Empathy Merely a Tool Within Morality

[Veritas Aequitas]

Empathy is generally associated as positive element with morality.
As an element of morality, empathy is merely one important tool for effective morality.
As with any tool, empathy is a double-edged sword and thus vulnerable to be abused by the psychological weak.
Any credible human-based moral FSR-FSK will account for the above potential weakness and limitation to ensure they do not hinder moral progress.

There people out there who want to eliminate empathy from any consideration for sustaining morality and to enable moral progress.
Note one psychologist who is anti-empathy is Paul Bloom who wrote 'Against Empathy'.
Many has critiqued Bloom work that he is very short-sighted with a narrow definition of 'what is empathy' and he failed to acknowledge the heavier pros over its cons.

At the same time we have shallow-narrow-minded Emmanuel Can who is blindly banking on 'short-sighted' Paul Bloom in denying empathy has a critical role for moral progress.

Then what's the use of "gene engineering" to fix the problem of morality? If the values are not there, in the genes, you can't fix them that way, can you?

As for empathy, I recommend Paul Bloom's book, "Against Empathy." He points out pretty well why it's a bad source of orientation for morality. He doesn't catch all the problems, but he catches a good many of them. Bottom line: empathy is too often misguided.

Note Aristotle on emotion [anger as an example].

• “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, that is not easy.”

The above one must have a effective competence to do things right and morally.

Emotions exist as potential in all humans and had been adapted via evolution since the emotions emerged in animals which we subsequently inherited and refined.
Emotions are a double-edged-sword which has its pros and cons.
Thus as Aristotle advised long ago, we have to 'do it right' optimally with emotions.

Empathy is an emotion and for Paul Bloom to brush empathy off as significant for morality is very immature.
There are many who criticized Bloom view for being too short-sighted.

One of Bloom 'beef' with empathy is that it can be biased towards kin or in-group.
This is a very narrow view.
The primary reason for being biased to once kin or group is due to the primal impulse of tribalism which is different from the empathy circuit.
As such one of the element of the human-based moral FSK is addressing to manage the primal tribalistic 'us vs them' impulse.

I have my own reservations re empathy, especially blind-empathy without further guidance from other critical moral elements, which end up with more sufferings.
Bloom's preference is for 'compassion' which can also end up with blind-compassion.

Within the human-based moral FSR-FSK there are critical managements strategies to ensure empathy [an double-edged sword] (& all moral related potentials are)is directed effectively to the moral goals.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-des ... r-tsarnaev
Other people in prison who received plenty of empathy letters: Charles Manson, Jeffrey Dahmer, Richard Ramirez...

Still banking on Paul Bloom's immature take on empathy?
see my earlier counter;
viewtopic.php?p=656352#p656352

As usual your thinking is so narrow and shallow.

Empathy like all other emotions and primal impulses is critical to facilitate the survival of the individual[s] and therefrom the human species, but these basic impulses are vulnerable to be abused by the psychological weak.

Hunger is a primal drive which is critical for survival, this hunger drive is also responsible for obesity leading to many chronic diseases and the related deaths.
Should we then condemn the hunger drive like what you are doing to empathy.
It is the same for the emotions of rage, love, sadness, and others which are vulnerable to be led to evil acts.

The point is empathy is a critical psychological state and emotion for morality, i.e. as a tool; like all tools is a double-edged sword and thus must be used effectively within the conditions of the human-based moral FSR-FSK.

Empathic, sympathetic and compassionate letters to serial killers and other evil-doers are outside the scope of morality-proper.

Views?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes:
The various perspective of what is empathy,
The Moral Dimensions of Empathy
Limits and Applications in Ethical Theory and Practice
Julinna C. Oxley

Psychologist C. Daniel Batson distinguishes eight different uses of the term Empathy that have emerged in the psychological, philosophical, and neuroscientific literature:

• 1. Knowing Another Person’s Internal State, Including His or Her Thoughts and Feelings
  2. Adopting the Posture or Matching the Neural Responses of an Observed Other
  3. Coming to Feel as Another Person Feels
  4. Intuiting or Projecting Oneself into Another’s Situation
  5. Imagining How Another Is Thinking and Feeling
  6. Imagining How One Would Think and Feel in the Other’s Place
  7. Feeling Distress at Witnessing Another Person’s Suffering
  8. Feeling for Another Person Who is Suffering16

These phenomena are all identified as Empathy by different types of researchers. But there is no agreement that they are all really Empathy; in fact, most philosophers would describe concepts 7 and 8 above as sympathy, which involves feeling care or concern for someone’s wellbeing, or feeling sorrow, or sorry, for another.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Note: KIV

[FlashDangerpants]

Perversely, VA has sort of got something right. Harbal has provided a bottom up account of morality in which empathy is a building block, but IC cannot reconcile bottom up accounts of anything because he can't imagine his way past his top down God-did-it-or-else-its-impossible assumptions.

