Empathy & Sympathy

[Cognisant]

What is the difference between empathy and sympathy?

Both empathy and sympathy are feelings concerning other people. Sympathy is literally 'feeling with' - compassion for or commiseration with another person. Empathy, by contrast, is literally 'feeling into' - the ability to project one's personality into another person and more fully understand that person. Sympathy derives from Latin and Greek words meaning 'having a fellow feeling'. The term empathy originated in psychology (translation of a German term, c. 1903) and has now come to mean the ability to imagine or project oneself into another person's position and experience all the sensations involved in that position. You feel empathy when you've "been there", and sympathy when you haven't. Examples: We felt sympathy for the team members who tried hard but were not appreciated. / We felt empathy for children with asthma because their parents won't remove pets from the household.

There's an old story that's been told many ways by many different people but the gist of it is that someone intervenes in nature, typically they defend some cute furry thing from another animal that would eat it and later in the story they discover that said predator has starved to death. This is one part of the problem of sympathy and empathy, as a matter of natural balance it's fine to sympathise with the prey creature but to empathise with it, to project oneself into its position and defend it as if its life matters as much to you as your own is wrong because you're picking a side in a matter that really has nothing to do with you, hence the tragedy of the starving predator, you save one life by destroying another.

The predator's life was no less precious.

However that's not to say empathy is a bad thing, there's a saying my mother has which goes something like "evil occurs when good people do nothing" and I've seen many instances where it's true, you can't just sympathise with children caught in an abusive situation because by inaction you're allowing it to happen, choosing not to act is as much a choice as any other and choices should never be made without regard for their consequences.

So where is the line, at what point does moral responsibility give way to natural order, indeed is the balance itself a fantasy, does having the means to intervene mean you always have the responsibility to do so or is any sense of moral responsibility just hubris?

 

[Cherry Cola]

Remove predators over time. Slowly phase them out. Principally speaking moral responsibility is always more important than natural order imo, natural order says nothing of what ought to be. I get that it's cool that there are Lions and Tigers and stuff, but I don't think it's fair to keep them around just because they please us aesthetically and because we have swallowed the dogma that says natural diversity needs to be preserved. Not when they fucking eat other animals alive, that shit is awful; the suffering they cause is extreme, why should we let it continue? Ain't seeing no reason other than that it's "natural" which isn't really a good reason imo.

Besides we can have a few predators in zoos. Preserve all the DNA and clone more of em for our enjoyment should the need arise. It's not like they'd necessarily be gone for good. They just wont be out on the Savannah eating other animals or alternatively starving to death. Both things being awful.

Of course I realize removing predators isn't something were going to be able to do without screwing the ecological systems in which they operate. Not right now at least.

 

[Cherry Cola]

However that's not to say empathy is a bad thing, there's a saying my mother has which goes something like "evil occurs when good people do nothing" and I've seen many instances where it's true, you can't just sympathise with children caught in an abusive situation because by inaction you're allowing it to happen, choosing not to act is as much a choice as any other and choices should never be made without regard for their consequences.

So where is the line, at what point does moral responsibility give way to natural order, indeed is the balance itself a fantasy, does having the means to intervene mean you always have the responsibility to do so or is any sense of moral responsibility just hubris?

I would say if you have the means you should use them. But you can't be expected or required too.

Can't really come up with a law for this because people are so different. Some people are able to spot a lot more instances in which they should help and intervene than others.

I mean I reckon if someone were to force you to always do the right thing you would have to do a lot more than if some ISFJ of average intelligence were to be forced to do the same.

IMO many of the really nice and helpful people out there are also pretty simple.

 

[Cognisant]

So you would commit genocide to achieve an ideal world?
Interesting.

Just to be contrarian I'll say there is no inherent morality and therefore no inherent responsibility and thus all acts of moral intervention are essentially self interest by proxy or in other words an attempt to force the world to conform to your standards, to be the best world it can be for people like you.

You save the rabbit from the wolf because you identify with the rabbit's plight, you too fear being preyed upon and so you're trying to establish a precedent against predation.

I thought I was going somewhere else with this but the fact is I agree with you, I have nothing against the predator and if we wipe out all predators to achieve a world without predation that would be tragic but still successful.

Of course by the same logic if we blew up the planet by destroying all life we would end all suffering forevermore, which would be tragic, but still successful.

