I've seen a host of recent threads related to misfortunes. The term "empathy" keeps coming up in a surprisingly competitive manner.
Deliberately oversimplifying, this distills into "If you don't agree with me, then either:
Perhaps most importantly, do these feelings translate into actions? Can we honestly say we have empathy if all we do is endure a transient unpleasant thought and then dismiss it?
Or suppose we do act on them but our actions only make the problem worse; did we really have empathy for the sufferer or did we just selfishly want to rid ourselves of guilt? Suppose our actions are merely to learn from others' mistakes and avoid similar outcomes; was it really empathy?
If we don't experience these feelings, does that mean we don't have empathy? At what point is it allowable that our own problems overwhelm an otherwise robust concern for others?
If we are certain that empathy is important, then instead of condemning shouldn't we feel empathy for someone who lacks empathy?
It is said that "hard cases make bad law". Just as you wouldn't offer a cocktail to an alcoholic, how do you differentiate when real love for financial casualties is tough love? Perhaps empathy, like whiskey, is a good thing only in limited doses. Too much of either leads to poor decisions.
I welcome your thoughtful perspectives.
Deliberately oversimplifying, this distills into "If you don't agree with me, then either:
- you don't have enough natural empathy and therefore are a heartless jerk, or
- you have too much misplaced empathy and therefore are a mindless fool."
Perhaps most importantly, do these feelings translate into actions? Can we honestly say we have empathy if all we do is endure a transient unpleasant thought and then dismiss it?
Or suppose we do act on them but our actions only make the problem worse; did we really have empathy for the sufferer or did we just selfishly want to rid ourselves of guilt? Suppose our actions are merely to learn from others' mistakes and avoid similar outcomes; was it really empathy?
If we don't experience these feelings, does that mean we don't have empathy? At what point is it allowable that our own problems overwhelm an otherwise robust concern for others?
If we are certain that empathy is important, then instead of condemning shouldn't we feel empathy for someone who lacks empathy?
It is said that "hard cases make bad law". Just as you wouldn't offer a cocktail to an alcoholic, how do you differentiate when real love for financial casualties is tough love? Perhaps empathy, like whiskey, is a good thing only in limited doses. Too much of either leads to poor decisions.
I welcome your thoughtful perspectives.