I've never heard an atheist, or anyone else for that matter, say that empathy alone as you have defined it here is necessary and sufficient for morality. And I'm one of the ones around here who typically advocates empathy and reason as a basis for morality.
It's the foundation of the Golden Rule, I'd say, and that's something shared the world over. It's not even unique to humans; it's just that we're the only species to date capable of discussing it.
The first paragraph in your post here indicates that someone else (atheists in this case) have given an argument. It is then their interpretation of the word that is in effect (see my orange example previously). I'll be the first to agree that they should be clear with what they mean, but them failing to do so does not allow you to assume another definition (at least not if you wish for the point of the argument to stay intact rather than just becoming a straw man) without comment. You'd be allowed, and frankly, right to ask for a clarification. That being said, empathy, even in the definition you quote includes the capacity to identify with the emotion or situation or whatever, and in that sense, it should include the version of empathy referred to in the arguments you mention.
Reading through the political threads, the gay threads, abortion threads and other controversial threads. It seems many christians don't have any empathy. If the rules set forth in OT are not followed, bear in mind only a few very specific rules, the opposite of empathy happens. I'd say more atheists or agnostics and non abrahamic religons (perhaps not the jewish) are far more empathetic and therefore more moral to humankind.
The additional component does not strengthen your position in the least, for reasons which, if memory serves, you and I have been over already; but we can revisit the subject if you like. Which might be interesting had I ever encountered an atheist who specified your definition. It does when the definition I "assume" comes from a dictionary. No it doesn't - hence the last sentence in the OP.
The additional component is only necessary because of the cartoon version of "empathy" that critics employ in order to build their straw man. If memory serves, and if the conversation so far is any indication, the likelihood that we are even talking about the same thing is very low. If you are going to insist on an internet dictionary definition of the term rather than a thorough psychological deep-dive, this is much closer to what I've actually been talking about: the action of understanding, being aware of, being sensitive to, and vicariously experiencing the feelings, thoughts, and experience of another of either the past or present without having the feelings, thoughts, and experience fully communicated in an objectively explicit manner; also : the capacity for this
I always have a problem with this statement. It's not very realistic. Empathy isn't universal, because not everyone agrees with each other. For you to put yourself in another person's shoes requires a level of understanding of that person. If you cannot understand that person, then you cannot empathize with them. For example: how does one empathize with a muslim man stoning his wife for adultery? According to Sharia Law, he has that right. Do you say the man, who is obeying the law of his own country, is wrong for obeying the law? Do you choose not to empathize with the man because of his actions? How does one empathize with a crackhead? Do you say to yourself, "Crack kills, therefore its moral to prevent the crackhead from smoking any more crack"? Yet, you do not necessarily empathize with the crackhead because you are denying them the one thing their body needs for them to go through the day. If you take the crack away from them, they go through painful withdrawal, which is equivalent to torture.Yet, if you provide them more crack, you enable them to further hurt themselves, their career or even their family. How does one empathize with a father wanting grandchildren only to find out that his only son is gay? Do you empathize with the father by agreeing with his harsh feelings of disappointment to his son, or do you empathize with the son while condemning the father for having such feelings? If your horrible and unmoral neighbor and your lovable pet dog are both drowning in front of you and you could only save one, who do you save? If you save your dog, then could you interpret that as empathizing with your dog? Are you wrong for saving your neighbor and letting your lovable pet dog die? People who use "empathy" as their method of morality agree that one need not show empathy toward people who do not show empathy to others (including themselves). Therefore, if one need not show empathy to people who do not show empathy to others, then where does the cycle stop? If one man does a wrong, and you decide to condemn that man because of his wrong, and then someone else looks at your actions and, therefore, condemns you, and so on and so on, then where does the peace begin?
Empathy is a capacity. There are types of brain damage that can take that capacity away, but it is a capacity that mentally healthy humans share. Theists generally agree that God's laws are universal, despite the fact that not everyone agrees with each other about those laws. Yes, empathy requires a level of understanding . . . it is a level of understanding. I can empathize with the fact that he is working with false information. Understanding why he acts the way he does does not require me to agree with him. The fact that he is obeying the law is not the reason that he is wrong. He is wrong because he is irrationally and needlessly harming another human being. The fear that his wife has for her life and her safety, however, is quite rational and reasonable. I can empathize with that as well, and reasonably act accordingly. Empathy is a capacity for understanding, not blind and uncritical agreement. I am not going to deny him anything so long as he isn't hurting anyone. I would, out of a concern for his well being, try to convince him that his addiction does more harm than good. Yes. Humans have the capacity to understand and identify with the desire for children and the desire to act in accordance with one's nature. You are still making the mistake that empathy implies agreement. It doesn't. There are not nearly enough details here to reach a conclusion. But empathizing with both is quite possible. We do? Empathy is a capacity that can be extended to anyone. It only becomes problematic when the well-being of one person is in mutually exclusive competition with the well-being of another. This is a problem for all moral systems. As I've mentioned before, empathy can mean both cognitive empathy and emotional empathy. Neither alone are a great measure for morality. Sociopaths are great at cognitive empathy -- often surpassing the rest of us -- but do not feel the motivation to act that comes with emotional empathy. Emotional empathy alone is more prone to emotional mistakes. Compassion is probably a better concept for what atheists (and many theists, of course) are trying to express: knowledge of the condition of others paired with a motive to act. Many atheists believe this is the core of morality, as do Buddhists and Christians who follow agape as their moral principle.