So mister Can treats the building block as the whole building as it were, by assuming Harbal has offered up empathy by itself as both necessary and sufficient condition, when it was only ever presented as one necessary among others. That's how he comes to think he can argue that uncool outcomes of empathy (such as sympathy for the unrighteous) make Harbal wrong, which is a fail.

Not quite sure where VA is upposed to fit into this as he is on record describing his own theory as top down, so why he would even be in the market for building blocks is a fucking mystery, but we should still give him props for being sort of right one time.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Still banking on Paul Bloom's immature take on empathy?

Oh? So you've read Bloom, have you?

Forgive me for my doubts.

I have read the book, not the whole book, but sufficient to get its main theme.
As I had stated, empathy is merely a tool [double-edged-sword] for morality-proper.
Empathy Merely a Tool Within Morality
viewtopic.php?t=40469

Bloom did acknowledge empathy has its pros, thus he considered the following;

• Not Against Empathy but Against the Misapplication of Empathy.
  Or Empathy Is Not Everything.
  Or Empathy Plus Reason Make a Great Combination.
  Empathy is like cholesterol, with a good type and a bad type.
  
  I’m somewhat swayed by this.
  I will occasionally discuss some positive aspects of Empathy.
  There are situations where people’s Empathy can motivate good action, and Moral individuals can use Empathy as a tool to motivate others to do the right thing.
  Empathy might play a valuable, perhaps irreplaceable, role in intimate relationships.
  And Empathy can be a source of great pleasure.
  It’s [Empathy is] not all bad.

But ultimately he is dogmatic with his Anti-Empathy stance, he insisted;

• But still, I stand fast.
  On balance, Empathy is a negative in human affairs.
  ... And while I will sometimes concede the benefits of Empathy, the verdict is that, on balance, we are better off without it.
  ... I once told the leader of a charitable organization that I was writing a book encouraging people to be less empathic,

In his book, Bloom argued on the negative sides of empathy, but that is for the wrong reasons which is NOT for how the role of empathy should be dealt within morality proper.
Here Bloom extended empathy with politics, which has nothing to do with morality-proper; to biasness which is related fundamentally to the primal "us vs them" which is not related to morality-proper directly.

Empathic, sympathetic and compassionate letters to serial killers and other evil-doers are outside the scope of morality-proper.

If that's so, then empathy is not the touchstone of morality. For these are cases of empathy that you admit are "outside" what you regard as moral. (I don't know what you think "morality-proper" means: you'll have to explain how it differs from "morality.")

Empathy is not the touchstone of morality; empathy is merely a tool within morality-proper which is conditioned upon a human-based moral FSK.

In his book, Bloom referred to what and how the general public related empathy to morality as the absolute or significant element of morality. This is the wrong view.
As such, Bloom is barking up the wrong tree with reference to morality.

Empathic, sympathetic and compassionate letters to serial killers and other evil-doers are outside the scope of morality-proper.

Morality proper is about the management of the elimination of evil to enable its related good.
'Vulgar'-Morality versus Morality-Proper

The 'ought-not-ness to kill humans' is one very significant moral element.
As such in the case of empathy, the intent [impulse and thoughts] to kill another human will trigger the associated pains in the potential killer and thus will thwart and hinder his impulses to kill humans.

So, the recognition of the potential of empathy [neural correlates wise] and increasing one's activeness in this case, will surely prevent less humans being killed by individuals and groups.
This can be tested in time with the number of human killed in relation to the progress of the degree of activeness of the empathy function within all humans conditioned upon a human-based moral FSK. [note the bolded]

If Bloom get his way with;
"we are better off without it".
... and
"encouraging people to be less empathic",
we will not be able to reduce the numbers of humans killed by humans in the future via morality-proper.

Where empathy [non-moral] leads to negative outside the scope of morality proper, they should be dealt within their specific FSK, e.g. politics, sex, social issues, etc. and NEVER within the morality FSK.

[Iwannaplato]

I think VA should explain what he means by 'tool.' And how this fits in with 'oughtnesses' and then given that in VA's system morality is not about right and wrong (but oughtnesses to and to not do???) how this all hangs together ontologically.