 

[Brontosaurie]

why not remove the herbivores too? they're not us, and their primitive operational framework is contagious.

 

[Cognisant]

Unit 318054 Reporting:
Since having infiltrated the human's primitive social network I have been slowly but surely convincing them of the flaws of their biology, thus far my efforts have been a resounding success, they will be ready for assimilation sooner than anticipated.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

This is one part of the problem of sympathy and empathy, as a matter of natural balance it's fine to sympathise with the prey creature but to empathise with it, to project oneself into its position and defend it as if its life matters as much to you as your own is wrong because you're picking a side in a matter that really has nothing to do with you, hence the tragedy of the starving predator, you save one life by destroying another.

Hmm, maybe then sympathy is the wrong thing? Feeling the same things as the defeated prey? Already sharing the same mindset with it and feeling the connection with something that is about to perish? This seems like an inferior mechanism for a predator.
In opposition, using empathy to become your prey, to understand its predicaments and shortcomings would be a natural strategy here.

So where is the line, at what point does moral responsibility give way to natural order, indeed is the balance itself a fantasy, does having the means to intervene mean you always have the responsibility to do so or is any sense of moral responsibility just hubris?

I'm sure everyone can come up with their own framework, for example : I save the world during even weeks and procastinate during odd weeks. Quite simple.

You save the rabbits, which leads to overpopulation, said rabits begin to compete with each other and you are forced to protect rabbits from rabbits, should you let them regulate themselves, should you stop protecting them from predators?

The balance already was destroyed, if you let the predators roam free, they are going to increase their population due to the number of availible food, it will take some time to return to the natural cycle from before the intervention.
If the decision is not final and single-directional, what would be the point of such and similar morally based actions?

 

[computerhxr]

Rabbits that are dying from a heart attack will let out a loud high-pitched screem to alert predators. They want to be put out of their misery, and they understand that there is a natural order to things. Rabbits will overpopulate without wolves and would die from starvation and horrific diseases in violence out of scarcity of food supply. It's the natural ebbs-and-flows of the ecosystem.

Also, they are psychically entangled with their baby bunnies.
http://www.masonwinfield.com/Journal/tabid/58/EntryId/252/The-Russian-Bunny-Experiment.aspx

There is a balance and coexistence between other species and humans. Humans have the power and capacity to limit suffering in the world but choose to exacerbate suffering because of greed, but nature is always there to balance it out.

This guy gets it!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNCzSfv4hX8

 

[OrLevitate]

Rabbits that are dying from a heart attack will let out a loud high-pitched screem to alert predators. They want to be put out of their misery, and they understand that there is a natural order to things. Rabbits will overpopulate without wolves and would die from starvation and horrific diseases in violence out of scarcity of food supply. It's the natural ebbs-and-flows of the ecosystem.

Also, they are psychically entangled with their baby bunnies.
http://www.masonwinfield.com/Journal/tabid/58/EntryId/252/The-Russian-Bunny-Experiment.aspx

Do u haz legit studies?
Seems like the squeals are just the universal cry for help when animals are being harmed or in danger, the instinct to make noise when hurting.

the masonwinfield thing looks sooper sketchy

i agree (ofc) with there being a natural coexistingness between all tha animuls. balance is what makes earth team with life (not too close/far from sun), and it's all a system relative to other parts of itself upon which others parts hinge, it couldn't have grown in imbalance. then consciousness happened

 

[Hadoblado]

We obviously need sentient species that also photosythesise. Kill all the predators and herbivores off. They're unethical.

Get on it.

 

[computerhxr]

Lazy... There is no point referencing salient articles when no one is interested enough to do the slightest bit of research on the topic.

(Susan E. Davis, Margo DeMello: "Stories Rabbits Tell: A Natural and Cultural History of a Misunderstood Creature," Lantern Books, 2003)

[bimgx=500]http://i1375.photobucket.com/albums/ag448/computerhxr/bunny-shriek_zps84f10df8.jpg[/bimgx]
​

The actual source was from a side-note in a text book. The point was that even without pain, or even actual sickness a rabbit will still scream. It would take Empathy to understand why this might happen. The text book suggested that this was because they exist in a mutually beneficial relationship. I haven't had this book in my possession for more than 8 years so I'm afraid that I cannot site the source.

