Recently I’ve bumped into the idea that morality can be explained by empathy, a concept often expressed by evangelizing atheists. We learn to empathize, so we do unto others….
The psychology community is big on empathy too, and if you haven’t got “it” you’re probably a sociopath. Empathy is defined as “the ability to understand and share the feelings of another.” There’s a problem there however, sadists also love to understand and share the feelings of another….their suffering. So do pedophiles. So do con artists, politicians, advertisers, and the entire pharmaceutical industry….
Empathy is not morality. It is presumed that one who has the ability to understand and recognize the feelings of others is going to therefore be respectful towards those feelings. Au contraire! Many don’t. Empathy is a tool, not a morality.
I grew up in unfortunate circumstances and developed a bit of hypervigilence, heightened intuition, sharply tuned empathy. It had absolutely nothing to do with morality at all, it was a survival skill. Just because I can tune in and recognize the feelings of others does not mean I care about those feelings or even that my intentions are noble!
Have no fear, I’m a peaceful sort.
My mother is a narcissist and plumb full of empathy…for herself, but she can’t see that. To give you an idea of what I am talking about, long aqo when I wound up in the hospital, she eventually called me up, full of empathy, distressed…..because she couldn’t figure out who was going to drive her around now that I was out of commission. That is my mother, her narcissism is cloaked in something that almost resembles empathy. However, she can only see herself in other people, like a projection, a hologram. Everyone in the entire world is actually her. She was concerned about me, but only in terms of how it would inconvenience her or cause her distress.
Most of us are not narcissists, but that tendency to project ourselves, our feelings, our identities onto others to some extent is fairly common. We will put ourselves in their shoes, the keyword there being “ourselves.” If I were in your situation, this is what “I” would want. What is sometimes forgotten however is that another person is not you, their circumstances are different than yours, what got them where they are is unique, and what is best for them may be completely different from what would be best for you, were you in their situation!
There’s nothing bad about trying to put yourself in someone else shoes and actually caring about them. That’s a good thing. We need more of that in the world. To truly make it a moral thing however, it needs to be tempered with wisdom and justice, and with less of you in the equation. How you “feel” about what they are feeling, must be let go of, so you can discern what is going to be in their best interests.
Empathy can actually be a very self serving thing, a cruel thing even, devoid of morality. Sometimes people will get into very co-dependant relationships with addicts, where they are full of empathy….and funding all the drugs and alcohol that is killing someone. Empathy can actually enable people to destroy themselves.
So, empathy is clearly not morality. In fact, I’ve given a few examples where empathy can actually be downright immoral. We do not simply empathize and do unto others as we would have them do unto us, sometimes we empathize in order to exploit people, sometimes we do it to manipulate them so we can get what we want, and sometimes we are simply projecting our own selves onto them due to unresolved personal issues.
The ability to understand and share the feelings of another is an important life skill and certainly tends to make social situations easier, but there are also people in the world who are moral and yet they lack these skills. Empathy is no more related to morality than intelligence is. Feelings are not morality either.
Morality is a tough thing to define because it is “the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad.” Good for whom, however? As humans, our vision is very limited, our ability to see cause and effect into the future is not so good, and our own brain’s ability to grasp the implications of the things we do and their impact on others is heavily tainted with biases and influenced by fleeting emotions.
That does sound dreadful doesn’t it? I’m terribly sorry, but we are simply not the sharpest tools in the shed. I happen to believe in God because He is where wisdom lives, along with love, justice, mercy, and morality.
See, there's this thing called biology... 
That was much better than the crack head example! Sure glad I have friends with good words
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think your example was a good one, Wally! I’ve been enjoying a few blogs that all seem to be on the same page today. I love it when that happens.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I do too IB it means God has a message
LikeLiked by 1 person
You know I bet Ted Bundy was full of empathy
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yep, he was in a way. He cared so much about other people he once worked for a crisis line and was fairly active in social politics. He was pretty good at exploiting his victim’s empathy too, which indicates he could recognize their feelings.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Definitions in psychology can be a little squishy, but if Bundy was a psychopath, I think that this means, by definition, he lacked the ability to feel empathy.
LikeLike
Yes, well Bundy himself was a psychology major who understood empathy well and knew how to manipulate it. He was also a sadist who apparently enjoyed feeling what his victims were feeling.
As I’ve said,there’s a fallacy behind the idea that empathy means one will have compassion. We tend to assume that those who do not empathize, simply cannot feel what others are feeling. That is not true however, as some of our serial killers and sadists have proven.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well, this may be just a matter of semantic. I’m just going by the standard psych definition of a psychopath.