But let's be clear that what gets called empathy is not just about being kind to people. It is part of how we learn about life. Empathy or our ability to imagine what other people are feeling or feel it in a sense directly also aids us in modeling all sorts of things: leadership, what is play and what is not, imitation of all sorts of skills. Children learn by immitating and exploring other children's and adults modes of moving, socializing, speaking, posturing. And the same facility (I would all it a facility/attitude and not a tool) make it easier for us to learn from others and integrate in the world of others. Yes, empathy is one facet of this facility and it certainly play a role in what we call morality.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Empathy is a critical tool within morality-proper.

Kindness, sympathy, compassionate [triggered by empathy] are secondary and are related more to virtues than to morality proper.

List of Virtues [are different from morality-proper]:
https://www.virtuesforlife.com/virtues-list/

• Acceptance Assertiveness Authenticity Beauty Caring Cleanliness Commitment Compassion Confidence Consideration Contentment Cooperation Courage Creativity Detachment Determination Dignity Encouragement Enthusiasm Ethical Excellence Fairness Faith Flexibility Forgiveness Friendliness Generosity Gentleness Graciousness Gratitude Harmonious Helpfulness Honesty Honor Hope Humility Idealism Integrity Imaginative Joyfulness Justice Kindness Love Loyalty Moderation Modesty Optimistic Orderliness Passionate Patience Peace Perseverance Preparedness Purposefulness Reliability Respect Responsibility Reverence Self-discipline Service Sincerity Tact Temperate Tenacious Thankfulness Tolerance Trust Truthfulness Understanding Unity Visionary Wisdom Wonder.

'Ethical' listed within the above should be dealt specifically with Morality and Ethics.

To enable morality to progress effectively, virtues should not be conflated or confused with pure moral elements.
Empathy as represented by its neural physical referent is an objective moral element.

[Iwannaplato]

Empathy is a critical tool within morality-proper.

In what sense is empathy a tool? And why is it a mere tool?

To enable morality to progress effectively, virtues should not be conflated or confused with pure moral elements.

Why shouldn't they? What would happen if they were conflated? Like if cooperativeness was considered a tool within morality proper? Or truthfulness? Or courage?

Empathy as represented by its neural physical referent is an objective moral element.

There are neuronal patterns associated with honesty and dishonesty. Why are these not objective moral facts?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Empathy is a critical tool within morality-proper.

In what sense is empathy a tool? And why is it a mere tool?

What is morality is the management and minimization [ideally to ZERO] of evil acts to enable its related good within a human-based FSK.
Note the analogy of the scientific FSK which has a framework and system of variables, processes, conditions, assumptions, etc. i.e. all that is necessary to qualify it as the scientific FSK.
Similarly, the human based moral FSK has a complex set of variables, processes, conditions, assumptions, etc. Empathy is merely a tool within the human-based moral FSK.
Btw, empathy is conditioned upon its own empathy-FSK.

To enable morality to progress effectively, virtues should not be conflated or confused with pure moral elements.

Why shouldn't they? What would happen if they were conflated? Like if cooperativeness was considered a tool within morality proper? Or truthfulness? Or courage?

The focus of Morality proper is dealing with evil acts to enable its related good.
Virtues has its own related good which is not absolutely related to morality.
There are so many areas where Co-operativeness is a necessity for success, e.g. in economics, politics, social matters, for synergy, harmony, etc. as such, it cannot be a pure moral element.

On the other hand the 'killing of humans by humans' is a pure moral element.

Empathy as represented by its neural physical referent is an objective moral element.

There are neuronal patterns associated with honesty and dishonesty. Why are these not objective moral facts?

There are so many areas where honesty and dishonesty are involved, in economics, politics, social matters, as such, it cannot be a pure moral element.

[Iwannaplato]

The focus of Morality proper is dealing with evil acts to enable its related good.

But you've said earlier that morality should not focus on acts.

Basically what is morality at present is related to rightness and wrongness of human acts attributed to 'what is deemed to be morality'.
Whilst morality in terms of rightness and wrongness do have some moral utilities it is too subjective, incomplete and will not facilitate moral progress at the finer levels.

wrongness in moral discussions is just a less religiously laden synonym for evil. Another synonyms you've used is
"abhorrent acts".

I do understand that you want to shift the focus from deontological rules. Further you have expressed judgments of acts based on consequentialist criteria. But you clearly think in terms of acts just like these groups both do.

Virtues has its own related good which is not absolutely related to morality.
There are so many areas where Co-operativeness is a necessity for success, e.g. in economics, politics, social matters, for synergy, harmony, etc. as such, it cannot be a pure moral element.

A doctor can use empathy in helping to understand patients in diagnosis. A teacher and use empathy to help a student solve problems. Pretty much any positive human quality/trait can be used in all sorts of situations. IOW they can be used to reduce what the different things people consider evil and they can be used in other more practical situations.

