|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jul 22, 2018 13:45:07 GMT
That's good advice, and I agree with it, but you can't enforce it. The question wasn't about whether or not it can be "enforced". The question was whether or not it is MANDATED by the religion. It is! Enforcement is irrelevant, as no aspect of religion is enforceable in a secular/free society with a First Amendment. Really? How interesting that was. Thanks, Captain. |
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Jul 22, 2018 13:45:13 GMT
Something very much like empathy can be essential to "communication," which is a specialty, an actual degree track at many universities. I wouldn't be surprised if there was a research that revealed that people with better communication skills have greater feelings of empathy. |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jul 22, 2018 13:46:32 GMT
Sure. Probably what I'm doing in those threads is underscoring that people aren't displaying empathy for the other person. For example, say if it was a thread about Rosanne Barr's tweet. Well, are people displaying empathy for Rosanne Barr? If not, and they just want her strung up, ostracized, whatever, I'm going to focus on presenting the other side. You need to have empathy for everyone, and that means not wanting to string up people, not just ostracize them, not have them canned from their job, etc. Same thing goes for the "MeToo" stuff for example. And that also includes having empathy for the person who was sexually interested in and aggressive towards other people. You can't just have empathy for the "victim." You need to have empathy for both sides. You need to understand not only why the victim feels like a victim but equally why the aggressor felt the way they did and acted like that. We can't just embrace one side and treat the other side as if they're evil and should be kicked to the street, etc. That's not empathy. There's an article called "Empathic neural responses are modulated by the perceived fairness of others" which essentially concludes that:
" in men (at least) empathic responses are shaped by valuation of other people's social behaviour, such that they empathize with fair opponents while favouring the physical punishment of unfair opponents, a finding that echoes recent evidence for altruistic punishment."
You may have a very inclusive definition of empathy but people generally have a feeling of empathy till a certain extent. I will give you my examples:
Situation 1 - A person committed rape because he was feeling lusty- Even if I feel for the rapist that hormones made him lusty I would be happy when he gets arrested.
Situation 2 - John Doe is a person who works at a grocery store whose owner underpays him. One day John sees that there is some money fallen on the floor of the shop and no one is looking. I will empathise with John if he were to steal that money. I would be sad if he gets caught and so I will wish that he doesn't get caught.
It's not that I don't want there to be any repercussions for anything, but more draconian, harshly "moralizing" approaches display a lack of empathy. And empathizing primarily for the people you agree with, that exhibited what you consider "fair" behavior isn't empathy, or it's at least less empathy than being able to empathize with everyone. "Empathizing" with people only exhibiting behavior that you consider morally acceptable, "fair," etc. is really just chumming up with people who are more or less like yourself--and that's not really empathy. No one is wondering if you can understand the people, have compassion for, etc., people who feel and think the same things that you do, haha. So that's probably the source of a lot of the misunderstanding. A lot of my shtick is that I don't like people moralizing, negatively judging, etc. Meanwhile, as a society, we're trending more in more in favor of that stuff. I want folks to understand and be accepting of difference (and not just difference that they agree with). The world would be much better off the closer we could all come to doing that, because all conflict arises over not being able to accept difference. |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jul 22, 2018 13:52:38 GMT
That's good advice, and I agree with it, but you can't enforce it. The question wasn't about whether or not it can be "enforced". The question was whether or not it is MANDATED by the religion. It is! Enforcement is irrelevant, as no aspect of religion is enforceable in a secular/free society with a First Amendment. "It" might be mandated by religion, but your concept of "it" is likely really not. The good news is that you can save your breath. You have not been appointed the distributor of all wealth. If you were, that is likely going to be overturned. If you, by your own efforts, have enough to give, then do that. You may encourage others to give, but demanding that they do because you have obviously misread the Bible is very bad. One serious problem in America today, predicted by de Tocqueville, is that voters (who do not even need to be able to read or write) have decided they can vote themselves wealth. |
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Jul 22, 2018 13:57:40 GMT
There's an article called "Empathic neural responses are modulated by the perceived fairness of others" which essentially concludes that:
" in men (at least) empathic responses are shaped by valuation of other people's social behaviour, such that they empathize with fair opponents while favouring the physical punishment of unfair opponents, a finding that echoes recent evidence for altruistic punishment."