Anyway, if he “enjoyed feeling what his victims were feeling,” then I think, strictly speaking, that would make him a masochist. However, I do hesitate to try to get too far into the squirmy mind of a Bundy.
LikeLiked by 1 person
From what I know, Bundy was a psychopath. That means that no, he did not possess the capacity for empathy. I don’t think he enjoyed “feeling” what his victims were feeling, but, not being Bundy, I don’t know for sure.
Psychopaths seek and like power over people. Watching people suffer, when they inflict that suffering, gives them a rush of such power, which is enjoyable. Their suffering itself may or may not (more probable) register in their minds.
Empathy is, or should be, the basis of morality, but it is not sufficient for it, as you observe. And yes, some torturers can be very “effective” in their jobs precisely because they are able to empathize with others. They use their empathic skills to become better torturers.
We don’t have to look into torturers and sadists to see misapplications and/or failures of empathy, however. So-called normal people are very good at turning off their empathy when it suits them. We see examples of it every day. One of the more dramatic controlled examples of how that happens were the Zimbardo prison and the Milgram experiments:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment
This should give everyone pause and much food for thought about the frightening similarity of the so-called “normal” people to psychopaths, particularly in “favorable” social conditions (e.g., identifying with specific social roles, on orders from authority figures, etc.), but we don’t like such unpleasant thoughts.
There are different kinds of empathy, to complicate matters a bit (although really the distinction is helpful in clarifying them) — cognitive, emotional, and compassionate:
http://www.danielgoleman.info/three-kinds-of-empathy-cognitive-emotional-compassionate/
The third one, compassionate concern, is the highest level of empathy, and the kind we need the most in every area of our lives. It literally changes and saves lives. Research shows, for example, that patients of doctors with higher levels of empathy have better health outcomes.
My mother is a narcissist and plumb full of empathy…for herself, but she can’t see that.
That’s not empathy, that’s self-pity, IB.
Since we are on this very subject, I keep telling you that your favorite manospherian blogger is one of “them.” You don’t want to accept this for some reason. But the evidence — his lack of empathy, guilt, and shame — shows it to be true. Don’t mistake his self-pity, generalized on other members of his own gender, for empathy. This is a common mistake, unfortunately. but one particularly so, I believe, in children of narcissistic parents. They tend to have a blind spot for this very thing, having difficulties telling self-pity from empathy, especially in situations that are ambiguous. There is such a deep need in children to believe that their parents are good and caring people that they interpret all their behavior in this light, despite the evidence to the contrary, sometimes till the end of their own lives.
A thoughtful post.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sorry Mildly, your links sent your comment into moderation. I fished you out.
“That’s not empathy, that’s self-pity, IB.”
Yes, but you know what’s interesting there? Many people’s so called empathy really is nothing more than self pity. My mother is simply an extreme example.
Sometimes I bump into this in political discussions, people care, they care so very, very much for example, the so called poor in the US, and yet if you talk to them long enough what they really care about is how “the poor” make them feel about their own selves. They feel uncomfortable, they feel guilty for what they have, they care about being perceived as great champions for the downtrodden. They care about being the only ones who care. Scratch a bit deeper however and they are not interested in a single solution or of even listening to what people might actually need. They don’t really care about “the poor,” they care about how they feel in relationship to the issue.
LikeLike
True, IB. That’s why we need to go beyond words. “By their deeds you shall know them.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Your belief in god is nonsense!
LikeLike
So I have heard many times.
LikeLiked by 4 people
And you pay no attention.
LikeLike
It is presumed that one who has the ability to understand and recognize the feelings of others is going to therefore be respectful towards those feelings. Au contraire! Many don’t.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Here’s an interesting article on this subject:
http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/07-10-2015/132265-0/
LikeLiked by 1 person
Awesome article, Eric. This really is chilling, but I see some truth in it, “It is simply that the American populace has become so desensitized by its mental diet of gore and anguish that in many instances it actually welcomes the opportunity to participate in a macabre spectacle.” That is something I frequently wonder about myself, where is the grief?
Kind of an interesting disconnect happened while I was reading a couple of red pills a bit concerned over how a woman had been treated. They advocate this garbage every single day, but when confronted with the truth of what it truly looks like in a real person’s life, suddenly they show some hesitation and…almost empathy. Needless to say the conversation quickly dissolved into the need to be stoic. Of course, whenever your conscience starts to question you, just shut that thing up.
