What is the role of empathy in ethics nowadays? — Shawn

Can you have ethics without empathy?

How would you summarize the importance of empathy in human nature? — Shawn

The word importance implies a moral fact.

What facilitates it or otherwise deters it from happening? — Shawn

Perhaps the realization that as a social animal, the lives of other people are important to us.

Can you have ethics without empathy? — Monitor

I'm not entirely sure, the history of philosophy from the ancients is devoid of identifying empathy as a virtue. Quite puzzling if you think about it. Love was talked about often, yet, empathy somewhat omitted. Men?

The word importance implies a moral fact. — Monitor

So, to me it seems as 'important' as stating a moral fact.

Perhaps the realization that as a social animal, the lives of other people are important to us. — Monitor

No disagreements on this. Perhaps, its role in ethics is undervalued, even, to say this outright?

What is the role of empathy in ethics nowadays? — Shawn

Professional ethics is mostly about duty. You should have the courage to be a whistleblower. Don't take kickbacks. That sort of thing.

Professional ethics is mostly about duty. You should have the courage to be a whistleblower. Don't take kickbacks. That sort of thing. — frank

Are you sure? Is this going to end up a discussion about feminist ethics if so?

Can I at least say that ethics should be more concerned with empathy? On what grounds, someone may ask? Well, I believe it is simply not discussed enough in ethics given its importance.

I always thought empathy was the initial impulse behind ethics.

I always thought empathy was the initial impulse behind ethics. — Tom Storm

Seems true on face value, yes? But, in practice its restricted to those whom we most care about.

So, its care or empathy...

Professional ethics is mostly about duty. — frank

Then deontology would serve our necessary connection to the rest of the tribe which requires empathy.

But, in practice its restricted to those whom we most care about. — Shawn

It has to start somewhere. Pretty hard to rear young without empathy.

Can I at least say that ethics should be more concerned with empathy? On what grounds, someone may ask? Well, I believe it is simply not discussed enough in ethics given its importance. — Shawn

True. But would empathy help you navigate through an ethical dilemma?

I think what you're saying is that you think people should be more empathetic.

Empathy is the epigenesis of ecstasy, the source of all wisdom. People identify too directly with others, via what may be called a "dissociative" experience, particularly within the realm of the political. Consider that "the personal is political", for instance. There's a certain clandestine logic to that things are only personal and that politics have nothing to do with them that I think there is a certain degree of veracity to. What is anyone trying to do other than to be let to cultivate their way of life?

Emmanuel Levinas, whom I, admittedly, haven't read believed that ethics stemmed from the other. I feel so inclined to agree with this. Because we are not alone in the world, ethics just simply arise.

We identify with others so as to come to the revelation of what ekstasis teaches us about an ethic that exists just simply because of that we are brought into relation with people who are other than ourselves.

The actualization of human freedom relies upon the ecstasy of communication. We can only know ourselves if we know what is like to stand outside of them. We, therefore, rely upon empathy to generate ekstasis so that we can come to greater and greater understandings of the world.

I have detailed that well enough, but believe that I could do so better. It's all kind of circumstantial, I guess.

But would empathy help you navigate through an ethical dilemma? — frank

Which kind?

I think what you're saying is that you think people should be more empathetic. — frank

Not that I can ever impose such a thing on people; but, I'm coming from a POV where there's nothing wrong with being more empathetic, or is there?

Are you sure? Is this going to end up a discussion about feminist ethics if so? — Shawn

What I meant about this is that I understood what was told to me by that, "It's only personal. It's just not political." I don't think that we should get into a conversation about Feminist ethics.

That's ekstasis, though. You learn something new every day.

Not that I can ever impose such a thing on people; but, I'm coming from a POV where there's nothing wrong with being more empathetic, or is there? — Shawn

There's nothing wrong with it. But your capacity for it will likely come back to your experiences, right? Or your level of emotional maturity.

A non-empathetic person may just need to live more life. An elderly person who has no empathy is probably a lost cause. No?

but, I'm coming from a POV where there's nothing wrong with being more empathetic, or is there? — Shawn

Well, that depends on a lot of different things, but as I interpret your meaning, I will say yes there is. An extremely empathetic person will spend the majority of their day in tears, as all of the sadness and suffering and injustices of the world will simply overwhelm them emotionally. Every story about some kid with cancer, or some other tragedy will result in emotional pain by the empathic person.

Also, this may be going beyond just empathy but I think it’s a reasonable conclusion, the overly empathetic person will probably end up broke, homeless, and/or starving because they will feel compelled to give their money, possessions, etc. to every charlatan the encounter.

Everything can be taken too far, I think.

But your capacity for it will likely come back to your experiences, right? — frank

And/or genetics.

A non-empathetic person may just need to live more life. — frank

Or have different DNA.

An elderly person who has no empathy is probably a lost cause. No? — frank

Aren’t all elderly people lost causes? :rofl:

Well, that depends on a lot of different things, but as I interpret your meaning, I will say yes there is. An extremely empathetic person will spend the majority of their day in tears, as all of the sadness and suffering and injustices of the world will simply overwhelm them emotionally. Every story about some kid with cancer, or some other tragedy will result in emotional pain by the empathic person.

