As the cognitive linguist George Lakoff puts it, “Empathy is at the heart of real rationality, because it goes to the heart of our values, which are the basis of our sense of justice. Empathy is the reason we have the principles of freedom and fairness, which are necessary components of justice.”Empathy is the affective component of apprehension of universality, as invariance is the cognitive basis of it. Equal rights are based on the feeling of oneness with others as members of the same species and the knowledge that beyond individual differences there is an invariant aspect of humanity as shared nature. While everyone is unique as an individual, all are the same as persons who are equal before the law and possess equal rights.
Salon
The one thing that could save the world: Why we need empathy now more than ever
Roman Krznaric
Vladimir Putin got this right.
In an unexpected remark Friday, the Russian president spoke of the “meaning of life,” saying that for him “in general” it is love that matters.
Briefly digressing from politics, Putin ventured a philiosophical observation that “multifaceted” love is the basis of all actions and the essence of being.
"The meaning of our whole life and existence is love," Putin told his audience at the 15th Congress of the Russian Geographical Society. "It is love for the family, for the children, for the motherland. This is a multifaceted phenomenon; it lies at heart of any of our behaviors."RT, Putin: ‘Love is the meaning of life’
Spiritual maturity is determined by the universality of one's love. An expanded heart encompasses all.
19 comments:
I think you can have justice without empathy.... the justice comes from purely "mathematics"...
iow you could look at someone who is being disgraced and see that their lives are NOT equal to someone else's and conclude "this is wrong" and simply desire adjustments to compensate for the inequality...
Here is empathy: "Empathy is the capacity to share or recognize emotions experienced by another"
Many times the people who are getting screwed over dont even exhibit emotion... or the people who want to impose justice are unemotional...
this is like back when the right wanted to start institutionalizing the "homeless" and the left protested this that the right was violating the rights of the homeless... that they should have the right to sleep on the streets, etc...
I think that there is A LOT of empathy out there by the empathizers these days.... imo we instead need more people willing to impose justice with or without empathy...
I assert empathy is not required for someone in authority to impose justice... you can get there thru math...
rsp,
"possess equal rights"
Where does it say that Tom?
I dont see that 'written in stone" anywhere...
Are not rights defined /granted by humans?
When the founders wrote "endowed by their Creator with rights...." I cannot find that anywhere in the Greek Scriptures at least... so this statement looks like it is the pure product of the reasonings of mankind.
(Just like: "all men are created equal.." LOL!)
We are not "endowed rights", we are given "authority" thru which yes we can grant rights... but we have no direct rights "from our Creator" or from anyone else imo... we are given 'authority' by our Creator..
"No authority have you against Me in anything, except it were given to you from above." John 19:11
the concept of 'authority' is again skipped right over as usual (we're out of money!" LOL!)... and we just somehow magically skip ahead directly to having "rights" ??
this is an absolute f-ing libertarian utopia we are living in these days where authority is just flat out gone from the scene.... and yes these morons think "we're out of money!" ....
I hope libertarians are enjoying this because I dont see how it could get any better for them... at this point during what Paul termed "the present wicked eon" and "man's day"....
rsp,
You can't say "this is wrong" w/o empathy IMO. For example when you crush an ant you don't say "this is wrong", because you have no empathy for the ant.
That's what bigotry ideologies do: they remove empathy towards a subset of other humans. Those humans are 'de-humanized' and anything goes as far as it's not opposed (ie. what happened in Nazi Germany).
I agree w/ your second post, there is nothing written about rights, we make up rights just as moral standards because we want to (usually driven by empathy!). Check what happens when a legal system dehumanizes others lives in dictatorships...
But you can come to conclusions that you only need X labour to do Y, or that we would remove many problems if we killed 2/3 of the human population. Not only in other countries: "Homeless? Just kill them, useless!". The only thing that stops this barbarism is that we make up 'rights' (which don't exists as something metaphysical in the natural world), and we make up 'human rights' because we feel empathy towards other humans.
So you can't have "justice" without empathy, justice is the absence of the law of the jungle, which reigns whenever you can do whatever you feel you need to do (this important).
iow you could look at someone who is being disgraced and see that their lives are NOT equal to someone else's and conclude "this is wrong" and simply desire adjustments to compensate for the inequality...
This is the ethical rationalist position, e.g, of Plato, which is opposed to the moral sentiment position, e.g., taken by David Hume. Generally speaking, ethical rationalism is based on universalizability and moral sentiment on empathy. These position are debated as if antithetical — "reason v. passion."