LikeLike
The author makes a good point too about narcotics as a factor. At any rate, I think that a lot of Americans have become completely disconnected from reality.
LikeLiked by 1 person
This article is fairly well written – I would say in fine Socratic style. And like Socrates, it has a flaw that may or may not affect the conclusion – it assumes that all the options are known or knowable. I would like to suggest an option that is not mentioned – when in large groups individuals share the emotional impact of disasters or horrifying occurrences. The larger the group, the less the impact on the individual. This can become dangerous as it leads to mob mentality by individuals who would never engage in that behaviour on their own – as they would not shrug off horrifying news on their own. There is a positive aspect to this human quality that allows us to carry on in the face of large disasters like plagues or earthquakes. It is a survival characteristic. However, that said, we now sit 10,000 miles away and watch real time video including survivors and we are only 1 of perhaps 100’s of millions who are watching, so we feel little emotional response, especially given we could never affect the outcome. Our world and awareness have changed and yet our emotions are reacting in a manner that has been learned over centuries.
LikeLiked by 2 people
That’s an interesting idea, Paul.
There’s the log in the forest theory too, were people in the city will just step over a homeless person as if they are invisible. It’s not that we don’t care, it’s that we only have the capacity to focus on so many people and all others become invisible to us, like a log in the forest you just step over. The modern world, especially in cities, is really unnatural to us, biologically and probably spiritually, too.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Real morality can only be judged by how people act, not how they feel or what they say. Empathy is an easy way of fooling people. One can always pretend that one feels so sorry about other peoples misfortune. But as long as no practical help or support is given, this empathy remains without any moral implication. And empathy is also beyond our will: people even might feel empathy, even though they don’t like it and try to suppress it. Research has shown that even higher animals experience empathy. Morality, in contrast, always is a result of our conscience. The Volkswagen managers and Lance Armstrong both acted immorally (http://brokenradius.com/2015/10/08/values-what-values/). I guess the VW managers experienced empathy for their shareholders, and Lance Armstrong experienced empathy for his sponsors.
regards, Michael
LikeLiked by 1 person
Now those are some really good points. However, I don’t think morality can be judged only by how people act, the intentions of the heart have to come into play, too. You can coldly and clinically feed and clothe someone, actions that might satisfy one’s conscience, but without some love there are you really acting morally? I don’t know, but I suspect not.
LikeLiked by 1 person
By tomorrow afternoon we will know a little bit better. At least how 5 Norwegian beaurocrats think about this issue. I guess you started this discussion intentionally one day before (and not after) the 2015 Nobel prize for peace is awarded.
regards, Michael
LikeLiked by 1 person
Fantastic piece. You defrocked that silly “empathy argument” for the charade that it is. Drives me nuts, how it gets paraded out as this glittering explanation of how “morality” could still exist in what is ultimately a complete moral vacuum (from a strictly Evolutionist perspective). Pure nonsense, to not see how it’s just a flimsy attempt at kicking the can a little further down the road, in order to try and avoid looking at the ever-present glaringly paradoxical problem of having billions of subjectively-defined “empathies” and self-driven perceptions all constantly colliding into one another…
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think that there is a subtle, but significant, difference between saying that empathy is the “basis” for morality and saying that it might be part of the explanation for how and why moral codes emerged as people began to live in larger groups. I don’t that that “empathy” would be the entire explanation, but it doesn’t seem so far-fetched to suggest that it was a part of the equation (I’d throw in a little reciprocal altruism as well). At least, “empathy” seems like a better explanation for origin and maintenance of “morality” then the one offered in the OT.
Yes, there are “billions of subjective-defined empathies” at work when we talk about morality. There are billions of subjectively-defined ideas about many human concepts (e.g., beauty), and yet, we seemed to think that these other concepts exist as well, even in the absence of an absolute standard provided by a perfect deity.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sorry, “not the entire explanation”? “reciprocal altruism”? Semantic slight-of-hand, nothing more. You’re simply filling the air with more words, more talk, in order to distract from the underlying, irrevocable problem that exists when trying to define “morality” based on mere human consensus.
Sure, we can easily agree on the fact that billions of varying concepts or right/wrong EXIST, but merely existing doesn’t at all mean the same thing as all them somehow being equally true….
But your comment does one thing well, in that it betrays that almost assumable chip-on-the-shoulder against that dastardly “perfect deity” character. I mean, let’s face it, THAT guy is really the root problem here… 😉
LikeLiked by 3 people
“Sorry, “not the entire explanation”? “reciprocal altruism”? Semantic slight-of-hand, nothing more. “
Not at all. It’s based on observation. I’d be glad to support it more fully.
