Who Deserves Empathy?

[commonsense]

A 35-year-old woman was crossing the street while talking on her phone. She was the mother of three, and a devoted wife, daughter and granddaughter.She was talking to a florist about arrangements for her niece’s wedding when she was struck by a fast-moving SUV. Her name was Allison.

The driver of the car was a 16-year-old wild child who was driving the family car without permission. She was distracted by a text message from her best friend. Meanwhile, the car was traveling at twice the posted speed limit. The driver was arrested and charged with vehicular homicide. She was convicted and sentenced to 100 hours of community service.

The teen was reviled throughout the town. The sentence was too lenient, they said. But there were some who felt that the driver was worthy of support. After all, she was facing a lifetime of regret.

Does the perpetrator deserve empathy?

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Americans are to blame for driving around in ridiculous gigantic tanks they call 'SUVs'.
Crass, tasteless people.

[Walker]

She deserves justice.

What do you think is justice?

[henry quirk]

Bein' a bastid: I don't have much empathy for either person.

Who crosses a street without full attention given to the traffic?

Somebody lookin' to get crippled or dead, that's who.

As for the 16 year old: under the jailhouse with her (and her mom and pop too).

[-1-]

A 35-year-old woman was crossing the street while talking on her phone. She was the mother of three, and a devoted wife, daughter and granddaughter.She was talking to a florist about arrangements for her niece’s wedding when she was struck by a fast-moving SUV. Her name was Allison.

The driver of the car was a 16-year-old wild child who was driving the family car without permission. She was distracted by a text message from her best friend. Meanwhile, the car was traveling at twice the posted speed limit. The driver was arrested and charged with vehicular homicide. She was convicted and sentenced to 100 hours of community service.

The teen was reviled throughout the town. The sentence was too lenient, they said. But there were some who felt that the driver was worthy of support. After all, she was facing a lifetime of regret.

Does the perpetrator deserve empathy?

Where did you get this story? It sounds like an Internet circular. Everyone is innocent, who suffers, and the only one with no burden is the guilty one... and the sentence was ridiculously lenient... wtf, this is not a true story. I wish to see a link to the publication.

[philosopher]

Where did you get this story? It sounds like an Internet circular. Everyone is innocent, who suffers, and the only one with no burden is the guilty one... and the sentence was ridiculously lenient... wtf, this is not a true story. I wish to see a link to the publication.

It's quite obvious just an example to illustrate a philosophical point/discussion. It need not have any historical truth to it whatsoever. The situation is philosophical and carries a moral/ethical truth to it rather than a historical.

I hate when people ruin philosophy with such stupid comments like yours!

I have a story for you, and this one is historically true:

Once upon a time, a philosophical discussion was started. It was about generalized moral/ethical values.

But a comment was made to divert attention away from the philosophical discussion of morals/ethics only to nitpick on the historicity of generalized fictional story in the thread start which could've been applied everywhere in the world to all sorts of real events not confined only to a specific event.

Which one deserves attention?

ON-TOPIC:

To answer the OP: The teen deserves a harsh sentence. No empathy here. She broke all rules and laws only to act even more careless. Of course she do not deserve empathy! The moral lesson of the story should be: If you're going to break the rules or even the law, do so with care!

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Where did you get this story? It sounds like an Internet circular. Everyone is innocent, who suffers, and the only one with no burden is the guilty one... and the sentence was ridiculously lenient... wtf, this is not a true story. I wish to see a link to the publication.

It's quite obvious just an example to illustrate a philosophical point/discussion. It need not have any historical truth to it whatsoever. The situation is philosophical and carries a moral/ethical truth to it rather than a historical.

I hate when people ruin philosophy with such stupid comments like yours!

I have a story for you, and this one is historically true:

Once upon a time, a philosophical discussion was started. It was about generalized moral/ethical values.

But a comment was made to divert attention away from the philosophical discussion of morals/ethics only to nitpick on the historicity of generalized fictional story in the thread start which could've been applied everywhere in the world to all sorts of real events not confined only to a specific event.

Which one deserves attention?

ON-TOPIC:

To answer the OP: The teen deserves a harsh sentence. No empathy here. She broke all rules and laws only to act even more careless. Of course she do not deserve empathy!

It has been scientifically proven that 'teens' are insane by default. Would you give a five year old the death penalty for getting hold of his parents' gun and blowing his father's head off with it?
You also wrote the OP as a factual occurrence. That's called lying (unless it was intended as satire, but there is nothing to suggest that).

[philosopher]

You also wrote the OP as a factual occurrence. That's called lying (unless it was intended as satire, but there is nothing to suggest that).

I did not write the OP. I'm only reacting to -1-'s stupid comment.

I cannot tell whether the story is real or not. But it doesn't matter to the philosophy behind it.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

You also wrote the OP as a factual occurrence. That's called lying (unless it was intended as satire, but there is nothing to suggest that).

I did not write the OP. I'm only reacting to -1-'s stupid comment.

