So psychopathy is obviously wrong.....but then again so is total empathy for all suffering....where to put the stick?

Edit: typo

Hello mods...two threads on this...software glitch....please delete 1...maybe you're all asleep

There is no definitive answer to this question but the default position might be that empathy should be conditional on how deserving someone should be with regard to receiving it. My rule of thumb is that someone who is truly sorry for what they have done deserves it more than someone who is not. I do not like judging people and so those who have shown absolutely
no remorse for what they have done I would ignore rather than hate

You seem to be talking about forgiveness rather than empathy. Empathy concerns understanding the feelings and condition of another from their perspective. You say only people who are remorseful deserve it. I am interested as to why you see empathy as a gift you're giving to someone else, rather than a quality and a skill that one possesses.

If you take the example of psychopathy, it is not that difficult to imagine that life for such a person might be experienced a certain way, like, say being concerned about yourself and not caring about others - we often wish we were more like this because we perceive life lived in such a manner, without care for anyone's opinions or feelings, would be rather freeing. Or, like, many of them end up without close friends, and in trouble with the authorities or in prison, an outsider of society, because of what they are. You know how you would feel in that situation, and so you can empathise. That in no way indicates that you approve of or forgive a psychopath's behaviour.

I said those who are truly sorry are more deserving of empathy. I find it easier to empathise with them simply because they accept responsibility for their actions so are less likely to repeat them. That is what I would do were I in the same situation
I find it more harder to empathise with those who do not accept responsibility for their actions. Although I could empathise
if I wanted to. So I would not automatically rule it out. I think it more emotional than logical as it is a conditioned response

Psychopaths do not feel remorse in the same way non psychopaths do so they re not in any moral sense responsible
for their actions. Their brain chemistry is fundamentally different so it is not some thing they have any control over
Consequently I can feel more sorry for them than I can for non psychopaths who may have committed similar crimes

So...still conflating empathy with sympathy then?

Still, at least Fallible got to practice her typing skills.

Fallible wrote:Empathy concerns understanding the feelings and condition of another from their perspective.

I think that not only does the empathetic person understand other people's perspective, but they feel their pain/joy on an emotional level. I guess it's possible to empathise with confusion/apathy etc ad infinitum but perhaps such things do not illicit an emotional reaction...

surreptitious57 wrote:I said those who are truly sorry are more deserving of empathy.

I know you did, I read it the first time. Again, why do you perceive empathy as a gift to be bestowed upon another person, rather than a quality or skill which an individual possesses? Have you considered that just pretending that someone doesn't exist might be more detrimental to you than being able to understand their behaviour?

I find it easier to empathise with them simply because they accept responsibility for their actions so are less likely to repeat them. That is what I would do were I in the same situation

That you find it easier to empathise with some more than others is a different proposition than that you make the decision about with whom to empathise based upon their worthiness.

I find it more harder to empathise with those who do not accept responsibility for their actions. Although I could empathise
if I wanted to. So I would not automatically rule it out. I think it more emotional than logical as it is a conditioned response

And you find it more logical to simply ignore people? If empathy were utilised more often, we might find we had fewer conflicts and less distress overall.

Psychopaths do not feel remorse in the same way non psychopaths do so they re not in any moral sense responsible
for their actions. Their brain chemistry is fundamentally different so it is not some thing they have any control over
Consequently I can feel more sorry for them than I can for non psychopaths who may have committed similar crimes

Seriously? What do you think remorse is, if not the result of brain chemistry? Why do you think people feel no remorse about something? Because they choose not to? Secondly, you are saying that it is people without remorse who are not deserving of empathy, not criminals in general. Thirdly, you still show signs of confusing empathy with forgiveness, or perhaps sympathy. Empathy does not involve feeling sorry for people. An illustration:

Sympathy - aww, I feel really sorry for paedophiles. They get put in prison, beaten up and killed. That's so mean. They can't help finding children sexually attractive. Won't somebody think of the paedophiles!? It must be so awful for them, I just can't imagine what they go through. I wish I could do something to help them. I just feel like putting my arms around them and giving them a big hug. They can come and live with me, I'll look after them.

