Empathy and Morality

@hakima said
I disagree. Empathy is a personal virtue. The question of how empathy affects morality is one that is worthy of self reflection in the same way that one considers how personal philanthropy affects morality. Sometimes the questions that lead to this sort of self reflection are hard and doubly so when posed by another. The story of the man who went away sorrowing after Jesus admonished selling his possessions to benefit the poor in order to get to heaven comes to mind.

I'm trying to get my head around this thread, which is rather long. So I've picked up on this because the point here seems to be finite. It's just that I don't see how empathy can be a virtue, at least in the sense of affective empathy. Either one feels it or one does not and to be a virtue it should require an effort. Cognitive empathy requires effort, but it isn't automatically a good thing, when accompanied by a sociopathic stare...

@philokalia said
I haven't read Heidegger, and I do not remember much of the overview of Jung that I read two decades ago.

So I guess it would stand at one. But maybe that'll change after Heidegger, and maybe there is someone else in there that was.

It's definitely a far shorter list than Jewish intellectuals and members of the Communist Party that I have been inspired by. ^^

Jung was definitely not a Nazi. The Wikipedia article presents quite clear evidence of this. He gave psychological assessments of Hitler to the OSS during the war.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Jung#Political_views

@philokalia said
I've never read a single thing that Schmitt said about Jewish people, and am unaware of any high profile statements that he made about them at all. It seems unlikely that he had anything to do with this.

Nietzsche, however -- !

https://paradoxoftheday.com/nietzsche-and-the-jews/

That could get a bit controversial.

Would you tell people to not read or esteem th ...[text shortened]... ism far more explicit and famous than anything Schmitt ever said - at least, to my knowledge.

I've read all Nietzsche's works and he isn't remotely anti semetic.

I also looked at your website mentioned which refers to Nietzcshe as anti anti semetic, thus confirming this accepted view.

Nietzsche's 'link' with nazism was through his sister. Nietzsche was dead when Hitler came to power.

@deepthought said
I'm trying to get my head around this thread, which is rather long. So I've picked up on this because the point here seems to be finite. It's just that I don't see how empathy can be a virtue, at least in the sense of affective empathy. Either one feels it or one does not and to be a virtue it should require an effort. Cognitive empathy requires effort, but it isn't automatically a good thing, when accompanied by a sociopathic stare...

One of Aristotle's 12 virtues was 'Magnificence' (demonstrated through charisma).

I'm not sure 'magnificence' requires any effort. Like empathy you either have it or you don't, and yet was still considered as a virtue.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
One of Aristotle's 12 virtues was 'Magnificence' (demonstrated through charisma).

I'm not sure 'magnificence' requires any effort. Like empathy you either have it or you don't, and yet was still considered as a virtue.

Well, Aristotle had his idea of what a virtue is and I have mine. To claim any sort of moral weight I feel it ought to require an effort. Where Hakima's point works is that continuing to express an empathetic demeanour in the face of ingratitude probably does require an effort.

@philokalia said
I haven't read Heidegger, and I do not remember much of the overview of Jung that I read two decades ago.

So I guess it would stand at one. But maybe that'll change after Heidegger, and maybe there is someone else in there that was.

It's definitely a far shorter list than Jewish intellectuals and members of the Communist Party that I have been inspired by. ^^

I think Heidegger and Schmitt are in different categories for two reasons. Heidegger's area of interest didn't produce any straightforward justification of Nazi politics, it's difficult, although some have attempted it, to argue that his philosophical position has any connection with Nazism. Schmitt, on the other hand, does provide ideological support to Nazism and in a very direct way. He wrote justifications of the Night of the Long Knives. The second difference is that Heidegger was a superficial Nazi in the way many Germans were, he hoped that despite their crassness they might provide hope for the German people, after the war he took on a more-or-less repentant position. He was defended by Hannah Arendt at a post-war denazification hearing. Schmitt was unrepentant after the War.

@deepthought said
Well, Aristotle had his idea of what a virtue is and I have mine. To claim any sort of moral weight I feel it ought to require an effort. Where Hakima's point works is that continuing to express an empathetic demeanour in the face of ingratitude probably does require an effort.

I think that people are born adept with certain abilities and talents. For some, empathy might be one inherent virtue, whilst courage is innately found in another. Simply because one finds a virtue easier than others might, does not preclude effort.

True empaths work at empathy and also have to work (very likely) harder than others at setting healthy boundaries. On the other hand (and this may seem very strange), in others might be found the inclination toward righteous anger (I know I will open a can of worms here) and they may have to constantly check themselves against cruelty and brutality. However, they may be amongst the strongest activists and advocates.

In both cases, I believe each virtue has a skill set that can be learned and strengthened with discipline and practice.

@neilarini said
I've read all Nietzsche's works and he isn't remotely anti semetic.

I also looked at your website mentioned which refers to Nietzcshe as anti anti semetic, thus confirming this accepted view.

Nietzsche's 'link' with nazism was through his sister. Nietzsche was dead when Hitler came to power.