I just noticed that

[philosopher]

You also wrote the OP as a factual occurrence. That's called lying (unless it was intended as satire, but there is nothing to suggest that).

I did not write the OP. I'm only reacting to -1-'s stupid comment.

I just noticed that

Ok.

To answer your question:

Would you give a five year old the death penalty for getting hold of his parents' gun and blowing his father's head off with it?

No, I did not talk about death penalty.

As for this example, the five year old is getting enough punishment from the very accidental loss of his father.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

I did not write the OP. I'm only reacting to -1-'s stupid comment.

I just noticed that

Ok.

To answer your question:

Would you give a five year old the death penalty for getting hold of his parents' gun and blowing his father's head off with it?

No, I did not talk about death penalty. Give her a punishment for driving a car without permission and without caring for other people, and also some extra punishments for wrong priorities: The teen prioritized her text messages on her phone above the life of an innocent.

So a teen being a typical teen. They are programmed to think of no one but themselves.

[philosopher]

So a teen being a typical teen. They are programmed to think of no one but themselves.

I just edited my post answer your question. Read it again.

[commonsense]

A 35-year-old woman was crossing the street while talking on her phone. She was the mother of three, and a devoted wife, daughter and granddaughter.She was talking to a florist about arrangements for her niece’s wedding when she was struck by a fast-moving SUV. Her name was Allison.

The driver of the car was a 16-year-old wild child who was driving the family car without permission. She was distracted by a text message from her best friend. Meanwhile, the car was traveling at twice the posted speed limit. The driver was arrested and charged with vehicular homicide. She was convicted and sentenced to 100 hours of community service.

The teen was reviled throughout the town. The sentence was too lenient, they said. But there were some who felt that the driver was worthy of support. After all, she was facing a lifetime of regret.

Does the perpetrator deserve empathy?

Where did you get this story? It sounds like an Internet circular. Everyone is innocent, who suffers, and the only one with no burden is the guilty one... and the sentence was ridiculously lenient... wtf, this is not a true story. I wish to see a link to the publication.

The story is based on an event that occurred in my town, circa 2002. The victim was an 83-year-old woman who had just stepped off the curb at the pedestrian crosswalk between a hospital and its parking lot. The driver was a girl in her teens. The amount of commiserating sentiment in favor of the girl was appalling.

The rest of the story is embellishment. Amazing how life imitates art!

[Nick_A]

A 35-year-old woman was crossing the street while talking on her phone. She was the mother of three, and a devoted wife, daughter and granddaughter.She was talking to a florist about arrangements for her niece’s wedding when she was struck by a fast-moving SUV. Her name was Allison.

The driver of the car was a 16-year-old wild child who was driving the family car without permission. She was distracted by a text message from her best friend. Meanwhile, the car was traveling at twice the posted speed limit. The driver was arrested and charged with vehicular homicide. She was convicted and sentenced to 100 hours of community service.

The teen was reviled throughout the town. The sentence was too lenient, they said. But there were some who felt that the driver was worthy of support. After all, she was facing a lifetime of regret.

Does the perpetrator deserve empathy?

The real question here is if you believe the quality of empathy is worth acquiring. Most apparently do not and are content to either condemn or agree depending upon how they have been conditioned. Empathy is something different

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/empathy

Empathy is the experience of understanding another person's thoughts, feelings, and condition from their point of view, rather than from your own. You can imagine yourself in their place in order to understand what they are feeling or experiencing.

The quality of empathy seems to get in the way of the valued joy of judgment. Why would a person want to deny themselves this joy? What could be gained by fully putting yourself into the position of another that could warrant sacrificing the joy of judgment?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Empathy is a relatively higher impulse than emotions.
The propensity for empathy is represented by the inherent set of mirror neurons which exist in all humans and other 'higher' primates or many certain animals with some degree of self-consciousness, like dophins, elephants, etc.

The question is not 'who deserves empathy'.
Point is even if someone deserves empathy, those whose mirror neurons are not active, e.g. psychopaths they will not be able to extend any empathy to deserving persons.

Even if someone has the propensity for empathy, it can be negative if empathy is directed blindly. Note this from Aristotle in relation to the emotion of anger.

• Anybody can become angry - that is easy, but to be angry
  with the right person and
  to the right degree and
  at the right time and
  for the right purpose, and
  in the right way -
  that is not within everybody's power and is not easy.
  -Aristotle

Substitute 'become angry' with 'be empathic'.
In this sense a person must cultivate the necessary impulse control to modulate one empathic impulses as in the above quote.

In the above case, the sentence is based on guidelines within the law.
Personally I believe 100 hours of community service is not in tandem with the consequence involving negligence and death. In this case the law should be amended appropriately.

In this example there should be no empathy to the perpetrator but there ought to be some 'right degree' of empathy to the grieving relatives and the punishment should be some kind of jail and imprisonment of at least a few months which will also act as a deterrent.