Rabbits also convulse as they shriek. This acts as an alarm system to warn others, and as an attractant to prey animals. They are put out of their misery, and the predators have had a meal so the others can survive. Rabbits are utilitarian in nature.

Here is an alternative source if you don't like the Russian rabbit experiment:
(Thouvenin, Bernard; "A Study of Telepathic Phenomena among Rabbits," Revue Francaise de Psychotronique, 1:15, July-September 1988.)

 

[Brontosaurie]

Rabbits also convulse as they shriek. This acts as an alarm system to warn others, and as an attractant to prey animals. They are put out of their misery, and the predators have had a meal so the others can survive. Rabbits are utilitarian in nature.

that's interesting.

 

[OrLevitate]

Lazy... There is no point referencing salient articles when no one is interested enough to do the slightest bit of research on the topic. it seems there's a natural balance to the forum, when the haxr is faced with skepticism, further explanation is elicited (but maybe only sometimes).

(Susan E. Davis, Margo DeMello: "Stories Rabbits Tell: A Natural and Cultural History of a Misunderstood Creature," Lantern Books, 2003)

[bimgx=500]http://i1375.photobucket.com/albums/ag448/computerhxr/bunny-shriek_zps84f10df8.jpg[/bimgx]
​

u b takin sum hooge liberties in ur interpretation, tho, right? it says what i said, and the coyotes reaction isn't the cause of the behavior i'd imagine, but rather the communication with other rabbit folk is what got it naturally selected, alerting them, "shit hit the fan here!". peaceful death still triggers distress i'd imagine, thus shrieks

The actual source was from a side-note in a text book. The point was that even without pain, or even actual sickness a rabbit will still scream. when it thinks its in danger, or is otherwise distressed It would take Empathy to understand why this might happen. The text book suggested that this was because they exist in a mutually beneficial relationship. ya all the organisms have relationships where some benefit etc circle of life n crap, doesn't mean the rabbit shrieking was adapted to feed coyotes, rather that probably the coyotes adapted to understand that the shriek probably means free food I haven't had this book in my possession for more than 8 years so I'm afraid that I cannot site the source.

Rabbits also convulse as they shriek. This acts as an alarm system to warn others, and as an attractant to prey animals. They are put out of their misery, and the predators have had a meal so the others can survive. cuz the predators picked up on the meaning of the rabbits intercommunicatory shrieks, but that's not why they shriek Rabbits are utilitarian in nature. everything is utilitarian in nature, that's like the basics of evolooshion, i agree with that ofc

Here is an alternative source if you don't like the Russian rabbit experiment:
(Thouvenin, Bernard; "A Study of Telepathic Phenomena among Rabbits," Revue Francaise de Psychotronique, 1:15, July-September 1988.)

i couldnt find it, just this

Spoiler

http://books.google.com/books?id=hzuhQvGzjVcC&pg=PA153&lpg=PA153&dq=A+Study+of+Telepathic+Phenomena+among+Rabbits&source=bl&ots=AZT57_3g9e&sig=3-V0jnZoz_pGLOjfYpr38lQUo6Q&hl=en&sa=X&ei=N_pxVJSMJoWiNuqsgvAI&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=Rabbits&f=false

i didnt really try hard, balance and what not, i'm very very very open to the idea of unconscious connection between organisms, it seems like it should be true in some way due to the communal origin and mutually dependent existence, but if i took the evidence provided and that i found with a quick googz as factz then i would have like no skepitcalness and would be walking into walls wondering why i can't go through and basing my life on mbti astrology, knocking on wood every 4 seconds and wearing a tin foil hat

 

[StevenM]

From thinking about 'morality', my opinion on the matter is this:

Applying ethical decisions should be circumstantial. The moment it is applied universally, is when things go wrong.

 

[computerhxr]

If there is a train barreling out of control, and you could only switch between two tracks. One track had a small child playing on it, and the other had 4 middle aged construction workers on it. The switch is pointed towards the track the small child is on. There is not enough time to warn them and they are completely unaware of the impending doom.

You only have 3 choices.

1. Do nothing. Allowing the child to die.

2. Switch to the track with the 4 construction workers so that they die instead of the child.

3. Switch part-way, causing the train to fly off of the tracks. You don't know how many people are on the train, but this would injure or kill many of the passengers. You know that there is at least the train operator, but it could be a freight train or have many passengers.

What would you do in this situation?

Also, what would be the criteria that you would use to decide?