fighting and the choosing of sides.

Having acknowledged emotionally the validity of our neighbour's rights to feel and think the way they do, only rational debate (the exchange of experience and understanding) will then create resolution.
Yes I chose 'enemy' but I mean someone with conflicting opinion. Couldn't think of a better word at the time. I agree, a lack of empathy leads to outgroup hostility. It would be nice if rational debate was the 'ticket' (indeed, I think your invocation of it shows that you do not consider your opponents ratonal at all). But some will defy all attempts of 'rational' appealings. What recourse does one then have then?

A star goes through its processes in space not because of some right to illuminate a small part of the heavens, but simply because it is. There is no way to imply from observation that it has an intent. As you study it, you learn that it has organization and it is that organization that causes the light.

There is NO WAY YOU CAN BE SURE OF WHAT IS GOING ON IN ANYBODY'S MIND. There is NO WAY YOU CAN BE SURE OF WHAT ANYBODY IS FEELING. It is easier to understand what is going on in the star than your neighbor's mind. This is true even though your neighbor can talk to you and attempt to convey what he feels, sees, believes, etc.

Some time ago, I remember seeing a grotesque video on Frontline of some dead bodies hanging from a wall in Afghanisatan. A turbaned hairy rather old Afghan Taliban stood in front of these bodies and said (translated for me by Frontline) "We sent these infidels to Allah to account for their sins." He was very happy with what he and his band had done and felt he knew what the "infidels" had been thinking.

With all this talk of empathy, why would you not give equal value to this Taliban or perhaps John Wayne Gacy? In the Taliban example, the consensus at that location promoted the murder of the "infidels." In the case of JWG, the surrounding social conventions did not. Nevertheless, the result was about the same...torture and death at the hand of a fellow human being.

We all wish, we could use our empathy as a guide for our behavior, however it does not appear to be a very reliable tool. Validating others' apparent opinions can send you up a blind alley with a Taliban society or perhaps in an urban closet. I remember hearing a lecture by the noted D.T. Suzuki, author of the Manual of Zen Budhism in which he railed against empathy. It surprised me because at the time, I felt that empathy was a real and valuable quality. You know the olde golden rule and all that.

What people do with each other is subject to negotiation. It is a long road to understanding and it comes from experience...real experience. A person is what he/she does to and with you and others. The measure is concrete and always somewhat limited by man's inherent capacity to lie about feelings.

Despite all I have said, I still feel it is worth trying to understand the feelings of others. A lot of people have feelings that hurt THEM and others. There appears to be a route to a lot of trouble and suffering associated with certain feelings and ideas. The image of Giordano Bruno comes to mind. People can be grossly misguided by their sense of community with a culture that does not have a humanistic basis. :eek:

[Simen]

The delusion is to think "only these particular people are correct". In doing this one is no different from one's opposition. Surely our enemy have equally valid justifications for their beliefs. Justifications which to them sound just as valid. How do we know that WE are not that enemy? We don't. Therefore their opinion is just as valid.

So 1 + 1 = 3. Nice work throwing out all standards of truth and justification there.

[arkirk]

The delusion is to think "only these particular people are correct". In doing this one is no different from one's opposition. Surely our enemy have equally valid justifications for their beliefs. Justifications which to them sound just as valid. How do we know that WE are not that enemy? We don't. Therefore their opinion is just as valid.

So 1 + 1 = 3. Nice work throwing out all standards of truth and justification there.

If a person believes very strongly that you should be burned at the stake for your views and is standing there with the kindling and the torch, what do you do. Empathize? Well I suppose today is as good a day to die as any. Seriously, there is a difference between consciously eschewing violence and insult and climbing on the kindling for your "enemy." He may be mistaken and perhaps someday you could be friends, but only without the belief he has that it is important to do you in.:huh:

[spikepipsqueak]

If someone has that belief and the power to do it, yes, one is right to feel threatened and take evasive action.

To wallow in resentment and work yourself up to aggressive fury because someone holds a belief that some aspect of your being deserves death is to compound a nasty situation and damages your own ability to think.

[peanutaxis]

So 1 + 1 = 3. Nice work throwing out all standards of truth and justification there.

If a person believes very strongly that you should be burned at the stake for your views and is standing there with the kindling and the torch, what do you do. Empathize? Well I suppose today is as good a day to die as any. Seriously, there is a difference between consciously eschewing violence and insult and climbing on the kindling for your "enemy." He may be mistaken and perhaps someday you could be friends, but only without the belief he has that it is important to do you in.:huh:

These extreme examples are completely spurious.

