entropie
Permabanned
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2008
- Messages
- 16,767
- MBTI Type
- entp
- Enneagram
- 783
Did I? What isnt clear?
hehe thanks, but I better stick to math. Philosophy makes me dizzy.
Did I? What isnt clear?
My first reaction is to suggest Saudade place the bar a little higher for defining a "nice guy".Ethics isn't black and white. /thread
Jeffrey Dahmer was a nice guy and an animal lover. Hitler too for that matter. Apparently Ghandi was a pedophile.. Lol.
My assertion is NOT that people are all or nothing. It is true that individuals are not black or white, but they are also not black and white. What is happening in the assertions being made based on examples given is that people are equally good and evil. One cardboard cutout is being replaced by two equally shallow cutouts. There are degrees of cruelty that constrain a person's ability for compassion, and there are levels of compassion that constrain a person's ability for cruelty.
This is interesting because I agree with everything you have said here. This is a very difficult topic to define because it combines the internal, subjective perceptions of the individual with the external, objective results of their behavior (combined with another set of internal, subjective perceptions of the recipient of a behavior).sorry it took me time, i missed the quote
anyway, while i agree that we are complicated systems rather than random, this over simplification is in no way a direct result:
first, you are assuming that people consciously make the choice to be cruel within an objective perspective, while i find that a lot of people who are cruel don't allow themselves to include the perspective suggesting that they are in the first place, rather they focus on a painted perspective formed around the reason & justifications of their actions, which usually have nothing to do with wanting to be cruel, but rather accepting that the means justify their own ends.
for example, while someone else got robbed, someone else was just getting money to feed themselves and their family. or, as a result of a battle or a fight, many people will have just lost their lovers, children, parents, and ofcourse their own lives... but the person who did it will frame it as defending their friends & family or doing their duty (not necessarily their army - it can also be a gang for that matter). one person expresses their emotions and acts on their right for physical movement, another person gets kicked. one person frames things in a way that they find acceptable to others because their afraid to come to terms with the truth, but someone else got lied too. even in an argument - someone could say they weren't planning to offend anyone they where just protecting their own side, and hey maybe i could do the same and say i never offend or use anyone, i just make my points and speak my mind and try to understand them.
ofcourse those are all false dichotomies, but the human mind loves them, and the compassion never kicks in to prevent us from causing it because it doesn't enter the subjective story we tell ourselves.
IMO there's not really inherently good or bad people, just good or bad actions.what does the statement says to you? what meaning would you derive from it?
My primary doubt is that a state of pure ego-centricity that produces cruelty (regardless of perception or internal justifications) can co-exist with extreme states of empathy that focus on the other creatures feelings and perceptions. We each have a range within this continuum, but I do not see a way that the two ends of the spectrum can co-exist.
http://www.diffen.com/difference/Empathy_vs_SympathyI think at its core, empathy comes down to a sense of deep respect for other creatures that allows them control over their needs and their life.
This is an interesting foundation to this question - the extent to which this can be compartmentalized and the extent to which it falls on a continuum. I would need to see some evidence or psychological theory that could show the possibility for someone to compartmentalize to an extreme degree.i think this might be a misconception:
using your example, the woman you talked about is able to experience empathy to her dog (assuming i got this right) has a difficulty experiencing empathy with other humans. she might have any number of reasons for that - it could be humans were very mean to her but dog's weren't, or that she can't withstand judgement from others so she openly ups her empathy to subjects that can't judge her, or any other reason (or combination thereof). regardless of why, the fact seems to be she is turning her empathy selectively. likewise, the fact other people are able to not be empathic towards her when she isn't empathic towards them, shows that they are able to engage their empathy selectively.
for that matter, the fact you, me and probably most people don't have much empathy towards hitler shows we can engage our empathy selectively. there are men buying their future fiance's african blood diamonds right now because they want to make her happy, or toys made in sweatshops because they want to make their children happy, choosing a closer subject of empathy over distance subjects of empathy, while others can easily shit on the needs of their closest loved ones and sacrifice themselves to whatever greater good they happen to believe in, like troops leaving their families to fight in a war, or for that matter entire households who will send their children to fight in a war they believe is for some greater religious good, and can quite possibly be doing so because they have empathy for the poor souls who they imagine suffering for eternity if their religious cause wasn't furthered. there are plenty of other examples - for example empathy for the animals we eat.
the point being: regardless of one's capacity for empathy, people are able to compartmentalize it.
it gets even more complicated after that, because even once you engage your empathy, it's still a process: you have the frontal process of gauging information about the perspective of another and how accurate it is, then you have the process of how much of the experience of another you relate to and to what degree, how you prioritize that experience and what do you value about that information, and probably quite a few more - all happening to a large degree on a rather subconscious level.
so for example, someone can be entirely in tune with the information they gather about themselves from others, but value how they are themselves perceived from the perspective of others over the factor of relating to the experience of others. now add the fact that empathy itself is an ideal, and people can act not out of "genuine empathy" but out of wanting to appear empathetic so that they can maintain it as a positive belief about themselves.
hmm, i gave you examples recognizable from everyday life... don't those count as evidence (i agree that they aren't proof, but in terms of supporting evidence)?This is an interesting foundation to this question - the extent to which this can be compartmentalized and the extent to which it falls on a continuum. I would need to see some evidence or psychological theory that could show the possibility for someone to compartmentalize to an extreme degree.
