My thoughts on morality and empathy

SLAM: debunk creationism, pseudoscience, and superstitions. Discuss logic and morality.

Moderator: Alyrium Denryle

Post Reply
User avatar
fuzzymillipede
Youngling
Posts: 96
Joined: 2005-03-17 03:05pm

My thoughts on morality and empathy

Post by fuzzymillipede »

I am writing an essay about morality. My idea is that morality is how the conscious mind interprets behavior that incites suffering and pleasure through empathy.

Is this logically sound?
Man has evolved the ability to empathize with other humans and creatures because empathy is beneficial to society. One could even say that it is required for society to form, because without it, humans would act similar to animals.

Obviously, society dominates animalism—a species that has developed society is able to form “supercreatures” (clans, tribes, nations, etc) which greatly enhance its ability to survive and expand throughout the world. In other words, a species that has developed society is able to out-compete species that have not, so “survival of the fittest” applies.

The ability to empathize is beneficial to society because it allows humans to cooperate rather than focus only on their base instincts and desires. Empathy causes us to imagine the suffering and pleasure that others experience. Because empathy causes us to feel the suffering of others, it motivates us to minimize or prevent their suffering so that we can in turn minimize our own suffering. The converse is true for pleasure. It is this desire to benefit others that allows humans to cooperate.

“Bad” and “evil” are based on empathy as well. Behavior that causes a person to suffer because of his empathy is considered “bad”. As a result, the person will create a moral code that dictates what behavior is “bad” or “good” based on what feelings each behavior causes him to empathize. In this way, the moral code is a facility to reduce the suffering of the individual.

When people do something “bad” and do not think of it as wrong, something has overcome their ability to empathize. In most cases, it is overpowered by motivators such as greed or lust. These other desires are no more “good” or “evil” than empathy itself, since they evolved in a similar manner. Humans need these basic motivators to survive in the world, for the reasons of self and species preservation.

However, other humans that witness or indirectly experience this “bad” behavior suffer because of their own empathy. As a result, they will try to prevent the behavior in order to minimize their own suffering, perhaps by imprisoning the “bad” person. When someone lacks empathy altogether, they lack morality. Sociopaths and psychopaths are the best example of this.

Laws arose from empathy. For example, the universal laws “do not kill” and “do not steal” were a result of people feeling bad when they encountered these behaviors. Other more complex laws and regulations arise from logic based on benefiting society. The motivation to create these laws came from the motivation to benefit others, which in turn comes from empathy.
User avatar
Darth Wong
Sith Lord
Sith Lord
Posts: 70028
Joined: 2002-07-03 12:25am
Location: Toronto, Canada
Contact:

Re: My thoughts on morality and empathy

Post by Darth Wong »

Man has evolved the ability to empathize with other humans and creatures because empathy is beneficial to society. One could even say that it is required for society to form, because without it, humans would act similar to animals.

Obviously, society dominates animalism—a species that has developed society is able to form “supercreatures” (clans, tribes, nations, etc) which greatly enhance its ability to survive and expand throughout the world. In other words, a species that has developed society is able to out-compete species that have not, so “survival of the fittest” applies.

The ability to empathize is beneficial to society because it allows humans to cooperate rather than focus only on their base instincts and desires. Empathy causes us to imagine the suffering and pleasure that others experience. Because empathy causes us to feel the suffering of others, it motivates us to minimize or prevent their suffering so that we can in turn minimize our own suffering. The converse is true for pleasure. It is this desire to benefit others that allows humans to cooperate.
I think this is an oversimplification. The development of morality definitely has something to do with group survival (individuals who did not learn how to function well as part of a group were killed off in harsh marginal survival conditions, while individuals who learned to function well as part of a team were more likely to survive).

However, it is far from certain that empathy is the sole or even majority contributor to this phenomenon. It is possible for someone to have a very strong sense of allegiance to his tribal organization while being almost totally devoid of the quality of empathy for others, as demonstrated by countless examples of horrendous tribal violence. That sense of allegiance to the clan could easily allow groups to form which are successful even in harsh marginal survival conditions. Similarly, we have very strong social conformist instincts: we instinctively fear and distrust that which is different from social norms. This is yet another mechanism that is useful for ensuring tribal survival in a harsh world, and which is totally independent of empathy.

It may be that empathy is primarily related not to intra-generational group survival, but to parenting. Without the quality of empathy, who would make the tremendous effort necessary to care for children until they are strong enough to take care of themselves?
“Bad” and “evil” are based on empathy as well. Behavior that causes a person to suffer because of his empathy is considered “bad”. As a result, the person will create a moral code that dictates what behavior is “bad” or “good” based on what feelings each behavior causes him to empathize. In this way, the moral code is a facility to reduce the suffering of the individual.
Again, there are many examples of activities which are considered socially unacceptable for reasons other than empathy, such as treason or dishonesty. Dishonesty can be objectively demonstrated to harm the function of a group, including its prosperity and even its survival, yet the virtue of honesty has nothing to do with empathy.
When people do something “bad” and do not think of it as wrong, something has overcome their ability to empathize. In most cases, it is overpowered by motivators such as greed or lust. These other desires are no more “good” or “evil” than empathy itself, since they evolved in a similar manner. Humans need these basic motivators to survive in the world, for the reasons of self and species preservation.

However, other humans that witness or indirectly experience this “bad” behavior suffer because of their own empathy. As a result, they will try to prevent the behavior in order to minimize their own suffering, perhaps by imprisoning the “bad” person. When someone lacks empathy altogether, they lack morality. Sociopaths and psychopaths are the best example of this.