On the other hand the 'killing of humans by humans' is a pure moral element.

That's an act. Empathy is not an act, it's a function/attitude.

There are so many areas where honesty and dishonesty are involved, in economics, politics, social matters, as such, it cannot be a pure moral element.

There are so many areas where empathy is used and mirror neurons are used.

How did you determine what are evil acts and their corresponding good acts?

[Veritas Aequitas]

The focus of Morality proper is dealing with evil acts to enable its related good.

But you've said earlier that morality should not focus on acts.

Where?
If any, it is a mistake.
I have used the above definition for a long time. Elsewhere I have added evil thoughts and evil intentions to nip the problem at source.

Basically what is morality at present is related to rightness and wrongness of human acts attributed to 'what is deemed to be morality'.
Whilst morality in terms of rightness and wrongness do have some moral utilities it is too subjective, incomplete and will not facilitate moral progress at the finer levels.

wrongness in moral discussions is just a less religiously laden synonym for evil. Another synonyms you've used is
"abhorrent acts".

I do understand that you want to shift the focus from deontological rules. Further you have expressed judgments of acts based on consequentialist criteria. But you clearly think in terms of acts just like these groups both do.

1 + 1 = 2 is right
1 + 1 = 3 is wrong.

The terms 'Wrongness' and 'rightness' are too loose to be used within a credible human-based moral FSK.

Virtues has its own related good which is not absolutely related to morality.
There are so many areas where Co-operativeness is a necessity for success, e.g. in economics, politics, social matters, for synergy, harmony, etc. as such, it cannot be a pure moral element.

A doctor can use empathy in helping to understand patients in diagnosis. A teacher and use empathy to help a student solve problems. Pretty much any positive human quality/trait can be used in all sorts of situations. IOW they can be used to reduce what the different things people consider evil and they can be used in other more practical situations.

Empathy is involved in many areas of human activities.
This is why 'empathy' cannot be exclusive for morality, but is merely a tool within the moral FSK.

On the other hand the 'killing of humans by humans' is a pure moral element.

That's an act. Empathy is not an act, it's a function/attitude.

What is the issue?
Within the moral FSK there are potentials, functions and matter of acts.

There are so many areas where honesty and dishonesty are involved, in economics, politics, social matters, as such, it cannot be a pure moral element.

There are so many areas where empathy is used and mirror neurons are used.

Precisely, that is why empathy is not exclusive to morality.
It is just like mathematics [very critical] is not exclusive to Physics, science or any other subjects.

How did you determine what are evil acts and their corresponding good acts?

I have done that elsewhere.
I am not doing it here.

[Iwannaplato]

The terms 'Wrongness' and 'rightness' are too loose to be used within a credible human-based moral FSK.

OK, but many avoid 'evil' because of its religious connotations. And pretty much anyone will understand what one means by right and wrong when one is discussing morals. For example in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy here's an article with an overview or morality where they use 'right' and 'wrong' dozens of times, in relation to acts and otherwise.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-theory/
We understand that they are not talking about math. And notice they don't use 'evil'. 'Good'' of course is used in religious contexts and philosophical ones like these. You can certainly prefer to use the language you use, but often you seem - I could be wrong - to present such issues as simply morality-proper. As THE correct way to think of and write about morality. Another general discussion of morality here
https://iep.utm.edu/modern-morality-ancient-ethics/
Where again right and wrong are used and we understand that this are part of moral discussions not math or how to pave roads correctly, etc.

Empathy is involved in many areas of human activities.
This is why 'empathy' cannot be exclusive for morality, but is merely a tool within the moral FSK.

But you contrasted empathy with the list of virtues. You complaint against the other virtues is that they are not central to morality since they can be 'used' in other areas of life. But now you are saying that this is true of empathy.

And note this: The title of the thread is

Empathy Merely a Tool Within Morality

but then you also say....

Empathy is a critical tool within morality-proper.

Merely vs. Critical

There are so many areas where honesty and dishonesty are involved, in economics, politics, social matters, as such, it cannot be a pure moral element.

There are so many areas where empathy is used and mirror neurons are used.

Precisely, that is why empathy is not exclusive to morality.
It is just like mathematics [very critical] is not exclusive to Physics, science or any other subjects.

You used the argument that the other virtues you listed are not part of morality proper because they are not exclusive to morality. But now you are saying that empathy is not this either. You exclude them from morality-proper on grounds that would also exclude empathy. You have said that is whey they are excluded, but now say that empathy has the same quality of not being exclusive.