Empathy - if I were a paedophile, I think I might feel several things - scared to be myself, ashamed of my own feelings, depressed because the thing I need I can never have legally, angry that everyone else gets help but I can't, and extremely sorry for myself. I would probably find It difficulty to accept responsibility, because I didn't do anything to make myself this way, so cannot be blamed for it. It seems to me that this would be a life that I would find extremely hard to cope with, and I would probably consider killing myself. In any event, it is highly likely that I would feel extremely miserable for much of the time, and without hope of ever finding peace. Whatever the underlying reason for these emotions, it sounds to me to be incredibly shit and awful.

See the difference?

Keep It Real wrote:

Fallible wrote:Empathy concerns understanding the feelings and condition of another from their perspective.

I think that not only does the empathetic person understand other people's perspective, but they feel their pain/joy on an emotional level. I guess it's possible to empathise with confusion/apathy etc ad infinitum but perhaps such things do not illicit an emotional reaction...

I don't know that that's imperative. I wouldn't say I feel all another's emotions, but it depends what you mean. You know what pain feels like, I know what pain feels like. Do we feel exactly the same thing? No way of knowing, but in general, yeah. When you express pain I recognise it, so I understand it. Sometimes when another's pain is more personal to me due to subject matter, I feel it, definitely. Actually I've changed my mind while typing this. I think I do feel it, as an often lightning fast, fleeting sensation.

Apathy used to elicit a very strong emotion in me, actually - frustration.

too drunk to type sorry fal

Fallible wrote:Empathy - if I were a paedophile, I think I might feel several things - scared to be myself, ashamed of my own feelings, depressed because the thing I need I can never have legally, angry that everyone else gets help but I can't, and extremely sorry for myself. I would probably find It difficulty to accept responsibility, because I didn't do anything to make myself this way, so cannot be blamed for it. It seems to me that this would be a life that I would find extremely hard to cope with, and I would probably consider killing myself. In any event, it is highly likely that I would feel extremely miserable for much of the time, and without hope of ever finding peace. Whatever the underlying reason for these emotions, it sounds to me to be incredibly shit and awful.

That's more Theory of Mind than empathy innit fal?

I just spoke with a WPC about my wanting somebody checked on because I'm worried about them and am not legally allowed to check on them myself currently. She said I need to start looking after myself, and that reminded me of this thread therefore bump.

Keep It Real wrote:

Fallible wrote:Empathy - if I were a paedophile, I think I might feel several things - scared to be myself, ashamed of my own feelings, depressed because the thing I need I can never have legally, angry that everyone else gets help but I can't, and extremely sorry for myself. I would probably find It difficulty to accept responsibility, because I didn't do anything to make myself this way, so cannot be blamed for it. It seems to me that this would be a life that I would find extremely hard to cope with, and I would probably consider killing myself. In any event, it is highly likely that I would feel extremely miserable for much of the time, and without hope of ever finding peace. Whatever the underlying reason for these emotions, it sounds to me to be incredibly shit and awful.

That's more Theory of Mind than empathy innit fal?

No.

Well, that's me educated

I'm not here to educate you.

Fine then: informed. It's like if somebody goes on a five paragraph rant about why they are a creationist, and your response is simply "I disagree." Worthless.

Keep It Real wrote:Fine then: informed. It's like if somebody goes on a five paragraph rant about why they are a creationist, and your response is simply "I disagree." Worthless.

Fall wrote a paragraph explaining empathy.
You then respond with a glib one line rejection dismissing it as "theory of the mind".

So it is of little surprise that her response to your nonsense was "no."

For the purposes of analogy, this is like someone (in this case Fall) writing a five paragraph explanation of evolution and then someone else (like you) saying "well that's like goddit it" and Fall responding with "no."

Don't blame other people if you disregard what they write and then are laconic in their further responses to you.

I'm sure Fall is aware of the Theory of the Mind, so lobbing up a wikipedia link in lieu of actual meaningful explanation is not an improvement over your earlier response to which was deservedly responded to with brevity.

It's not called theory of the mind; it's called theory of mind. Your ignorance of it is irrevocably demonstrated in post #17 where you name it incorrectly. Attempting to backtrack and make out like you knew all along is completely transparant - your post above is reminiscent of contemptible ego fragility. Bigupz.