I believe that many people misunderstand what empathy really is. I would argue that empathy is an emotional response to the (perceived) emotions of other sentient beings. I believe that empathy is a form of love and to empathize with someone is to identify with their emotional state of mind (ie. you are happy because they are happy, and sad because they are sad). Imagination is the basis of empathy since we cannot literally feel what other people feel. If empathizing with someone means that you identify with their emotional state of mind then you have a vested interest in whoever you empathize with feeling happy and not feeling sad. Basing ethical decisions on empathy alone would naturally lead to hedonism : the idea that happiness is the *only* intrinsic good and suffering is the *only* intrinsic bad, since, if we based our decisions on empathy alone, our only concern would be how other people felt.

Although we intuitively feel that we desire things other than pleasure, this is an illusion, since pleasure is actually the satisfaction of desire. We're hardwired to associate the objects of our emotions with our emotions but it's pleasure/stress that we value/disvalue, not the things that cause pleasure/stress. If we adopted an ethics of empathy/hedonism, we could only regard an action as morally right if it minimized/prevented stress or increased happiness, wrong if it caused stress or frustrated someone's desire to be happy and neutral if it did neither. This has some uncomfortable conclusions for most people (for example, an empathy oriented/hedonist world view would justify infidelity or lying if neither had any negative consequences) but I haven't yet heard a good argument against hedonism or for the idea that things other than suffering/happiness actually matter.

I think pleasure leads something to become a desire. It's entirely possible for me to desire that there's an invisible dragon in my garage, but I wouldn't feel pleasure if there was, because I wouldn't know. Also, I won't desire something if I haven't done it yet, whether or not it gives me pleasure. I likely won't desire a new food that tastes good until I taste it.

Also, I suspect some of the problem is that there are things that are pleasure that we believe to be pain. I realized that once when I noticed I was looking forward to crying.

If you base your morality on empathy, wouldn't that bias it towards people you know?

I think pleasure leads something to become a desire. It's entirely possible for me to desire that there's an invisible dragon in my garage, but I wouldn't feel pleasure if there was, because I wouldn't know.

No, but the *idea* of there being a dragon in your garage causes you pleasure.

Also, I won't desire something if I haven't done it yet, whether or not it gives me pleasure. I likely won't desire a new food that tastes good until I taste it.

I don't really understand this. You can desire to try a new food because you expect that it might taste good.

Also, I suspect some of the problem is that there are things that are pleasure that we believe to be pain. I realized that once when I noticed I was looking forward to crying.

The fact that people can have mixed emotions or positive attitudes towards negative states (and vice versa) doesn't negate what I'm saying. For example, if there was a virtual reality machine that could simulate pleasurable experiences, most people would not want to spend the rest of their lives in this machine. This would seem to discount the idea that pleasure is all we value but I only have to point out that they would avoid plugging into this machine because the *idea* of living a lie is distressing, even if they know they won't know it is a lie or feel distressed once they have been plugged in. The idea of knowing the truth is gratifying even if actually knowing the truth is not.

If you base your morality on empathy, wouldn't that bias it towards people you know?

Just because we have the strongest empathetic response to friends, family members and people we regard as in-group members doesn't mean that we feel nothing for 'others'. Most people feel some empathy for strangers, non-human animals, humans from other ethnic groups etc. even if nowhere near as much as they do for friends, humans, members of their social groups etc. To identify with the emotions of beings who are very different from you requires strong character, it's easy to empathize with people who are like you or who you have you strong personal attachments to. I don't feel empathy for most human beings, it's difficult for me to care about people who are rude, uncaring and inconsiderate and that's a weakness on my part but I'm still convinced that empathy should be basis of ethical decisions. People can learn to have empathy for all sentient beings and not just some, through effort, practice and imagination. In fact, studies show that compassion meditation and reading fiction regularly can increase empathy.

Beautiful post Ubuntu. I don't have any substantial objections to what you've said, just some semantic ones.

Firstly, is empathy really the right word to use? As I see it, empathy means understanding others' emotions whereas sympathy means experiencing others' emotions. It sounds to me like you're referring to sympathy...

Secondly, you said that:

Although we intuitively feel that we desire things other than pleasure, this is an illusion, since pleasure is actually the satisfaction of desire.