How did you determine what are evil acts and their corresponding good acts?

I have done that elsewhere.
I am not doing it here.

OK, well PH and I are asking in other places.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I stated;

If Bloom get his way with;
"we are better off without it [empathy]".
... and
"encouraging people to be less empathic",
we will not be able to reduce the numbers of humans killed by humans in the future via morality-proper.

You are both overreacting, and your conclusion is not logical.

Bloom does not encourage people to be less empathetic. Nor does he say we're better off without it. Rather, he points out that we are wise not to let something that is a mere emotion take over from our judgment and become the basis for decision-making, especially in regard to morality.

And he's right about that. He gives good reasons for that conclusion, and I've given you additional ones. The evidence is in: when it is detached from sound reason, empathy becomes too easily misdirected, and actually can cause evil.

So we should still have empathy, Bloom says, but not let it drive the ship. That's a much more accurate and fair synopsis of Bloom's point.

Moreover, the conclusion you attribute to him is one he never draws -- and one which logically does not follow, even from your own earlier premises. Even were we to eliminate empathy, that does not mean we would "not be able to reduce the numbers of humans killed by humans." For there is no evidence empathy stops people from killing; and false empathy, empathy directed to a despot or to a "master race," for example, could get far MORE people killed.

So the point is, have empathy, but don't treat it like an infallible touchstone to morality, and don't suppose it's the basis of ethics. It is sometimes the basis of evil, as well.

Now you've got it...we can hope.

Do you read the book?

I got the above [bolded] from his book.

Mine is an Ebook so no page reference but note this from Chapter 1 just before he dealt with the objections;

Cognitive Empathy is a useful tool, then—a necessary one for anyone who wishes to be a good person—but it is Morally neutral.
I believe that the capacity for emotional Empathy, described as “sympathy” by philosophers such as Adam Smith and David Hume, often simply known as “Empathy” and defended by so many scholars, theologians, educators, and politicians, is actually Morally corrosive.
If you are struggling with a Moral decision and find yourself trying to feel someone else’s pain or pleasure, you should stop.
This empathic engagement might give you some satisfaction, but it’s not how to improve things and can lead to bad decisions and bad outcomes.
Much better to use Reason and cost-benefit analysis, drawing on a more distanced compassion and kindness.

The rest of this book will elaborate and qualify this position.
It will pull back to explore global politics and zoom in on intimate relationships; it will address the causes of war and the nature of evil.
And while I will sometimes concede the benefits of Empathy, the verdict is that, on balance, we are better off without it.

How can you insist "Nor does he say we're better off without it."?

[Veritas Aequitas]

But you contrasted empathy with the list of virtues. You complaint against the other virtues is that they are not central to morality since they can be 'used' in other areas of life. But now you are saying that this is true of empathy.

If we draw a venn diagram with Morality and Virtues separate domains but there is some overlap.



In this case empathy is common to both morality and virtues.
Empathy is a critical tool for morality, just as mathematics is critical for Physics but not for so much for biology and other sciences.
When we can identify the specific precise [unique] neural mechanisms of empathy in relation to morality, then we will be able to facilitate moral progress by developing greater efficiency in those mechanism.

The doubts and skepticisms raised by posters are due to their ignorance of how the brain works in terms of greater precision.
The feeling of empathy is triggered by perhaps millions of mirror neurons with millions of connections to various neurons in other functions which can be very complex.

[Veritas Aequitas]

And while I will sometimes concede the benefits of Empathy, the verdict is that, on balance, we are better off without it.

How can you insist "Nor does he say we're better off without it."?

Because he's taking about the uses people try to make of empathy. And if they insist on abusing it so badly, we are indeed better off without it.

Is a woman better off or worse off if she is empathetic with serial killers, or infant killers, or despotic rulers, or self-mutilators...and so on? It's obvious. If that's what she's going to use her empathy for, she'd be better off with none of it.

However, as Bloom concedes, empathy does have benefits -- if it's not being abused. However, it often is.

That's why he says "on balance." He's weighing off it's benefits against the cost of its abuses. But he's not saying it has no benefits.

Why can't you grasp the point'

"we are indeed better off without it"

It is like many who acknowledge there are pros with say 'smoking' and but many would insist 'we are better off without it' i.e. ZERO smoking.

It is the same with Bloom's view where he conclude the pros from empathy is so miniscule, "we are indeed better off without it" i.e. preferable ZERO!

This discussion is empathy in relation to morality.
In his conclusion he wrote:

As this book comes to an end, I worry that I have given the impression that I’m against Empathy.
Well, I am—but only in the Moral domain

Did you read the book???