I'm saying that if your community democratically thinks that people who do X should be burned at the stake, then that mass-opinion should serve as your 'ought' to not do X.

[arkirk]

If a person believes very strongly that you should be burned at the stake for your views and is standing there with the kindling and the torch, what do you do. Empathize? Well I suppose today is as good a day to die as any. Seriously, there is a difference between consciously eschewing violence and insult and climbing on the kindling for your "enemy." He may be mistaken and perhaps someday you could be friends, but only without the belief he has that it is important to do you in.:huh:

These extreme examples are completely spurious.

I'm saying that if your community democratically thinks that people who do X should be burned at the stake, then that mass-opinion should serve as your 'ought' to not do X.

Then your idea of morality is just what the mob (mass opinion) decides. What do you mean "democratically?" This word has been so abused as to be almost meaningless. You know, if we conformed in accord with your theory, then we wouldn't be writing anything HERE.

Violence against people based on belief is every bit as great a reality today as it was in Bruno's time. There is, I assure you, nothing spurious about the example. As for your advice....:p

[whichphilosophy]

1. If one could truly put one's self into another's shoes, one would have exactly the same opinion as that other.

2. Therefore my neighbour's opinion is just as valid as my own.

3. If one is truly empathetic, then democratically-selected law should serve as an ought.


Very astute question which took the courts hundreds of years to arrive at what you are suggesting:

It is a phrase like “man on the street: meaning an average Englishman or woman who takes a bus from Clapham (namely an ordinary bus from an ordinary place). It follows that in preparing a case, the court will try to determine how an ordinary “man in the street” will deem what is reasonable thus insulating against a judge’s possible human biases when making a decision.
Beyond that is another expression such as the officious bystander. This is more than someone who is reasonable but an interfering ‘busybody’
This was was first established in Shirlaw vs. Southern Foundries [1926] Ltd (1939) 2 KB 206 where MacKinnon LJ.

"Prima facie that which in any contract is left to be implied and need not be expressed is something so obvious that it goes without saying; so that, if, while the parties were making their bargain, an officious bystander were to suggest some express provision for it in their agreement, they would testily suppress him with a common `Oh of course!'."

[peanutaxis]

Very astute question which took the courts hundreds of years to arrive at what you are suggesting:

It is a phrase like “man on the street: meaning an average Englishman or woman who takes a bus from Clapham (namely an ordinary bus from an ordinary place). It follows that in preparing a case, the court will try to determine how an ordinary “man in the street” will deem what is reasonable thus insulating against a judge’s possible human biases when making a decision.
Beyond that is another expression such as the officious bystander. This is more than someone who is reasonable but an interfering ‘busybody’
This was was first established in Shirlaw vs. Southern Foundries [1926] Ltd (1939) 2 KB 206 where MacKinnon LJ.

"Prima facie that which in any contract is left to be implied and need not be expressed is something so obvious that it goes without saying; so that, if, while the parties were making their bargain, an officious bystander were to suggest some express provision for it in their agreement, they would testily suppress him with a common `Oh of course!'."

I think you have completely misinterpreted all of this. I think that practically no one would actually views mass-opinion as an ought. We are all too arrogant; we all believe that we know better. But I'm suggesting that perhaps it is even sensible that mass-opinion should serve as our ought.

[arkirk]

Very astute question which took the courts hundreds of years to arrive at what you are suggesting:

It is a phrase like “man on the street: meaning an average Englishman or woman who takes a bus from Clapham (namely an ordinary bus from an ordinary place). It follows that in preparing a case, the court will try to determine how an ordinary “man in the street” will deem what is reasonable thus insulating against a judge’s possible human biases when making a decision.
Beyond that is another expression such as the officious bystander. This is more than someone who is reasonable but an interfering ‘busybody’
This was was first established in Shirlaw vs. Southern Foundries [1926] Ltd (1939) 2 KB 206 where MacKinnon LJ.

"Prima facie that which in any contract is left to be implied and need not be expressed is something so obvious that it goes without saying; so that, if, while the parties were making their bargain, an officious bystander were to suggest some express provision for it in their agreement, they would testily suppress him with a common `Oh of course!'."

I think you have completely misinterpreted all of this. I think that practically no one would actually views mass-opinion as an ought. We are all too arrogant; we all believe that we know better. But I'm suggesting that perhaps it is even sensible that mass-opinion should serve as our ought.

This, my friend is the logic of the lemming!:p