Agnostic.com

20 5

Are morality and empathy basically the same?

Many people tend to conflate morality and empathy. They think that it is sufficient to be empathetic in order to act morally. But that is not the case.

Empathy is restricted to cases of personal contact; I only can feel empathy with person A or B, and I have to know these persons.
Morality is a set of rules, to be applied even when I do not know the persons concerned. These rules tell us what is "the right thing to do", whether I feel anything or not.

Empathy is for small-scale groups, families, friends, but when I have to decide how to act in a situation where I do not know the majority of persons concerned, empathy is a bad guide, it can even lead to unmoral behavior, for example when I care for somebody I can relate with, but refuse to give aid to people I find slightly disgusting (poor people, people of other 'races', people of other religious or political affiliation...)

Therefore in a society where we have to navigate and act amid strangers with whom we may meet only once in our live, a feeling like empathy is a bad guide, in this case we need a set of abstract rules to be applied not because I feel like to do so, but because it just is the right thing to do, notwithstanding personal feelings, whims or preferences.

Matias 8 Jan 22
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

20 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

0

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.

0
0

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.

1

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

Morality has very little to do with 'doing the right thing'.

3

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.

skado Level 9 Jan 22, 2019

Point 4 is what it is really all about.

3

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.

1

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.

1

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

that is why we need a morale compass. Sometimes we HAVE those feelings. It doesn't mean that we have to act on those feelings.

@Matias No, not being a saint I do free disgust when confronted with certain people, I just am not being empathic when I do so.

0

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 believe that wolves have a complex set of rules for behavior, they are just different than our own.

@AmmaRE007 If you have language then culture will follow, give any animal language and it will expand on the emotional and instinctive basic rules that are inherent to it, to make a culture which includes morality. But without those basic drives then there is no reason to develop culture only limitless apathy.

2

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.

1

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.

what would be the difference ( if any) between Morals and ethics?

@AmmaRE007 not much?

@AmmaRE007 Ethics are more formal, outward, group related while morals are more internal, personal... though often stem from family or religious ties... they are more taken to heart.

0

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.

AmyLF Level 7 Jan 22, 2019
0

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.

0

You make a lot of black and white assumptions.

Many people conflate empathy and morality? You often demand hard evidence when commenters offer opinions on things, including me, so, where is your evidence for this? Well, maybe it's just your opinion. Ok.

Empathy is restricted to cases of personal contact. Really? Consider the very large number of people in the US who oppose and protest Trump storm trooper approach to asylum seekers. Same here in Australia where children of refugees are psychologically damaged in off shore detention centres, mainly to serve right wing political aims. As f'ing always. Large numbers of people, like me, are appalled. Never met them, but lots of empathy, and impact on voting. That's not empathy?

It is true that sociopathic and similar people have empathy only for people they know, and little for the "hordes" they neither know nor care about. But that's them, not all of us.

Your last paragraph seems like a thinly veiled defence of rules of morality. But who decides them? Religious types think consensual adult sex out of marriage is immoral. Gay people, immoral. Etc. I don't. I think multinational companies that screw the planet and people over, are immoral. I think right wing rich people who have great health coverage while opposing health programs, medication and treatment for poorer people, so they die, is immoral. And so on. So, what are your agreed "abstract rules", how would they be generally agreed upon, and what purpose would they serve anyway being "abstract"?

0

Empathy is not just for small scale groups. Empathy occurs any time I can "put myself in another's shoes.: I may not know the person or even be a member of the same social group. So long as a can comprehend the situation and have some conception of how I might feel in the same situation, I have the basis for empathy. The only other thing that is required for empathy is the tendency to feel kindly toward others.

That being said, empathy and morality are not the same thing. I can feel empathy fora person who has done something wrong, but still judge that persons actions to be immoral.

1

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.

1

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.

@K9Kohle789 Not necessarily religious. There are a number of people who have a moral code that are not based in religion.

0

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...

1

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.

1

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.

You probably mean empatethic which is very different from emphatic.

em·phat·ic (/əmˈfadik/)
adjective

  1. showing or giving emphasis; expressing something forcibly and clearly.
    "the children were emphatic that they would like to repeat the experience"
    synonyms: vehement, firm, wholehearted, forceful, forcible, energetic, vigorous, ardent, assertive, insistent;

noun

  1. an emphatic consonant.

em·pa·thet·ic(/ˌempəˈTHedik/)
adjective
showing an ability to understand and share the feelings of another.
"she's compassionate and empathetic towards her daughter"

@Mofo1953

Auto correct and dyslexia, not always a good combination.

If you you genuinely thought I meant Emphatic in this context you lack empathy yourself, but never mind you make up for it with pedantry 🙂

@LenHazell53 Len, I am not pedantic at all. You did use "empathise" correctly in your first paragraph that's why. And you are right, I do not empathise with people who assume too much.

@Mofo1953

@LenHazell53 So this video is supposed to put me in my place? Hey, if this new assumption makes you happy, knock yourself out!

@linxminx I have noticed that too, feign ignorance and lie are now the go to reactions for most vicious people today, accompanied by a knowing superior grin that they are to stupid to realise undermines their whole contention.

@maturin1919
You are I believe confusing empathy with sympathy.
Empathy is the ability to understand and share the feelings of another. It is not sympathy feelings of pity and sorrow for someone else's misfortune. Whereas the latter is necessarily positive and compassionate there is no such mandate to the former, the sadist takes pleasure in the misfortune of the other especially when he or she has been directly responsible for it, for this understanding without compassion is necessary in order that the Sadist may draw personal pleasure from that empathy, if he or she does not draw pleasure they are not a sadist they are at best a sociopath at worst a Psychopath.

@maturin1919 Point taken and to be fair I should have said "I believe you may be.."

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:271241
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.