Oh, I had read the Antichrist and remembered passages taht are not even quoted there which insinuate that there is something distinctly Jewish in Christainity that makes it need to be destroyed:

Epicurus had triumphed, and every respectable intellect in Rome was Epicurean—when Paul appeared ... Paul, the Chandala hatred of Rome, of “the world,” in the flesh and inspired by genius—the Jew, the eternal Jew par excellence.... What he saw was how, with the aid of the small sectarian Christian movement that stood apart from Judaism, a “world conflagration” might be kindled; how, with the symbol of “God on the cross,” all secret seditions, all the fruits of anarchistic intrigues in the empire, might be amalgamated into one immense power. “Salvation is of the Jews.”—Christianity is the formula for exceeding and summing up the subterranean cults of all varieties, that of Osiris, that of the Great Mother, that of Mithras, for instance: in his discernment of this fact the genius of Paul showed itself. His instinct was here so sure that, with reckless violence to the truth, he put the ideas which lent fascination to every sort of Chandala religion into the mouth of the “Saviour” as his own inventions, and not only into the mouth—he made out of him something that even a priest of Mithras could understand.... This was his revelation at Damascus: he grasped the fact that he needed the belief in immortality in order to rob “the world” of its value, that the concept of “hell” would master Rome—that the notion of a “beyond” is the death of life.... Nihilist and Christian: they rhyme in German, and they do more than rhyme....

Nietzsche, Friedrich Wilhelm. The Antichrist (p. 106). Kindle Edition.

The German nobility stands outside the history of the higher civilization: the reason is obvious.... Christianity, alcohol—the two great means of corruption.... Intrinsically there should be no more choice between Islam and Christianity than there is between an Arab and a Jew. The decision is already reached; nobody remains at liberty to choose here. Either a man is a Chandala or he is not.... “War to the knife with Rome! Peace and friendship with Islam!”: this was the feeling, this was the act, of that great free spirit, that genius among German emperors, Frederick II. What! must a German first be a genius, a free spirit, before he can feel decently? I can’t make out how a German could ever feel Christian....

Nietzsche, Friedrich Wilhelm. The Antichrist (pp. 109-110). Kindle Edition.

There seems to be a distinct conceptualization of German-ness, and an inherent nobility to it, and a distinct disdain for Christianity as a rotten seed that came from Judaism, which is inherently deceptive and inappropriate.

OF course, I am no expert on Nietzsche...

But there is something funny about how a man who has quotes attributable like this to him can escape all rancor but not Schmitt. Not that it actually matters, though, becaus Schmitt is read & studied where it matters. It doesn't concern me how many anti-intellectuals bristle when they see his name.

@philokalia said
But there is something funny about how a man who has quotes attributable like this to him can escape all rancor but not Schmitt. Not that it actually matters, though, becaus Schmitt is read & studied where it matters. It doesn't concern me how many anti-intellectuals bristle when they see his name.

Does being unimpressed and not "inspired" by Carl Schmitt mean one is "anti-intellectual", then?

@fmf said
Does being unimpressed and not "inspired" by Carl Schmitt mean one is "anti-intellectual", then?

No, not at all.

@deepthought said
Well, Aristotle had his idea of what a virtue is and I have mine. To claim any sort of moral weight I feel it ought to require an effort. Where Hakima's point works is that continuing to express an empathetic demeanour in the face of ingratitude probably does require an effort.

Virtues have indeed evolved since the time of Aristotle. Adam Smith (Scottish philosopher) in his book The Theory of Moral Sentiments, wrote that excellent people have three primary virtues: prudence, justice, and benevolence, in that order. Each of them is essential to the others and to the living of a full life in society.

In the modern world, other virtues have perhaps gained more gravitas and Adam Smith (had he been living now) might have re-evaluated his primary three. 'Professional integrity' comes to mind in a modern context. If we ever lose that It is nigh impossible to get it back, such is the loss of virtue.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
'Professional integrity' comes to mind in a modern context. If we ever lose that It is nigh impossible to get it back, such is the loss of virtue.

What does this mean? Is it a "job history" thing?

@bigdoggproblem said
What does this mean? Is it a "job history" thing?

Yes, I was thinking in a work context. In many jobs 'professional integrity' is somethings others (customers etc) would view as a virtue, alongside honesty perhaps. If a work colleague, for example, shows themselves to be dishonest or lacking integrity, the loss of these virtues is difficult to recover from. - I think 'professional integrity' is more current as a virtue than say Aristotle's 'magnificence.'

@philokalia said
Oh, I had read the Antichrist and remembered passages taht are not even quoted there which insinuate that there is something distinctly Jewish in Christainity that makes it need to be destroyed:

[quote]Epicurus had triumphed, and every respectable intellect in Rome was Epicurean—when Paul appeared ... Paul, the Chandala hatred of Rome, of “the world,” in the flesh and i ...[text shortened]... where it matters. It doesn't concern me how many anti-intellectuals bristle when they see his name.

Because Nietzsche was writing in the 19th Century and wasn't significantly more anti-semitic than anyone else. In any case, he was principally attacking the priesthood rather than Jewish people for being Jewish. Schmitt on the other hand provided direct philosophical support to a movement that was current at the time.

@hakima said
I think that people are born adept with certain abilities and talents. For some, empathy might be one inherent virtue, whilst courage is innately found in another. Simply because one finds a virtue easier than others might, does not preclude effort.

True empaths work at empathy and also have to work (very likely) harder than others at setting healthy boundaries. On the oth ...[text shortened]... lieve each virtue has a skill set that can be learned and strengthened with discipline and practice.

Again, I don't see courage, in the sense of "fearlessness" as being a particular virtue. That someone's limbic system doesn't start shutting down their frontal lobe [1] during a firefight can hardly be seen as a virtue. Courage in the sense overcoming fear on the other hand is.

The work you're describing an empath having to do to set healthy boundaries, for example, might be regarded as virtuous, but that's the work they have to do as a consequence of their empathy, it's not a property of their empathy in itself.

What I was trying to express is that a psychological property might be valued, but I don't see it as virtuous of itself. Intelligence is regarded as a good thing, but we wouldn't regard someone who has low intelligence as being in some way at fault for this, so someone who has high intelligence isn't really deserving of praise solely for being intelligent, the virtue comes in doing something useful with it.

[1] I can give references for this but it'll take some effort to dig them out.