Contemporary cognitive science has found that there is a mixture of the cognitive and affective factors in brain functioning and they cannot be divorced. Some people may be more rationally driven and other driven more by sentiment, but the reason and passion cannot be decisively separated in reality, only distinguished intellectually, because the brain operates holistically.
Matt, IMO "Justice" without empathy is the very embodiment of evil. That is what happens in fascist societies. That is one of the reasons that the Nazi's were universally hated.
This is one of the reasons for a trial by a "Jury of one's peers" As it was considered that the accused peers were the ones most likely to have empathy with the accused. However, in practice, jury trials are very rarely by a jury of the accused's peers.
"possess equal rights"
Where does it say that Tom?
I dont see that 'written in stone" anywhere...
Are not rights defined /granted by humans?
Very key issue, Matt.
The only rights "written in stone" so to speak are legal rights in positive law and even these must be interpreted in context by judges.
The question is what the foundation of putative rights may be, and this comes up most prominently when not everyone agrees on the right claimed.
So the issue is whether rights are arbitrary constructs or have some natural or transcendental basis rather than being culturally relative.
Naturalists argue that the concept of right is emergent and was first enshrined in custom and only afterward in law. Universalizability is often part of this argument philosophically.
Transcendentalists argue that there is a universal aspect of rights that is of the essence of human nature, structured in human consciousness. This is the meaning of the statement that all men are created equal an endowed with certain inalienable rights. Universalizability is often part of this argument philosophically.
Cognitive science is showing that the concept of right is naturalistic, emerging from more primitive factors like fairness that are produced through the operation of mirror neurons, for instance. This is based on being able to apprehend others as oneself, which is the basis of universalizability — walking a mile in another's moccasins, i,e, traceable to ancient human behavior.
BTW, it is in correct to associate empathy with "emotion." A person can appear not to be "emotional" at all but still be deeply influenced by affect, even unbeknownst to the person. This is the sort of thing at cognitive-affective research reveals.
We are not "endowed rights", we are given "authority" thru which yes we can grant rights... but we have no direct rights "from our Creator" or from anyone else imo... we are given 'authority' by our Creator..
"No authority have you against Me in anything, except it were given to you from above." John 19:11
This is a particular type of transcendentalist argument that is based on belief. Arguments based on belief are not universalizable so they are considered weak other than for believers.
Other criteria must be found in order to debate with non-believers. For example, Aquinas was a believer that also adduced rational justification for faith.
'Emotions' is a loaded term for the lay-man.
Emotions do not necessarily to appear phenomenologically even at subjective level, not to say externalized and perceived by other fellow humans.
You can appear not emotional and still care about something. Even you can 'think'/say (experience a phenomenological cognition) that you don't care about something, but your behaviour can tell a complete different story. It's a very complex subject.
For example when you crush an ant you don't say "this is wrong", because you have no empathy for the ant.
That depends on the person. A truly enlightened person apprehends all beings as oneself. A cognitively enlightened person understands that all being this and may feel it to some degree but does not experience it fully. The level of one's apprehension of the universality of being holistically is an indication of one's level of consciousness. "He wouldn't harm a fly." Of the care that indigenous people express for the environment as living and endowed with inalienable rights.
That's completely culturally related Tom. You have people defending 'animal rights' for animals that wouldn't even exists in a 'natural world'.
The point was, that behind the arguments about rights or justice, there is empathy, because from a material-natural pov there is no such things.
material-natural pov there is no such things
Well, some would argue that empathy and derivatives like rights are naturalistic as an emergent property that was incorporated in the structure of consciousness cross-culturally owing to evolutionary benefit. It is possible to trace neurologicallly from prehuman species where it emerges as a sense of fairness to the customs of primitive humans to the highly developed cultural institutions including law of modern humans. The argument is that these are expressions of naturalistic development rather than arbitrary cultural preferences.
That's completely culturally related Tom. You have people defending 'animal rights' for animals that wouldn't even exists in a 'natural world'.
There are people cross-culturally that have greater and lesser development of empathy. We all have the same type of mirror neurons and close to the same number, but use of neural circuity opens paths and disuse closes paths. Nature provides potential but nurture actualizes it.
Some cultures promote greater empathy than others through their conventions, customs, and institutions. Warlike and acquisitive cultures tend to disincentivize empathy, while culture dependent on cooperation and those in fragile environments incentivize it.
There is a saying that it is difficult to be a morally good person in a morally bad or bankrupt society.