Her compassion for dogs places a constraint on her harm, because when she is convinced that humans are not dismissing her or attempting to cause her harm, then she can work to respond in a more thoughtful manner.
I have also known individuals who have committed harm for pleasure, and even though they have displayed acts of tenderness and compassion, it has shown internally to be a performance for some other benefit.
its a thought i've been toying with, probably has happened at some point but that's besides the point...
what does the statement says to you? what meaning would you derive from it?
Ethics are subjective and variable. For example it might be commonly accepted to kill an infestation of rats in a garage, yet it would be considered cruelty to kill a colony of wild cats in another garage.
They do count as evidence, but to address the examples of Jeffrey Dahmer loving his dog and helping a wounded bird, those example alone speak to someone who is clearly an animal lover. Combined with an obsession to bring home dead animals and dissect them, leaving their bodies to rot in the basement, etc. suggests a plausibly different context. Still those two fact alone suggest someone fascinated with animals and how their bodies work. This could be an neuro-atypical person who could become an excellent veterinarian and who genuinely loves animals, but is just psychologically a bit *off*. Combine that with someone who also murders and eats people, it doesn't seem outlandish to question the motivation and the experience of the helpfulness towards animals.hmm, i gave you examples recognizable from everyday life... don't those count as evidence (i agree that they aren't proof, but in terms of supporting evidence)?
I teach music, have studied special ed, and am given all the special needs students at my school, so it is close to music therapy, but a little different. She is an interesting person, and yes, her empathy is circumstantial and a good example of compartmentalism. Her relationship to social cues and subtext is complex. She makes self-destructive choices in her conflict behavior, so she is not in control of it to her own benefit. She has areas of extreme obliviousness, but when she rakes someone over the coals, she can target and push buttons that hit home psychologically to the person, so there is some type of awareness. I withhold absolute conclusions and still observe. I have worked with her for about three years and in that time she has gone through 2-3 counselors, 2 piano teachers, several handymen, and more guitar teachers than I can keep track of counting. With most people tension builds up until there is a blow-out and she is kicked out of a studio. She does insult me and tension could mount, but because I work with her song-writing and have glimpsed her genuineness of spirit, so I *like* her. I still feel there is some kind of deep coherency to her world-view even though her behavior is compartmentalized. Because of this I believe there are ways to help her recover when she is being verbally abusive - there are ways to trigger and recontextualize things so that she comes back to a place of better reason. It feels like the inconsistency is the result of fragmented perception and fleeting interaction. When the whole picture is seen, it becomes more consistent. I can't prove it, and I can certainly be mistaken, but I lean towards that. Of course I could be molded by confirmation bias, and so continue to observe.either way, i am finding your client (patient? music therapy student? i am still not entirely sure what you do) to be a compelling example:
1. we see here two aspects - her empathy is circumstantial - it's not an always on status, she can do it when the right conditions apply.
2. she is capable of the later elements of empathy once she has the information about the experience of another, but she is limited in what information she can gauge from them in the first place.
actually this brings up an interesting side question that might be related: how well does she do with social cues & subtext in general (not necessarily emotional)?
Yes this is true and has been recently on my mind. There is a problem with making any assumptions about internal motivation because it cannot be measured or proven. There is abundant evidence of behaviors being inconsistent in people, and mental compartmentalism can also be demonstrated. Whether or not there is some type of underlying cohesion that explains these inconsistencies is not something I would know how to prove, but it is a hypothesis that is not without some reason. In observation of people, I don't think it should be taken off the table as a possibility.the problem here is the observer: once you introduce psychological feedback into the game (rather than just material gain), you can always find possible ulterior motives for compassionate behaviors when you are looking for one, and on the other side of the coin, if you are looking at someone with good faith, you might not look for an ulterior motive to begin with.
you can also do the opposite: it's quite possible that the sadist is genuinely compassionate when they act out of compassion, but when they are in the act their need for power over others overwhelm it, meaning the pain isn't the source of the pleasure, but the position it puts them in is - they are still focusing on their reason without including the full implication it has on others.