You may have a very inclusive definition of empathy but people generally have a feeling of empathy till a certain extent. I will give you my examples:
Situation 1 - A person committed rape because he was feeling lusty- Even if I feel for the rapist that hormones made him lusty I would be happy when he gets arrested.
Situation 2 - John Doe is a person who works at a grocery store whose owner underpays him. One day John sees that there is some money fallen on the floor of the shop and no one is looking. I will empathise with John if he were to steal that money. I would be sad if he gets caught and so I will wish that he doesn't get caught.
It's not that I don't want there to be any repercussions for anything, but more draconian, harshly "moralizing" approaches display a lack of empathy. And empathizing primarily for the people you agree with, that exhibited what you consider "fair" behavior isn't empathy, or it's at least less empathy than being able to empathize with everyone. It's not that I agree with people stealing money of others. I felt empathy for the person given his circumstances.
While you can hope for people to be more empathetic towards everyone, generally humans do not behave like that. Humans will have higher degree of empathy towards those whom they perceive are relatively more fair.
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jul 23, 2018 22:08:14 GMT
Yeah, I do not often see religions preaching about empathy even though certain religious figures might give very good messages regarding feeling empathy with others.
I understand empathy can be a very innate thing in certain individuals while some can learn through experience.
I do not want to judge others but I believe certain people such as Terrapin Station , 🌵 and kls have very little feelings of empathy. I am not saying that any of them are in any way worse human beings than you or me but I find them driven by their own beliefs and understanding than on trying to understand other people. I believe libertarians may have less empathy than average people but I could be wrong about this. I find it very fascinating because lower feelings of empathy can also mean lower conscience at least among the atheists so I believe people like Terrapin and Cactus enjoy life unhindered from what goes around them. It seems to me that most folks use the concept of empathy (a) to refer to "communing" with the people who more or less already have the same feelings, opinions, etc. that they personally have, and (b) as an excuse for their tendency to defer (or conform) to norms, to consensuses, etc. But that's not what empathy is. Empathy is the ability to understand the feelings, motivations, etc. of other people, regardless of who the other person is, regardless of just how different they are than you, regardless of just how much you personally feel differently and disagree with the person in question. So, for example, let's say that we're talking about a boss berating a fellow employee. The boss is telling the employee that they're worthless, incompetent, they never should have been hired, etc. Part of empathy is understanding how that employee feels. If you're a fellow employee, especially one who is not the boss' "pet employee" or whatever, you can surely understand how the berated employee feels--that could easily be you in their shoes if you'd screwed up some work. But, you don't really have empathy if you can't also understand how the boss feels, what might have motivated him to react that way, etc. This is the case even if you think the boss is wrong, you don't really like the boss, etc. If you don't have empathy with respect to him, you don't really have empathy. The same thing goes for everyone, in every situation. If you don't have empathy for both Trayvon Martin AND George Zimmerman, you don't really have empathy. If you can't have empathy for Chales Manson as well as Sharon Tate, you don't really have empathy. If you can't have empathy for Hitler as well as the people he ordered killed, you don't really have empathy. Etc. The vast majority of people who make comments about who does and doesn't have empathy--usually where they're parading their own supposed empathy and someone else (like me) doesn't have empathy--don't have empathy for the berating boss, George Zimmerman, Manson, Hitler, rapists, etc. They only have empathy for the people who more or less already have the same feelings, opinions, etc. that they personally have. They shouldn't be trumpeting their own empathy unless they have empathy for everyone. Empathy doesn't imply agreeing with anyone or actually having the same views as them. Empathy doesn't imply conforming with norms. Signs of not having much empathy include being quick to negatively judge others, especially over-dramatic negative judgments, overreactions, and being eager to harshly punish others--people who want others dead, mutiliated, "locked away where we throw away the key," ostracized/excommunicated, etc. They see some other people as "evil," as "enemies," etc. Those people lack empathy towards people who are very different than them, different from accepted norms, etc. And that's no paradigm case of empathy. That's not understanding the concept. I totally agree with you on this. I have these kind of arguments often on here with the people (often Christians) who believe in and support things like capital punishment, withdrawal of support for social services and other 'socialist' measures to alleviate poverty, racism, homophobia and sexism because it shows a lack of empathy for the plight of others and a judgmental attitude. It implies that people are the arbiters of their own downfall and that whilst a good Christian might give 'charity' at their discretion' if they judge that person to be worthy, that NOT all humans deserve human rights. It also reminds me of the book 'Emotional Intelligence' by Daniel Goodman which exemplifies this form of empathy being applied in all spheres specially the Capitalist business world and elsewhere. 'Empathy' is a social mechanism which works against 'tribalism' and I believe it is evolutionary and we need it in the modern world more than ever to stop wars and achieve harmony and if we ever have to pull together to stop global warming, share the world's resources and try to eliminate famines wars and assist each other in times of increasing natural disasters. |
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jul 23, 2018 22:15:32 GMT
The question wasn't about whether or not it can be "enforced". The question was whether or not it is MANDATED by the religion. It is! Enforcement is irrelevant, as no aspect of religion is enforceable in a secular/free society with a First Amendment. Really? How interesting that was. Thanks, Captain. Gee, it sounds like you have some empathy for Captainbryce EVEN though he is a homosexual whom you usually condemn to the everlasting fires of Hell! Strange that! |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jul 23, 2018 22:26:01 GMT
Empathy is not understanding all feelings.
