Hum, there are interesting things in that article, but it seems way too one-sided to me, and it dwells upon confusion between two thesis which are very different : « empathy is not the only source of morality » (which I agree with) and « empathy is not a core part of morality » (which I disagree with).
Attempt to reduce human morality to a single factor (like empathy) is doomed to fail. And every time you’ll look at a single factor behind some part of human morality, you’ll find cases in which it fails to explain our behavior, and others in which it’ll lead us to acts that we’ll not like. That applies to empathy as much as to anything else. But showing some examples of empathy being misleading, and that there can be other feelings (like anger in front of unfairness) that can lead to moral decisions and acts don’t say that empathy is not a fundamental part of human morality, nor that empathy does more wrong than good.
Take a typical bias, the scope insensivity. People give more money to save one child than to save 10 children. Where does it come from ? It comes from empathy. It’s empathy that makes us give money to save one child, because we put ourselves in this child place. When offered to save 10 children, we don’t identify ourselves with any (because we don’t know with which one), so we don’t offer as much. What does it show ? That empathy is indeed a great driving force behind ethical acts, but that we fail to apply it to more than one person at once, that we don’t use it enough when faced with the fate of 10 children.
Another problem I see in the article is that it calls upon guilt as one of the possible “replacements” for empathy, but guilt to me is a consequence of empathy. I feel guilty because I imagine myself in the shoes of the one I wronged, and that makes me feel guilty. I never feel guilty of trespassing a law or societal code of conduct (I may feel ashamed if it is known, but that’s a different issue), I only feel guilty when I did, directly or not, wrong someone, because I imagine myself in his shoes.
Also, most of the examples of the second paragraph of part 2 seems very broken to me, I could give a (more or less) detailed analysis for each of them to say how they seem broken to me, but this comment is already long enough so I don’t want to enter those details now.
Another problem I see in the article is that it calls upon guilt as one of the possible “replacements” for empathy, but
guilt to me is a consequence of empathy.
Not to mention that people seem to be really good at guilt-proofing themselves when they see it coming, or transferring their guilt onto things that do more to salve conscience than actually help a situation.
As someone on the autistic spectrum it’s been my impression that neurotypicals in my society really aren’t that great at empathy as a general thing—“strong empathy” seems to be a specific trait, like strong muscles or a gift for music. Typically NTs seem to be looking for adherence to recognizable scripts as a necessary precondition for empathy, and the moment the subject deviates from that their ability to empathize is gone—people do inconvenient or upsetting things “to get attention” or to annoy them, animals are reduced to two-bit animatrons or even deemed without subjective experience; in many cases even autistic people are read this way, and sociopaths if the person has a coherent idea of them will be thought to be this way (even as they miss the sociopath in their midst, who may be better at faking signalling).
I guess this paper doesn’t feel like a great takedown of empathy from my perspective, because the average person already seems to be fairly bad at it.
Hum, there are interesting things in that article, but it seems way too one-sided to me,
Think of it as a single message in a longer debate, spanning centuries. That’s what an academic philosophers do, on their better days. ;) So, yes, this is not a “debate”, this is a position piece, laying out arguments for only one side. Read that way, it’s quite even-handed.
and it dwells upon confusion between two thesis which are very different : « empathy is not the only source of morality » (which I agree with) and « empathy is not a core part of morality » (which I disagree with).
Does it? On my reading, it’s only arguing that “empathy is not the only source of morality,” and then in section 5 “empathy should not be the only source of morality.” I don’t think it argues, anywhere, that empathy is not a /part/ of morality, or moral judgment.
Hum, there are interesting things in that article, but it seems way too one-sided to me, and it dwells upon confusion between two thesis which are very different : « empathy is not the only source of morality » (which I agree with) and « empathy is not a core part of morality » (which I disagree with).
Attempt to reduce human morality to a single factor (like empathy) is doomed to fail. And every time you’ll look at a single factor behind some part of human morality, you’ll find cases in which it fails to explain our behavior, and others in which it’ll lead us to acts that we’ll not like. That applies to empathy as much as to anything else. But showing some examples of empathy being misleading, and that there can be other feelings (like anger in front of unfairness) that can lead to moral decisions and acts don’t say that empathy is not a fundamental part of human morality, nor that empathy does more wrong than good.
Take a typical bias, the scope insensivity. People give more money to save one child than to save 10 children. Where does it come from ? It comes from empathy. It’s empathy that makes us give money to save one child, because we put ourselves in this child place. When offered to save 10 children, we don’t identify ourselves with any (because we don’t know with which one), so we don’t offer as much. What does it show ? That empathy is indeed a great driving force behind ethical acts, but that we fail to apply it to more than one person at once, that we don’t use it enough when faced with the fate of 10 children.
Another problem I see in the article is that it calls upon guilt as one of the possible “replacements” for empathy, but guilt to me is a consequence of empathy. I feel guilty because I imagine myself in the shoes of the one I wronged, and that makes me feel guilty. I never feel guilty of trespassing a law or societal code of conduct (I may feel ashamed if it is known, but that’s a different issue), I only feel guilty when I did, directly or not, wrong someone, because I imagine myself in his shoes.
Also, most of the examples of the second paragraph of part 2 seems very broken to me, I could give a (more or less) detailed analysis for each of them to say how they seem broken to me, but this comment is already long enough so I don’t want to enter those details now.
Not to mention that people seem to be really good at guilt-proofing themselves when they see it coming, or transferring their guilt onto things that do more to salve conscience than actually help a situation.
As someone on the autistic spectrum it’s been my impression that neurotypicals in my society really aren’t that great at empathy as a general thing—“strong empathy” seems to be a specific trait, like strong muscles or a gift for music. Typically NTs seem to be looking for adherence to recognizable scripts as a necessary precondition for empathy, and the moment the subject deviates from that their ability to empathize is gone—people do inconvenient or upsetting things “to get attention” or to annoy them, animals are reduced to two-bit animatrons or even deemed without subjective experience; in many cases even autistic people are read this way, and sociopaths if the person has a coherent idea of them will be thought to be this way (even as they miss the sociopath in their midst, who may be better at faking signalling).
I guess this paper doesn’t feel like a great takedown of empathy from my perspective, because the average person already seems to be fairly bad at it.
Think of it as a single message in a longer debate, spanning centuries. That’s what an academic philosophers do, on their better days. ;) So, yes, this is not a “debate”, this is a position piece, laying out arguments for only one side. Read that way, it’s quite even-handed.
Does it? On my reading, it’s only arguing that “empathy is not the only source of morality,” and then in section 5 “empathy should not be the only source of morality.” I don’t think it argues, anywhere, that empathy is not a /part/ of morality, or moral judgment.