Well, if you believe empathy is a capacity and should be defined as something else, then you're arguing about a point of view I'm not necessarily touching at the moment. Let's say you're married and your wife slept with another man because you weren't satisfying her enough (or at all). Who's wrong in this picture? Is she wrong for sleeping with another man, or are you wrong for not attempting to satisfy her enough (if at all)?
So -- and this is a great question for yguy too -- who is proposing the position that you guys are arguing against? You are presenting a false dilemma. There is no reason to think that only one person is wrong in this situation. If a man shouts racial epithets at you and you slap his son in retaliation, who is wrong? Both of you are, of course.
Well, I was directly replying to somebody else.... I believe my question was reasonable. You must understand that people react to the actions and inactions of other people. Are you morally wrong for not satisfying your wife? Is your wife morally wrong for sleeping with another man? The point is, using "harm" as a basis for morality is flawed since an inaction can cause just as much harm as an action. This idea of morality would condemn everyone as moral monsters. Wouldn't you agree that if I stood and watched a dog maul you to death (and I could save you), that my inaction would be just as immoral as me killing you myself? If inaction can constitute as a moral crime due to "harm", then we are all monsters. Wouldn't you agree?
Your problem in that respect isn't necessity, but sufficiency. In the case of negative emotions, doing both simultaneously is impossible; so the author(s) of this definition doesn't know what he or she is (or they are) talking about.
Then you didn't understand the statement. "Necessary" was in relation to qualifying empathy with reason in the course of a conversation with people who use a strawman version of empathy: the unqualified, uncritical and unmitigated identification with and agreement with the mental state of another. I've yet to see anyone argue for this, and yet your criticism rests on such a definition. Do you have evidence that it is impossible or evidence that such simultaneity is necessary? You honestly can't think of a situation where you can be aware of and vicariously experience someone else's negative mental state? We have mirror neurons for that. Maybe you shouldn't have cut the definition short then.
Has there ever been a case when you could've given a homeless man something to eat, but chose not to? Are you not immoral for not helping out a fellow man in need? Your inaction could cause that man to starve. How is this any different than ignoring a hungry homeless man?
I can't think of a case where I've knowingly allowed a man to starve when it was in my reasonable power to stop it. Unless you are prepared to argue that inaction is never immoral, I'm not sure where this conversation is going.
Oh, I'm pretty sure I understood it just fine. It's clearly implied by the first two words in your own definition. You can't even simultaneously experience your own negative emotions and be aware of them, because such emotions can't exist in the presence of your awareness, as they run like vampires from a cross. The rest of it doesn't matter when what was quoted is nonsense.
If someone is walking on the sidewalk and there is a huge mud/water puddle at the curb, how many would speed up and splash that water as far and as much water as they could possible spray at the pedestrian? My guess is very very few will intentionally splash another human being, due to empathy.
Let me know if you would actually like to discuss it instead of vaguely eluding to "points" never directly expressed. You can't experience an emotion and be aware of it? Sorry, but I do all of the time, and I'm fairly certain everyone else here has as well. It'd be a neat trick if you could prove that was the case. Right. Only definition 1 of your own preferred internet dictionary is an appropriate definition of empathy. And let's just ignore what I had to say about the previous definition before I supplied it. The whole insistence on internet dictionaries alone (and only your favorite one) only serves to keep this conversation about straw men and semantics.
Then you are admitting that you're being dishonest. Either that or you're admitting you do not interact with many people. I come across poor and hungry people all the time. I'm guilty of not feeding them, and I will openly admit to it. Am I responsible if they die of hunger? Sure I am, or at least partially. I would never try to separate myself from the fact that my inaction harms these people. This is something I struggle with everyday. However, for you to not even admit something so basic as this shows that you don't understand what morality even is. Whatever notions you have conjured in your head is just a bunch of hocus pocus designed to make your fellow man happy with you.
You're kidding yourself. Indeed it would. Unfortunately that is no more possible than it would be for me to prove, had you been hypnotized to believe you couldn't walk, that the opposite were true without you walking. You're not paying attention. I considered your definition on its own merits, which under cursory examination proved to be nonexistent. Might as well, as it doesn't support your position in the least.
We're back to yu-huh nu-uh. Also, please don't alter my posts when quoting them. It is against the forum rules. You are the one suggesting that it is impossible to experience and be aware of an emotion and providing no support for the claim. Now you are claiming it is impossible for you to prove such a thing. Sorry, but I'm not just going to dispense with my own experience to humor an argument that you can't defend. Your cursory examination involved a claim that you yourself admit you can't prove. Make up your mind. Have you "proved" your assertion or can it not be proved? In other words, you didn't read it. It had nothing to do with supporting my position. It had to do with explaining that the definition I was about to provide did a better job of explaining my position -- since it talked about capacity -- than your own interpretation of your own definition, not that it was a perfect definition. I even expressed that a more thorough, psychological and detailed definition would be preferrable. You are charging at windmills.
No, I'm just not conflating the same points that you are. I was very specific about my claim. I am making a distinction that you aren't. Sounds sad. I don't. A couple of time a week, sure, and I give them gift cards for food when I can afford it. And do you understand the difference between not feeding someone and knowingly allowing them to starve to death? You haven't been following your own conversation. One minute you criticize the idea that harm is related to morality, based on the fact that this would mean that inaction could be immoral . . . and now you are acknowledging that inaction is sometimes immoral. Is harm related to morality or not? Can inaction be immoral or not? Please express your actual position and points the way that you are asking others to do. That's a nice opinion that you can't back up and are completely unqualified to make.
I'm afraid you're unable to see the point I'm making. Here it is again. Believing "harm" defines morality is simply bogus. Such a definition can easily define everyone as moral monsters or even blind people to moral responsibilities. Its really that simple.
