Empathy and conservatism

Well, from many discussions in this forum I am arriving to a conclusion about the conservatism and maybe because people is conservatist.

I am seeing that conservative people lack of any sense of empathy. Maybe for that they have this ideology. How they don't have empathy, so the only important thing is themselves so they don't have problems if other people is having very bad times. The important is that they go well.

Because in all this time in this forum, I've not seen any conservative consider the other humans, value their situations, and if they acts can affect really negatively to other people. Even I've seen between the conservative people that if they have to condemn people to starving to death for the sake of the economy and their own profits they will do this without problem.

What I am observing is that how more empathic you are. More probable that you will have left leaning ideas while if you're not empathic at all you will have right leaning ideas.

 

The more you empathize, the less you love.

 

Short. Clearly phrased. Incoherent.

 

Hmmmm that actually might be true. But probably not nearly so much as you think it is.

For one thing it keeps coming up in polls/studies that conservative individuals give more to charity. That is genuine empathy and generosity, even if cutting a check to an aid organization lacks the pizzaz of protesting.

Also the common call among many liberals that the government should give them money that it took from someone else, is frequently not so much empathy as it is rhetoric or barely concealed greed.

Finally I think conservatives have matured to the point of understanding that just giving everybody what they want often doesn't solve problems, and can make them worse.

So yes, I feel empathy for my daughter when she's crying because wants to eat a pile of candy instead of her dinner, but being a good parent means getting her to eat her peas. And in time will mean making her do her homework etc etc.

Much in life is like that. I suspect that learning this is why people tend to lean more conservatively as they age.

 

No, we do, it's just that we don't like things being forced upon us or taken from us involuntarily. We give more to charity than liberals, for one. Your point just seems to revolve around the fact that we are heartless losers because we don't want a massive, ungodly nanny state.

 

The two words are inconsistent with each other.

 

What you perceive on this forum does not translate into the real world. Take a look at the Generosity Index and you will see it's mostly Republican dominated states that lead the way in charitable giving.

http://www.catalogueforphilanthropy.org/cfp/db/generosity.php?year=2004

...and here's a ranking of charitable giving by country....

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/sep/08/charitable-giving-country

 

Well, but if you analyze more deeply, I usually associate charity with feeling guilty more than anything. I feel guilt for all what I've done so I give something to charity to feel myself better. But not for real empathy.

For example, I don't believe in charity. For something charity is always associated to the right, and is mainly for what I've said in the last paragraph. The left usually believe more in the direct action. For example, you must not give money to whatever cause, if not try to participate actively, for example if you want to improve a country, facilitate them the materials to construct the schools, bridges, but even better, just teach them to do that. That they do by their own. That is the mentality of the leftist. Help the people to do the things by themselves. Protect them if is necessary, but no more.

The lefts ask that because believe that is the best system to improve the life of everybody.

 

Which is the more valued gift? The one that is demanded and or extorted from the donor, or the one the donor gives from the heart because they care and want to make a difference?

For instance, I will not give money to street people. But, where possible, I will hire them, pay them at least 50% above minimum wage and invite them back if they perform well and show an aptitude to learn. This is not random, I have been practicing this for 12 years now and some have been able to turn their lives around, get off welfare, find permanent employment and so forth.

Some people believe in the adage that if you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime. For those who refuse to learn to fish, well, call Nancy Pelosi...

 

If you felt no empathy, would you love her less?

 

To care is to teach a man to fish for himself. The 2 sides of the global regime are those who would steal fish to give to another, while keeping their own of course, and those who would let all starve and teach them nothing. I have zero respect for both. If you don't hit in the middle of the political spectrum, you are the problem. Just like darts, you want a bullseye people.

 

Wow, you must live in a rough world. I cannot for the life of me understand why liberals think that the only actions done by better off people are out of greed, jealousy, and guilt. It's not so. I'm glad you think real help is taking money from others and giving it to someone else, but it isn't. Helping people is volunteering and donating money to causes. The boy scouts don't raise funds by extorting or demanding money from people by threat of jail time for "fundraiser evasion", they ask for people to be charitable. The local food pantry doesn't go door to door demanding they "pay their fair share", it asks nicely, and people donate. Sure, they could always use more food but I have volunteered there before and they have enough.

 

It's simple projection. That's why, as a rule, liberals are as generous with other people's money as they are miserly with their own.

 

The left is only charitable with other people's money.

Actually, they just like other people's money in general. It doesn't seem to benefit anyone but the spenders when they spend it.

 

I have noticed this also. And I think many conservatives do respond when they are confronted with real-life situations, such as a Wal-Mart manager who has had consistent work all his life and then gets cancer that requires expensive chemo treatment once a week and the insurance companies refuse to cover it. If they have to see it first hand, they do become more empathetic. Or if it were to happen to someone in their family they cared about, they would very much not want them denied care.

They seem to have a psychology where they think of anyone who is downtrodden (sometimes themselves, so they exclude themselves from the evaluation) as a nameless, faceless, lazy, drug-addicted, welfare recipient who has no motivation to do anything in life but live off the hard-earned tax dollars of everyone else who is working. But that doesn't match up with reality. The best way to make people more empathetic is to force them to confront adverse situations face to face.

There is also another example that will work really well, and that is homosexuality. Many conservatives used to think bleh homosexuality. It is a horrible disgusting perversion. However, more and more gay people are coming out, and conservatives are seeing them as REAL people, not nameless,faceless, excessively feminine men who dress in tight clothes. They look like everyone else, and support for same-sex marriage is now hovering around 50%. There are not enough liberals to push the number that high. Conservatives are changing also.

 

conservatives can be empathic.... i believe the issue is that they do not believe a government entity should be the one helping people.... people should help people.

 

Government is made up of people yes?

 

where's your empathy for conservatives?

 

Except the Government is a Tool and nothing more. Just because people use it doesn't mean it's the most effective tool for the job of dealing with Social Situations. The Government is quite similar to a Gun in reality because it doesn't ask it just takes when the person behind it uses it.

 

Do you think voting is a legitimate form of conferring political power? If 80% of the country voted for the Tea Party, would you not conclude that the Tea Party had the right to enact what they ran on?

 

Question for ya. If everybody's out doing all this "fishin'", who will be around to do the actual work? Or can everybody be rich?


The bullseye is beginning to focus exactly where it needs to focus...the super wealthy, and how they go about "business".

 

So then you argue that one is more charitable and compassionate if one works to get the police powers of the state directed toward helping others rather than helping others with one's own resources and time?

 

so you equate mob rule to legitimate rule

suppose for example we were in a room with 4 guys and a girl... one guy says "hey i want to have sex with the girl" the girl says "no"

one of the other guys says "ok lets put it up to a vote. the four guys all put their hands up "well its 4 to 1 for sex.... so drop your pants"

just because the majority agree with it.... does not make it right.

 

Friend I think the posters on this forum that are right wing are amongst the most extreme of the right. I think there are many conservatives who care about the poor, they are just not that numerous here.

 

If democracy is mob rule, then yes I do.