A Breath enters into dirt and dirt gets up and walks and talks and thinks. What rights does the dirt have over Breath; what authority? Laughter peels amongst the stars .....!!!! Empathy is the evolved ability of dirt to feel and know what is within - and extend that to other selves who are one. Being human is a privilege: not a right. It is a gift of which we can be proud. It gives us the only dignity we can ever have, that is real. It bestows upon us intelligence. Nor does it give dominion over anything - it gives response ... ability! Employment to enjoy. A reason to be. It gives fulfillment. For what it is worth amongst all of the concepts .....
well i'm just trying to be honest I dont feel that any desire I have to see socio-economic justice comes from empathy for those I see as getting screwed over... if you define empathy as I pulled from the wiki above...
that is to say I dont share the emotions of the people who I see as the ones getting screwed...
I would say my reaction is typically anger only ... even if the other person is sad or openly lamenting their plight...
Bill Clinton: "I feel your pain..."
I would not say that I (personally) feel that way, I get angry/indignant.. I dont "feel their pain"... and I dont think I am alone in this type of reaction...
"there will be lamentation and gnashing of teeth" Mat 8:12 ... I come down on the "teeth gnashing" side... not saying the "lamentation side" is wrong...
rsp
Well, some would argue that empathy and derivatives like rights are naturalistic as an emergent property that was incorporated in the structure of consciousness cross-culturally owing to evolutionary benefit. It is possible to trace neurologicallly from prehuman species where it emerges as a sense of fairness to the customs of primitive humans to the highly developed cultural institutions including law of modern humans. The argument is that these are expressions of naturalistic development rather than arbitrary cultural preferences.
I agree with this line of thinking. Is hard to trace lines because cultural and natural are blurred.
P.S: What I meant by "it's cultural" is that while empathy may have a biological correlate, the expression of it (if any) it's a function of nurture and environment. Some people may have more empathy towards animals (or some categories of animals) than other, and that's an effect of culture and development. The same things happens with empathy towards other humans (or categories of humans).
Matt, different cultures express emotions in different ways. But this also applies to individuals, different individuals in the same culture express emotions in different ways.
Feeling 'angry' when you see a fellow human suffering (for example) can be perfectly a valid expression of empathy. If you didn't have empathy you wouldn't feel anything, the lack of emotions in such circumstance, or the total indifference towards others, is a lack of empathy.
That's how psychopaths behave.
What I meant by "it's cultural" is that while empathy may have a biological correlate, the expression of it (if any) it's a function of nurture and environment. Some people may have more empathy towards animals (or some categories of animals) than other, and that's an effect of culture and development. The same things happens with empathy towards other humans (or categories of humans).
I agree that this is cultural to a great extent. There are three major inputs, 1) natural-dispostional, 2) nurtured-cultural, and 3) learned-individual.
Some people are more naturally, that is, dispositionally, inclined toward empathy than others within cultures. Moreover, some people develop themselves more holistically and profoundly than others, e.g., as a matter of "wisdom" and "character."
I put quotes around these terms because they are actually defined by the lives of the people that exemplify them more than some conceptual ideal. The wise are the criteria of wisdom and people of character are the criteria of character. Similarly the opposites are defined in terms of those that exemplify these traits.
This holds pretty well cross-culturally, although it is also characteristic that people canonize their heroes and demonize the heroes of the other side.
The sages set the standard for wisdom and that standard is quite similar across history, and the heroes set the standard for character, again rather universally. And there are the great villains, too, exemplified by those that inflicted great harm without moral justification.
The interesting thing, as George Lakoff points out, is that the standards are different for those at the opposite poles. There is a different morality at one pole than the other, and many if not most people are what Lakoff calls "biconceptual," adhering to mixed standards of different poles. Research seems to be suggesting that this is naturally based in genetic differences, at least in large part.
Righteous anger is based on empathy (mirror neurons firing).
I would not be surprised to find science one day surveying a world in which their beloved atoms and molecules, genetic code and physical laws are all effects; outcomes - not causes: and even emotion and mind (hence culture and civilisation), the human persona and all of the extraordinary experience that orbits around this little thing called 'I', similarly an effect of interior causes; evolution flows of energy more subtle than any clunky machine can measure. Time and Space are Infinite you know, and what consolidates as the physical universe is just a dot: there is BEING LIFE at the root of everything; of that much I am certain ..... how much of our life on this planet is our dreamtime, an outpost of our true consciousness; or are we much too conditioned, caught up and smitten to ask?
Experts make me laugh ......!!!!
jrbarch
Post a Comment