That has little to nothing to do with it. After all, there are feelings we would never be able to grasp and to try to do so would simply be pretending.
Further, empathy does not obligate us to assist in a practice one does not agree with. For example, I may sympathize or empathize with the plight of a pregnant lady, but there will never be a time that I would assist them in any direct way to obtain an abortion.
However, empathy does involve ensuring that regardless of any particular view, we would treat them in the respectful manner we would want. So a pregnant lady should not be left to feel hopeless and especially since abortion isn't the only or best option out there for the situation.
So the goal is to help a person in the best way we can not in the way they want.
Empathy does not work well with politics. If the government was supposed to be the surrogate for empathy, then where would the fellow feeling be for the individual? Social agendas don't really cure anything.
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jul 23, 2018 22:34:21 GMT
Empathy is not understanding all feelings. That has little to nothing to do with it. After all, there are feelings we would never be able to grasp and to try to do so would simply be pretending. Further, empathy does not obligate us to assist in a practice one does not agree with. For example, I may sympathize or empathize with the plight of a pregnant lady, but there will never be a time that I would assist them in any direct way to obtain an abortion. However, empathy does involve ensuring that regardless of any particular view, we would treat them in the respectful manner we would want. So a pregnant lady should not be left to feel hopeless and especially since abortion isn't the only or best option out there for the situation. So the goal is to help a person in the best way we can not in the way they want. Empathy does not work well with politics. If the government was supposed to be the surrogate for empathy, then where would the fellow feeling be for the individual? Social agendas don't really cure anything. Wow! That is the perfect example of Christian paternalism IMHO. You are saying here ( and I am presuming this relates to the pregnant lady and abortion example) that YOU know better than that woman about what is actually best for HER? Re politics since you mentioned it as an aside. IMHO socialist democracies are more empathetic than capitalist societies which automatically means that the benefit of the many overrides the benefit of the individual. |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jul 23, 2018 22:41:43 GMT
Empathy is not understanding all feelings. That has little to nothing to do with it. After all, there are feelings we would never be able to grasp and to try to do so would simply be pretending. Further, empathy does not obligate us to assist in a practice one does not agree with. For example, I may sympathize or empathize with the plight of a pregnant lady, but there will never be a time that I would assist them in any direct way to obtain an abortion. However, empathy does involve ensuring that regardless of any particular view, we would treat them in the respectful manner we would want. So a pregnant lady should not be left to feel hopeless and especially since abortion isn't the only or best option out there for the situation. So the goal is to help a person in the best way we can not in the way they want. Empathy does not work well with politics. If the government was supposed to be the surrogate for empathy, then where would the fellow feeling be for the individual? Social agendas don't really cure anything. Wow! That is the perfect example of Christian paternalism IMHO. You are saying here ( and I am presuming this relates to the pregnant lady and abortion example) that YOU know better than that woman about what is actually best for HER? Re politics since you mentioned it as an aside. IMHO socialist democracies are more empathetic than capitalist societies which automatically means that the benefit of the many overrides the benefit of the individual. Empathy isnt just a Christian trait. The message I'm getting from people who don;t understand what empathy is involves a person doing what the person needs help wants them to do. That is an incorrect understanding of empathy. While true we can feel vicariously through them, the feelings will not be shared, it's not telepathy, and thus the solutions will be different. It is helping a person in the best way we can which is completely different. I have no idea what is better for a woman beyond I know that helping them get an abortion would not be what's best for me and thus I can;t help them with that particular desire or want. So if I feel there are better options, those are what I could offer rather than what I view is a bad option. It would be entirely up to them whether they accept it so I'm not making the decision for them. This is not a pro-choice issue as the woman's choice is not removed. Empathy charity is not forced on the needy after all. It's the same as a homeless person, would they rather have food I buy for them or nothing in place of the money they want? |
