No way. Empathy is an honest emotional response to another human being. Morality is a set of rules determined by a cliche who represent the dominant ideology of society to control people's behaviour.

No

The confusion is probably born of the fact that people often act according to how they feel, and not necessarily by some strict code of morals which they have inscribed somewhere. Empathy is one of the things that informs how we feel, but it is not the only one.

Morality includes doing the right thing even when nobody else is present. So no, they aren't the same.

According to Jonathan Haidt's research there are five components of morality.

1. Fairness reciprocity.
2. Harm care.
3. In-group loyalty.
4. Respect for Authority.
5. Sanctity of purity.

He says only the first two are valued by Liberals (and I would say those are the ones that might be based on empathy). According to Haidt, all five are valued by Conservatives (I'm personally not sure to what degree the first two are in some cases, but I'm just reporting what Haidt claims) and I don't see that the last three have much to do with empathy. I'm not even sure what they have to do with morality, but I'm not Conservative.

Empathy is only one of many instincts humans possess and sometimes certain instincts conflict. In-group loyalty, for example, could conflict with Fairness reciprocity. In that case xenophobia could overpower empathy. In many people, empathy could extend to strangers, but in others it might not. So for large groups to get along, rules must be extended from the instinctual to the abstract.

Empathy is when we put another person's britches on, and walk around in them a spell. Morality is when we tell other people that they must wear britches.

Well said! If empathy is the only basis, then what about wrong actions. Empathy is a word much more suited for understanding thoughts or actions. This does not mean that one agrees with the thought or action, but simply empathizes with said thought or action. Often this term is used in regards to ones feelings on a given topic. Morality is that “spring” (for lack of a better word) that one derives what is right or prudent to oneself and what one views as right or prudent to society as a whole.

I am sorry but the statement, "people I find slightly disgusting" is surely a lack of empathy.

If what you say is correct, then it seems to me that the legal system is an expression of morality, because laws are supposed to be enforced uniformly and without passion. Of course laws don’t cover every situation, and also laws have to be interpreted—meaning that there are higher principles upon which the laws are based, such as the golden rule.

Empathy is just a feeling and as such is unreliable as a basis for decisions. But why do we have those feelings? Maybe we are made that way through evolution over millions of years of group living. You can not expect a pack of wolves to formulate a set of rules for behavior.

What it boils down to IMO is that our bodies are robots without consciousness or free will. Their behavior is governed primarily by instinct, . But we are not our bodies. It is conscious awareness that prompts analysis and the making up of rules and codes of behavior.

I agree. Empathy may be a source of morality. But there are different sources, a religion being one.

I guess the question is whether empathy is a sufficient basis for a workable morality.

Empathy imo is just the ability to identify with someone.. (feel yourself what they are feeling) but it works for large groups because you can still have empathy for someone in that group.
Morals imo is a just a code or set of rules you or society develop from experience and knowledge.

Not necessarily. Morals are more or less behavioral rules to follow and morality is knowing and following those rules. Some might be based on empathy but others might not but usually they are commonly built within a family or group or religion.

Empathy is a bit more individual and personal, and is about understanding what another person might be going through and how they must be feeling. It doesn't necessarily follow rules. If you understand then you understand, if you don't then you don't.

To me at least empathy is more of an emotional response to something or someone and is usually a subconscious reaction.

Where as morality is a behavior or general thought process because it takes a conscious effort to do so. And mostly has to be instructed by another human.

I agree that you don't need to be empathetic to be moral, but disagree about empathy. You can have empathy towards strangers. I've always seen empathy as a subconscious process. Whenever you observe or interact with a person, you have a subconscious mirror neuron system in play. You watch someone do yoga, you have neurons firing that run a similar path as if you were the one doing yoga. If you see someone smiling, no matter how bad of a mood you're in, you have subconscious mirror neurons firing as if you were smiling. You see someone giving you the middle finger.. you get the point. I believe that's where our empathy comes from and some people are more in tune/aware of it. So you can "sense" what a stranger is feeling by observing them. You might be right, might be wrong, but your brain is always trying to know everything.. and one of those things is what others are feeling/thinking/going to do next.

Um, no, they aren't the same. The ability to empathize varies widely, though. Those who are capable of greater empathy tend to be better leaders, communicators, and are happier in their relationships.

Morals are little more than a set of rules.

Empathy isn't restricted to personal contact imo.... I feel empathy when listening to a sad song or watching an emotional television show or movie... Morality is a separate issue completely... You either born with it or you learn it... Or it's a little of both...

Empathy is a passive trait, it is a feeling that you translate in actions.
Morality is a learned/applied code. part or even the entire code can come from empathetic based conclusions.
But there are many that are non empathetic, but rationally decided to follow a moral code.

Examples in pop culture: Superman conduct is based on pure empathetic conclusions, Batman actions is pure based on moral code. The best stories of him explore this side, that if he step one milimeter out of the code he will go full bat-shit-crazy. This shows that he do not have empathy, he can't trust his own empathic feeling of right and wrong, and need to trust in the code.

Not at all, some of the worst of sadists have been completely emphatic, so as to savour the pain of others, if they did not understand and empathise with the agony they inflicted, they could derive no joy from it.
Morally they can know it is wrong and get a kick from doing wrong, but sharing in the pain of another requires an emphatic bond.