Posted on

Does Empathy Equal Morality?

Empathy: Is it a good thing, a bad thing, or just a thing? Does being high in empathy make you a good person and does being low in empathy make you a bad person? Good questions. We turn to research to find the answer.

Turns out, the answer is actually that empathy is not moral or immoral, rather it is amoral. It’s just a thing. It does not make you a good person to have a lot or a bad person to have little. There is no such connection.

In a 2014 paper for the Psychological Bulletin, researchers reviewed all available data on this subject in a meta-analysis and found that 1% of the variation of aggression was due to lack of empathy. There is no real correlation to low empathy making you a bad person.

Studies show that when “spotlighting” one through empathy, one is willing to disregard laws, ethics, morals, and good reasoning to make sure the one they’re empathizing with is taken care of. This clearly clouds our judgement.

Participants in one study were willing to move one subject up in the list of transplants, even if it meant there was a good chance the subject would still live and a good chance the ones she skipped would die. It didn’t matter. Participants had empathy.

Another study took it another step and participants were willing to inflict pain that could result in hospitalization on a math contest participant that was opposing the one they were empathizing with. Didn’t matter. Gotta empathize.

You can only empathize with one person at a time. You can sympathize with many and have compassion for many. But you can only empathize with one at a time. This is why it is so dangerous.

Is it all bad? No. Cognitive empathy, theory of mind, and effective altruism are all ways in which empathy can be a good thing. We can allow it to drive us in a good direction but empathy must be met with analytic and altruistic reasoning that calibrates the possible upcoming action for effectiveness and realistic achievement. Understanding where someone is and how they are feeling is a good thing. When it propels us into unfettered, unbridled, blind action is when it becomes a problem.

Compassion is the best emotion to feel for those suffering. It is a true feeling that keeps bad decisions at bay long enough for your prefrontal cortex to get involved and make a rational decision. Rational compassion.

So, please remember this when you begin hearing people claiming empathy is the one all encompassing path to morality and goodness. It is FAR from that. On a good day.

Stay Classy GP!

Grainger

Posted on

Is There an Objective Morality?

Is there such a thing as objective morality? This is one of those questions that requires perspective. One could make a case that one’s sense of objective morality is in fact rooted in subjectivity, making it subjective morality and no longer objective.

For instance, if one says God is their objective morality, someone else could say that this is a belief, which is, in itself, subjective. There’s a strong case for this. So I’ll take a slightly deeper dive into this.

The term objective morality is the belief that there are morals and values that can be true and exist completely irrespective of individual opinions or cultural norms. As you’re reading this, you’re thinking that everyone disagrees on certain issues of values and norms, so they have to be subjective. For instance, it is immoral for a woman to get an education in some parts of the world. But in others, it is welcomed. They don’t agree.

The reality in this argument has two places of interest. Verbiage and Perspective.

In verbiage, we find that many believe that everything is subjective. No two people agree on absolutely everything. Therefore, there cannot be an objective set of values and morals. But the verbiage is off. The term objective morality never says that two people must agree on everything. It merely states that values and morals can exist outside of individual opinion. So, for example, there are no cultures in which you can steal someone’s property and it be widely accepted. It is objectively wrong to harm another human (outside of defense).

I once read some philosophy on this subject and saw two good points of view. First, let’s look at slavery. While there are still areas of slavery in the world today, no one will openly state that it is a good thing or a moral thing to be a slave owner. Everyone inherently knows it is wrong. Therefore, the objective morality around slavery exists. And if it exists anywhere, then it exists. It is the common sense theory. There are certain common sense areas where there is objective morality.

Another point of view is that when two people disagree over something, it is something subjective. But people won’t disagree over something objective. I love listening to Merle Haggard. My wife does not. The idea that he’s a great singer is a subjective principle. The idea that he has won Grammys is an objective principle. We won’t argue over whether he won Grammys. This is objectivity. This notion alone brings about the reality of an objective morality. If we can’t steal without causing harm, and we can’t enslave without causing harm, and we won’t argue over this being immoral, then it is based on an objective morality.

The other place of interest is perspective. This one is as simple as the first. If you have the perspective that there is no possibility of an objective morality, then there is nothing to stop you from taking what you want and doing what you want without limitations on your behavior. You have no guide, no standard, no measuring stick. Nothing is off limits. This will inevitably produce strife, recklessness, chaos, pain, heartache, and suffering of all sorts. Anyone that’s lived for any amount of adulthood time knows this. Therefore, the perspective must be that there is a standard by which we all live. There must be an objective morality. Or at least there must be the perspective of an objective morality. The only real question for many is where this objective morality would derive from. My favorite psychologist, Dr. Jordan B. Peterson, once said, “I live as though there is a God.”

As Christians, we believe this objective morality comes from God and God’s word to us. But again, there is this perspective thing that creeps its head into the church. For instance, Calvinism. Calvinism is the belief that God already knows everything, everything has already been determined, and your life is a predicted outcome of circumstances and events that will not change God’s predetermined mind as to who enters the kingdom of heaven. The premise was that one should live hoping to be that soul. There is a case to be made that this is factually true. However, the problem with this line of thinking is obvious. If your perspective is that God has already chosen who enters heaven, then it doesn’t matter how you live. There again, you find yourself having no limitations on your behavior, leading you right back down that hole of despair and brokenness. I must say that if there is not a single source of objective morality from which you pull your belief system from, you are bound to be misled into a way of thinking that is not grounded in fact or anything helpful to society. Again, for me, it is God. The system of God and Christianity leads me to a place of being the best version of me if I follow the teachings. I firmly believe the denial of an objective morality is the denial of evil, and we all know evil exists. God has never steered me wrong before. I don’t expect Him to anytime soon.

Stay Classy GP!

Grainger