Laws arose from empathy. For example, the universal laws “do not kill” and “do not steal” were a result of people feeling bad when they encountered these behaviors. Other more complex laws and regulations arise from logic based on benefiting society. The motivation to create these laws came from the motivation to benefit others, which in turn comes from empathy.
Apart from the other objections I raised, I have to point out that your argument is essentially based on simply declaring itself to be true, and attributing things to empathy not by explaining why those other factors are insignificant, but by simply ignoring them.
Image
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing

"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC

"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness

"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Mike/RantMode/Blurbs.html
User avatar
fuzzymillipede
Youngling
Posts: 96
Joined: 2005-03-17 03:05pm

Post by fuzzymillipede »

I think this is an oversimplification. The development of morality definitely has something to do with group survival (individuals who did not learn how to function well as part of a group were killed off in harsh marginal survival conditions, while individuals who learned to function well as part of a team were more likely to survive).

However, it is far from certain that empathy is the sole or even majority contributor to this phenomenon. It is possible for someone to have a very strong sense of allegiance to his tribal organization while being almost totally devoid of the quality of empathy for others, as demonstrated by countless examples of horrendous tribal violence. That sense of allegiance to the clan could easily allow groups to form which are successful even in harsh marginal survival conditions. Similarly, we have very strong social conformist instincts: we instinctively fear and distrust that which is different from social norms. This is yet another mechanism that is useful for ensuring tribal survival in a harsh world, and which is totally independent of empathy.
I guess I got too caught up on the effects of empathy on society that I forgot about its simpler aspects. Violent tribes operate like pack animals, and those instincts have nothing to do with empathy, since they originated from the need to survive. How should I go about incorporating this into my ideas?

I can't really base the origin of society on empathy, though it is still an important part of "civilized" society, since we no longer have to struggle to survive. Even as recently as medieval times, empathy didn't play a huge role—it was just pack mentality on a larger scale, with peasants blindly following the king.
Again, there are many examples of activities which are considered socially unacceptable for reasons other than empathy, such as treason or dishonesty. Dishonesty can be objectively demonstrated to harm the function of a group, including its prosperity and even its survival, yet the virtue of honesty has nothing to do with empathy.
Treason falls into the pack mentality area, so it cannot really be attributed to empathy. Honestly, on the other hand, does seem related to both. When someone discovers that they have been lied to, they feel betrayed to some extent. The reason that we choose not to lie is that we don't want to betray others. This has most to do with loyalty, but could also be connected with empathy since you can empathize with the other person's feeling of betrayal.

The main flaw with my idea is that it doesn't include pack behavior as an influence on the formation of society. I need to find a way to add it to my essay or focus on a smaller aspect of society.
User avatar
Darth Wong
Sith Lord
Sith Lord
Posts: 70028
Joined: 2002-07-03 12:25am
Location: Toronto, Canada
Contact:

Post by Darth Wong »

You might want to consider analyzing pack-animal instincts as an opposing force, which must be balanced against empathy in society. It is difficult to examine pack-animal behaviour at any length without coming to the conclusion that it is basically the enemy of empathy. It is usually used to justify acts of cruelty, exclusion, and coercion: all the opposite of empathy.
Image
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing

"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC

"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness

"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Mike/RantMode/Blurbs.html
User avatar
fuzzymillipede
Youngling
Posts: 96
Joined: 2005-03-17 03:05pm

Post by fuzzymillipede »

It seems that the more "civilized" a society becomes, the more empathy plays a role. As living conditions get better, pack instincts start to fade away. Conversely, if we take "civilized" people and place them in harsh living conditions, the pack instincts come popping right back out like in Lord of the Flies.

So, if we want to have a "civilized" society, empathy must overcome pack instincts. Do you know of any societies where this was not the case?
User avatar
Lusankya
ChiCom
Posts: 4163
Joined: 2002-07-13 03:04am
Location: 人间天堂
Contact:

Post by Lusankya »

fuzzymillipede wrote:It seems that the more "civilized" a society becomes, the more empathy plays a role. As living conditions get better, pack instincts start to fade away. Conversely, if we take "civilized" people and place them in harsh living conditions, the pack instincts come popping right back out like in Lord of the Flies.

So, if we want to have a "civilized" society, empathy must overcome pack instincts. Do you know of any societies where this was not the case?
Just look at situations when rioting as broken out. Especially in the case of racially-motivated rioting, you could say that this is the case.
"I would say that the above post is off-topic, except that I'm not sure what the topic of this thread is, and I don't think anybody else is sure either."
- Darth Wong
Free Durian - Last updated 27 Dec
"Why does it look like you are in China or something?" - havokeff
User avatar
fuzzymillipede
Youngling
Posts: 96
Joined: 2005-03-17 03:05pm

Post by fuzzymillipede »

A riot is not a society by itself; it is just an event that occurs within a larger one. I am talking of entire cultures/civilizations which are dominated by pack mentality, like violent tribes or such. Could there be a culture like this that we can consider "civilized"?
User avatar
Civil War Man
NERRRRRDS!!!
Posts: 3790
Joined: 2005-01-28 03:54am

Post by Civil War Man »

You can actually make an interesting comparison between the effects of pack mentalities and empathy on group survival, seeing as how the former in all likelihood originated from pack members providing a common defense against a hostile environment. Circling the wagons and all that. After all, paranoia is quite healthy if you are living out in the wilderness with a lot of big predators. Same reason why the human mind is able to quickly see patterns within random noise.

I've heard human relations very accurately descibed as a combination of the bonobo and the chimpanzee. Bonobos, being one of the more sexually active primates, pretty closely mirrors our behavior concerning empathy and in-group relationships. Chimpanzees, being a lot more aggressive, pretty well embody paranoia, violence, and xenophobia that pops up when the group is perceived to be in danger. (I've even heard that, in the wild, differing groups of chimpanzees basically wage war with each other)
Post Reply