This is an argument that anyone who thinks “empathy” can ground morality needs to defeat.
You have NOT successfully grounded morality by picking something by an arbitrary act of will and building everything else “objectively” on this one layer of arbitrariness.
You have NOT successfully grounded morality by picking something by an arbitrary act of will and building everything else “objectively” on this one layer of arbitrariness.
My point here is of course, the empathy-based ethicist can only answer the question “Why obey empathy?” with “because empathy tells you to”—which is no answer at all.
As my speaker notes. One can regard empathy as a WEAKNESS.
Nietzsche does.
As my speaker notes. One can regard empathy as a WEAKNESS.
Nietzsche does.
I myself find empathy very nearly useless, and of very little moral significance.
It does more moral harm that good.
It does more moral harm that good.
Empathy may make some people feel bad. It doesn’t much bother me. I’ve always found it somewhat easy to disregard. Learning to turn it off is necessary for certain kinds of work, e.g. triage surgery.
You can “not feel bad” by not doing the thing that makes you feel bad or not caring.
I don’t see a very strong case for NOT eradicating empathy and (therefore) not feeling bad.
If “not feeling bad” is the only objective, that is.
But what else IS empathy?
I don’t see a very strong case for NOT eradicating empathy and (therefore) not feeling bad.
If “not feeling bad” is the only objective, that is.
But what else IS empathy?
So many people have a psychological tendency to feel bad about certain stimuli. If learn to switch off this tendency, they won’t feel bad. Problem solved.
I see no MORAL reason to retain empathy—on naturalism that is.
I see no MORAL reason to retain empathy—on naturalism that is.
