When we decide it's not important to empathize with another person, we are basically deciding they are not a person anymore. Wheter it's a slave, or an infidel, or a child murderer, we come up with ways to justify NOT empathizing with the person. It stops mattering to us, then, if they miss their children, love their family, or get raped in prison. We do it all the time. But is it right? Our morality, I think, is based on empathy for others...we care about their feelings because we care about FEELINGS we relate to. Do we lose our morality when we quit caring about the feelings of a killer, or a Jew? Is there any justifiable reason to "yank" our empathy out from under another person, ever?
2007-05-29 04:38:27 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
In general, when they have made themselves unworthy of it.
But I think there are degrees. There is a basic level of empathy for humankind that I think should never be removed...
However, you can't have empathy for those whom having empathy for will cause you lots of harm....
ie: If your husband is beating you, being empathic about him going to jail does not trump what he's doing.
2007-05-29 04:42:53 · answer #1 · answered by LabGrrl 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
At first glance to say that morality is based on empathy for others seems to make sense, yet there are many people who have little or no empathy for others and are too turned in on themselves to care about anyone else's feelings, yet may never doing anything immoral. And there are empathetic people who certainly do immoral things.
Should we ever stop being empathetic? Not for the person perhaps, but for what they do, yes. No one can ask us to understand the feelings of a pedophile, yet to understand that he is a person, though not easy, can to be done.
If we can maintain that empathy with those hardest to find empathy for, then the rest should be easy. Still we need to realize that there is more to being moral than just having empathy.
Certainly though, empathy is a part of being moral.
The Ol' Hippie Jesus Freak
Grace, Peace and Love in Christ
Peg
2007-05-29 11:55:10 · answer #2 · answered by Dust in the Wind 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The example that you have named are not equal in relevance to the question. A slave has committed no crime. The word infidel is only relevant in religious terms(I assume this is how you meant it). A child murderer or any murderer is another matter. When a person takes another persons life unjustly they have in my opinion lost their rights to freedom. They abused their freedom and the freedom and rights of others. They are a threat to society and should not be allowed to participate in society. When you put a group of criminals together it is almost impossible to control the actions that happen within the confinement areas. I do think that criminals should be grouped together according to the level of crime that they have committed. A person who abuses, molests and/or kills a child does not deserve to breath air. However I am against capital punishment only for the fact that there have been some on death row who have been found innocent. Also due to the legal system it can and often does cost tax payers more to go through the steps required to put someone to death than to keep them alive.
2007-05-29 11:50:39 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think you propose a very good question. I believe too that our morality is based on empathy for others. However, that being said i have to admit that I have cut mine off for certain ppl who have caused me personal harm. Of course I want to be a forgiving person but I have found great difficulty in maintaining boundaries with abusers and removing my empathy for them has been a coping mechanism. There have been many times where I have forgiven and had empathy for someone who hurt me only to be abused again. I am sure it is possible to forgive and have empathy all while maintaining boundaries, but I have yet to achieve that. I am not saying that I am at all justified in doing this, but it is necessary at this point in my life for me to have peace when dealing with certain ppl.
2007-05-29 11:54:26 · answer #4 · answered by NONAME 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I agree with LabGrrl. I cut my empathy off from a certain abusive family member in self-defense. However, I will qualify that by saying I don't really wish her harm or unhappiness or misfortune.
I leave her the basic human empathy that I'm happy to give to all strangers. I just had to withdraw any willingness to care if she was happy or sad or angry or hurt because I wouldn't do this or that. It was necessary, she was starting to threaten my children.
2007-05-29 11:56:08 · answer #5 · answered by KC 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Does anyone have any empathy these days? Personally, I can understand the motives of the Zodiac Killer. Does that make me a better person?
2007-05-29 11:42:14 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
I believe that evil arises from a lack of empathy. If you can look at another being and say "this person is being treated in a manner that is not consistent with morality but they deserve it," you are doing something evil.
2007-05-29 11:44:44 · answer #7 · answered by ZombieTrix 2012 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋
I say it's justifiable. By default I'll typically give people the benefit of the doubt, but if somebody goes out of their way to wrong me or threaten me, they don't deserve my kindness. I take absolutely no shame in treating people different based on their actions.
2007-05-29 11:43:52 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Yes when they get what they deserve especially if they are not remorseful for whatever it is that they did then empathy would just be wasted on them.
2007-05-29 11:46:26 · answer #9 · answered by ejohnjr34 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Sometimes personal accounts come into play. If a person steals from you, and you catch them, forgive them, and let them go, and they do it to you again and again and again, eventually that empathy you initially had is going to fade
2007-05-29 11:44:27 · answer #10 · answered by Southpaw 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