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jul 23, 2018 22:50:38 GMT
Wow! That is the perfect example of Christian paternalism IMHO. You are saying here ( and I am presuming this relates to the pregnant lady and abortion example) that YOU know better than that woman about what is actually best for HER? Re politics since you mentioned it as an aside. IMHO socialist democracies are more empathetic than capitalist societies which automatically means that the benefit of the many overrides the benefit of the individual. Empathy isnt just a Christian trait. The message I'm getting from people who don;t understand what empathy is involves a person doing what the person needs help wants them to do. That is an incorrect understanding of empathy. While true we can feel vicariously through them, the feelings will not be shared, it's not telepathy, and thus the solutions will be different. It is helping a person in the best way we can which is completely different. I have no idea what is better for a woman beyond I know that helping them get an abortion would not be what's best for me and thus I can;t help them with that particular desire or want. So if I feel there are better options, those are what I could offer rather than what I view is a bad option. It would be entirely up to them whether they accept it so I'm not making the decision for them. This is not a pro-choice issue as the woman's choice is not removed. Empathy charity is not forced on the needy after all. It's the same as a homeless person, would they rather have food I buy for them or nothing in place of the money they want? I would go so far as to say 'Empathy is not necessarily a Christian trait' because empathy on Christian terms as you have shown above, is 'conditional' on Christian philosophy and dogma. In other words, a Christian thinks that they knows better because 'God'! ( and its interpretation) |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jul 23, 2018 22:54:20 GMT
Empathy isnt just a Christian trait. The message I'm getting from people who don;t understand what empathy is involves a person doing what the person needs help wants them to do. That is an incorrect understanding of empathy. While true we can feel vicariously through them, the feelings will not be shared, it's not telepathy, and thus the solutions will be different. It is helping a person in the best way we can which is completely different. I have no idea what is better for a woman beyond I know that helping them get an abortion would not be what's best for me and thus I can;t help them with that particular desire or want. So if I feel there are better options, those are what I could offer rather than what I view is a bad option. It would be entirely up to them whether they accept it so I'm not making the decision for them. This is not a pro-choice issue as the woman's choice is not removed. Empathy charity is not forced on the needy after all. It's the same as a homeless person, would they rather have food I buy for them or nothing in place of the money they want? I would go so far as to say 'Empathy is not necessarily a Christian trait' because empathy on Christian terms as you have shown above, is 'conditional' on Christian philosophy and dogma. In other words, a Christian thinks that they knows better because 'God'! ( and its interpretation) Empathy is definitely a trait encouraged by Christians. It's just not what you claim it to be. It bis not a mandate to do as the other person wishes. Otherwise, empathy would require you to help out when a person;s religious freedoms are in jeopardy or to help find a way to keep a child if a woman wants to do so. You're just projecting your view to things that interest you and ignoring it when it's something you are opposed to. |
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jul 24, 2018 0:01:02 GMT
I would go so far as to say 'Empathy is not necessarily a Christian trait' because empathy on Christian terms as you have shown above, is 'conditional' on Christian philosophy and dogma. In other words, a Christian thinks that they knows better because 'God'! ( and its interpretation) Empathy is definitely a trait encouraged by Christians. It's just not what you claim it to be. It bis not a mandate to do as the other person wishes. Otherwise, empathy would require you to help out when a person;s religious freedoms are in jeopardy or to help find a way to keep a child if a woman wants to do so. You're just projecting your view to things that interest you and ignoring it when it's something you are opposed to. Not at all, and in fact I think it is exactly the opposite. Christians cultivate 'conditional empathy' to only support those whose views which are in accord with their religion. You just said as much yourself! |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jul 24, 2018 0:14:58 GMT