Also, this may be going beyond just empathy but I think it’s a reasonable conclusion, the overly empathetic person will probably end up broke, homeless, and/or starving because they will feel compelled to give their money, possessions, etc. to every charlatan the encounter. — Pinprick

Absolutely.
Empathy is far too easy to exploit for it to be any kind of reliable means in human interactions.

Pretty hard to rear young without empathy. — Tom Storm

Depends on the kind of person you want.
Not so long ago, parents and teachers had little or no empathy for those in their care. The kid had to live in accordance with the expectations of the parents and teachers, not the other way around. If the kid didn't make it, well, tough luck, his loss.

How would you summarize the importance of empathy in human nature? — Shawn

It's generally counterproductive to success in business and formal interactions with others. It's only useful insofar it helps one detect another's vulnerabilities (in order to exploit them).

Empathy is far too easy to exploit for it to be any kind of reliable means in human interactions. — baker

You don't see what it does for you. It's like the knowledge of good and evil for those not consigned to the Devil. You wouldn't see what it does for you, though. You just wouldn't have to.

You don't see what it does for you. It's like the knowledge of good and evil for those not consigned to the Devil. — thewonder

That requires more than just mere empathy; it requires a very specific processing of the emotion within a specific ethical and metaphysical worldview.

Empathy allows me to relate more to you (or someone else) based on my ability to see things from the other's perspective and feelings (which kind of makes me want to take a shower and wash that shit off). The application of empathy within the greater concept of Ethics is unclear to me. I am not sure how my greater understanding of another will make me more or less ethical in dealing with them. More biased perhaps, but ethical? I don't see it.

I am ethical in my dealings, not because of the other person, but because I choose to be. The other plays no part in it. I am honest in my business dealings because I chose to be, not based on how easy, or hard, a mark the other person is.

Just not seeing the application of Empathy to Ethics.

I will explain — thewonder

Go for it.

I can't now, apparently. All that I mean is that empathy offers you the process by which any veritable ethic is possible. That's all that I was trying to say.

empathy offers you the process by which any veritable ethic is possible. — thewonder

Is this clear to you? Maybe it's the nightshift, but while it sounds pretty enough it lacks clarity in spades. Break it down for me eh. Exactly how does being empathetic determine a process for ethics?

Ethics stem from the other. The situation for ethics to arise only exists because of that there are others. Empathy is what lets us experience the perspective of others. It is from empathy that we can develop an ethic. That is as clear and concise that I can make this for the time being. I don't know. I see empathy as the original ekstasis and ekstasis as the original social thought. It is proceeding from empathy that we develop a philosophy of Ethics. That's what I'm saying, I guess.

And/or genetics. — Pinprick

Is empathy genetic?

Ok. That was more clear. I will politely disagree with you on the origin of ethics, not the word per se, as I have not looked that up, however, ethics, as a guiding ideal, are personal, not "other" oriented, and as such empathy has little, if any, influence over ethics. Your explanation suggests that ethics are based on society; social thought. I would suggest that society is based on a foundation of ethics, or personal rules that are then extrapolated onto society as general expectations of behaviour. Ethics of the individual, pooled by like-minded individuals then create a society with similar values. Ergo, ethics make the society, not society makes the ethics. Still not seeing how empathy plays into it though.

Pretty interesting to see the responses.

The history of philosophy is seemingly devoid of treating empathy as an important goal to be enhanced or cherished despite its importance.

I don't know what that means apart from the typical quip that this may in large be part due to philosophy being a male dominated field.

What do others think?

I don't think that you have understood me well which is probably because I have only hashed this so well out with myself.

I'm not saying that ethics are created by society. I'm saying that we are brought into relation with a world with others is what gives rise to ethics. It is through empathy that any person's subjective ethic is inspired. What gives rise to ethics is ekstasis, or ecstasy, which originates as empathy. I'm not saying that ethics are socially constructed.

I think @Monitor brings an interesting point.

Is it that "empathy" enables one to be ethical? On the other side of the spectrum, you have psychopathy, which seemingly is at odds with ethical behavior.

The existence of so-called "psychopaths" would seem to refute that a system of ethics can be created from empathy, but it has become such a highly charged diagnosis within the field of Psychology that there are those who question as to whether or not it can even be considered as a mental disorder.

I, for instance, suffer from psychosis. Psychosis is so loosely defined that it seems as if it could be ascribed to nearly any mental ailment whatsoever. It's kind of like neurosis. We use it to refer to all kinds of behavioral traits, but often don't really know what it means.

By definition, psychopaths are said to be lacking in empathy. It seems that this condition exists because of some sort of chemical imbalance, but I'm not entirely sure as how much research there has been in regards to the physical causes of the alleged disorder. Psychopathy, it seems, seems to be a way to describe a person who is thought to be conniving and cruel. To me, it seems kind of like a psychoanalytic rationalization for more broader sociological problems.

Though I would bet that there are people who do not have a natural aptitude for imagining what it would be like to be another, as so much of what we learn at a young age is through imitation, it would seem unlikely to me that a person could be incapable of doing so entirely. I haven't looked too far into any of this, though.