“You’re simply filling the air with more words, more talk, in order to distract from the underlying, irrevocable problem that exists when trying to define “morality” based on mere human consensus.”
But what if, in fact, this is what we humans do? What if “morality” really is based on “mere human consensus.”
I understand the advantage of claiming that morality is some absolute entity that comes from the declarations of a perfect deity. However, the advantage doesn’t make it so, and there’s substantial evidence that it isn’t so. This sort of discussion always reminds me of an old joke that ends with the punch line, “first, let’s assume we have a screwdriver.”
“Sure, we can easily agree on the fact that billions of varying concepts or right/wrong EXIST, but merely existing doesn’t at all mean the same thing as all them somehow being equally true….”
Not sure I follow what you are saying here. Not sure this addresses my original points. Could you clarify?
“But your comment does one thing well, in that it betrays that almost assumable chip-on-the-shoulder against that dastardly “perfect deity” character. I mean, let’s face it, THAT guy is really the root problem here…”
Uh, no. I understand that those with whom I disagree often make this assumption, but this isn’t the problem. There’s no “chip-on-the-shoulder,” because I strongly suspect that the “dastardly character” is largely a human invention. That’s why this character appears to be so “dastardly.” Anyway, it’s hard to hold a grudge against “that guy” if “that guy” is largely an invention.
LikeLike
There really are not “billions of subjective defined ’empathies'”.
There are three major kinds of empathy (my comment held up in moderation has more about it); and there are many problems with manifesting empathy, which largely depend on the individual level of development; but empathy is real, observable, and even measurable, as are its deficits.
Empathy is the basic requirement for development of human morality, but not a sufficient one in itself.
The confusion about it stems from insufficient and inadequate understanding.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“The confusion about it stems from insufficient and inadequate understanding….”
Okay, “insufficient”, and “inadequate”, as defined by what exactly now…?
You can only keep scooting away from the ultimate issue of there having to be an ultimate, objective reference point for true “morality”, but the issue only follows you like a shadow…
LikeLiked by 1 person
Daring to look:
Insufficient and inadequate as defined by the gaps in our knowledge.
From what I see, you want to make God the ultimate arbiter of morality. I understand and respect that. You may be right. (I suspect you’d insist that you are right.) Since I am not religious, I don’t share your faith; but I see good reasons, as well as arguments, for such belief.
One of them is the essential similarity of religions and moral beliefs in non-religious people across the world, which tells us, in the least, that there exists an objective hierarchy of human values that underlines our social behaviors and beliefs about right and wrong, good and evil. Whether its source is our shared evolutionary history and heritage, or an omnipotent and benevolent deity — or perhaps both — is, I posit, ultimately unknowable (although both the religious and atheists would argue about that).
LikeLiked by 2 people
Having had first hand experience with a narcissist has given me an edge when writing about the subject. It’s one of the most difficult conditions dealing with them. I can’t say how frustrating it is to not see them recognizing their condition. You truly are strong.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you for your comment and for your kind words.
LikeLiked by 1 person
An excellent piece I read a few years ago which suggests empathy doesn’t translate to action. Those with “sacred codes” are much more likely to demonstrate compassion than those relying on empathy. Empathy is still self-based. *I* have to feel something for someone else. To be truly excellent, we need a source of action beyond self. Only then can we be more than we are.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oops, forgot the link to the article! http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/30/opinion/brooks-the-limits-of-empathy.html?_r=0
LikeLiked by 1 person
That was a great link, thank you!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Fascinating Mrteague. I’ve not seen that concept before- it bears a lot of thought. Thank You.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Pingback: “The Better Angels of Our Nature” | See, there's this thing called biology...
Interesting take on empathy. Morality is a very tricky thing. When you try to pin it down too finely it seems to wriggle away. For me that weakens the case for a God, rather than strengthening it, but each to their own. Actually, as you point out, the whole “do unto others…” thing is flawed for that very reason. Good post!
LikeLiked by 1 person
surprisingly good.
LikeLike
You made some very good points. Some even stronger points came from some of your responses. And, you are right. Many of the current social and political movements we see are being fueled by those trying to be empathetic. I’m not endorsing Trump by any means but do understand why he is doing so well. He is tapping into those who are tired of the empathetic approach to dealing with poor behavior.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Pingback: Caring is Painful… | See, there's this thing called biology...
Pingback: Empathy is Not the Problem! | See, there's this thing called biology...