Empathy is definitely a trait encouraged by Christians. It's just not what you claim it to be. It bis not a mandate to do as the other person wishes. Otherwise, empathy would require you to help out when a person;s religious freedoms are in jeopardy or to help find a way to keep a child if a woman wants to do so. You're just projecting your view to things that interest you and ignoring it when it's something you are opposed to. Not at all, and in fact I think it is exactly the opposite. Christians cultivate 'conditional empathy' to only support those whose views which are in accord with their religion. You just said as much yourself! It's so funny that of all people you would say that considering you literally spend your time here only concerned about things you care about. I am going to assume you will keep at this ridiculous "For me or against me" stance you have with anyone who doesn't share the same exact view as you. |
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jul 24, 2018 1:33:32 GMT
Not at all, and in fact I think it is exactly the opposite. Christians cultivate 'conditional empathy' to only support those whose views which are in accord with their religion. You just said as much yourself! It's so funny that of all people you would say that considering you literally spend your time here only concerned about things you care about. I am going to assume you will keep at this ridiculous "For me or against me" stance you have with anyone who doesn't share the same exact view as you. I am not alone there. Why would I answer a thread or a post that holds no interest for me? You are just bitching about the fact that I don't share your reverence for your perceived contents of the Bible and its ramifications. Besides, maybe you should go and comment on my recent thread complimenting the standard of discussion here. You are one whom I sometimes agree with despite our apparent 'irreconcileable differences'. |
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jul 24, 2018 8:53:34 GMT
Really? How interesting that was. Thanks, Captain. Gee, it sounds like you have some empathy for Captainbryce EVEN though he is a homosexual whom you usually condemn to the everlasting fires of Hell! Strange that! I don't have the authority to condemn anyone to the everlasting fires of Hell. I'm only a herald. And since neither you nor he accept the existence of Hell, why even bring it up? |
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jul 24, 2018 20:46:50 GMT
Gee, it sounds like you have some empathy for Captainbryce EVEN though he is a homosexual whom you usually condemn to the everlasting fires of Hell! Strange that! I don't have the authority to condemn anyone to the everlasting fires of Hell. I'm only a herald. And since neither you nor he accept the existence of Hell, why even bring it up? … and yet you say it on a regular basis. I bring it up because you say these things and you mean harm to innocent people in doing so. |
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jul 25, 2018 8:55:37 GMT
I don't have the authority to condemn anyone to the everlasting fires of Hell. I'm only a herald. And since neither you nor he accept the existence of Hell, why even bring it up? … and yet you say it on a regular basis. I bring it up because you say these things and you mean harm to innocent people in doing so. Sue me. |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jul 25, 2018 11:33:33 GMT
Empathy is not understanding all feelings. That has little to nothing to do with it. After all, there are feelings we would never be able to grasp and to try to do so would simply be pretending. Further, empathy does not obligate us to assist in a practice one does not agree with. For example, I may sympathize or empathize with the plight of a pregnant lady, but there will never be a time that I would assist them in any direct way to obtain an abortion. However, empathy does involve ensuring that regardless of any particular view, we would treat them in the respectful manner we would want. So a pregnant lady should not be left to feel hopeless and especially since abortion isn't the only or best option out there for the situation. So the goal is to help a person in the best way we can not in the way they want. Empathy does not work well with politics. If the government was supposed to be the surrogate for empathy, then where would the fellow feeling be for the individual? Social agendas don't really cure anything. Wow! That is the perfect example of Christian paternalism IMHO. You are saying here ( and I am presuming this relates to the pregnant lady and abortion example) that YOU know better than that woman about what is actually best for HER? Re politics since you mentioned it as an aside. IMHO socialist democracies are more empathetic than capitalist societies which automatically means that the benefit of the many overrides the benefit of the individual. Have you used this same argument yourself, "If you give an alcoholic $20 he'll only drink himself to death"? |
|
|
|
Post by CrepedCrusader on Jul 25, 2018 12:55:22 GMT
As I've posted before, there is research that suggests that religious people lag behind non-religious people when it comes to empathy.
|
|