I'd rather say that although we desire things other than pleasure, these desires are not morally important. Rather than say there are real desires and illusory desires, I'd say there are internal desires and external desires (it's not my terminology). Internal desires are the ones that matter. They relate to pleasure and pain. The external desires are desires for things that fall outside of our world of experience. External desires really happen. I really do wish the best for the people of Afganistan, for example. That's no illusion. The illusory part is that my desire counts for anything, morally.

Beautiful post Ubuntu. I don't have any substantial objections to what you've said, just some semantic ones.

Firstly, is empathy really the right word to use? As I see it, empathy means understanding others' emotions whereas sympathy means experiencing others' emotions. It sounds to me like you're referring to sympathy...

Thanks, Ryan. Etymologically, em-pathy and sym-pathy mean the same thing so I think they can be used interchangeably. I usually avoid using 'sympathy' unless it's 'sympathetic happiness/stress' because it has condescending undertones (like 'pity'), even though it shouldn't since it just means 'with feeling'.

I'd rather say that although we desire things other than pleasure, these desires are not morally important. Rather than say there are real desires and illusory desires, I'd say there are internal desires and external desires (it's not my terminology). Internal desires are the ones that matter. They relate to pleasure and pain. The external desires are desires for things that fall outside of our world of experience. External desires really happen. I really do wish the best for the people of Afganistan, for example. That's no illusion. The illusory part is that my desire counts for anything, morally.

I'm not sure I understand or agree. If people believe that they genuinely desire things other than pleasure, then you're deciding on their behalf that pleasure is better for them even if they'd rather have other things. It's also condescending to tell someone what they 'really' want but if they come to see the logic in motivational hedonism then they'll see why ethical decisions should be geared towards emotional well-being. Regardless of ethics, I just do not believe that external desires exist and sentient beings actually want or don't want the objects of their emotions rather than the emotions themselves. Like I said in another thread, value is subjective so I don't see how someone can subjectively value something that they aren't subjectively aware of.

Another problem with basing your morality on empathy: some people don't feel empathy. Basing it off of an emotion not everyone has gives the impression that morality doesn't matter for everyone, and that morality is relative.

Personally, I base it on selfishness. I think a universe in which I'm happier is better. I doubt there's much difference with anyone else, so a universe in which they're happier is better too.

Some people do not feel empathy but some people do not think critically either. If someone doesn't feel empathy for others or posses the capacity to reason then there is no argument you can make to convince someone to behave ethically, whatever you consider to be ethical.

I thought ethics was the branch of philosophy that deals with how people should treat others. How can your code of ethics be based on your own happiness? I believe, all other factors considered, that empathetic people are happier since empathy is a form of love and love is a pleasurable emotion. Empathy is not 'selfless' but it isn't 'single-minded' either.

I believe that empathy leads to hedonism but that doesn't necessarily mean an ethical hedonist must feel empathy for others. (S)he could avoid harming others or doing what they can to minimize suffering as a matter of principle and not emotion. Even if they don't actually feel empathy, they are still behaving similarly to how an empathetic person would behave.

The idea that a rational person couldn't be convinced by an argument leads me to believe the argument is faulty. Not that there's something fundamentally false about being a psychopath. Our brains tend to be built to understand others, but there's no reason they have to be.

My own happiness is the only thing that I really feel I ought to improve. It's what my goals tend to be based on. It's the best I can get to solving the is-ought problem. I don't see what empathetic people being happy has to do with it.

^^^Decisions are not based on logic, they are based on emotional desires and *guided* by logic. Jumping off of a tall building is only illogical because it would frustrate your desire to be happy (which requires being alive). If you had no desire to be happy, it wouldn't be logical or illogical. There is no rational argument as to why people should behave ethically, you have to appeal to a person's emotional desires and aversions before you can present a logical analysis as to why any lifestyle is 'good' or 'bad'.

Ethics is a matter of how you treat other people so I don't see how improving your own happiness can be the basis of your ethical philosophy (unless you're making a social contract argument). Taking a walk might make you happy but it's ethically neutral. Killing someone might make you happy but it's ethically bad. I believe that empathy, as a form of love, increases a person's emotional well being more than anything else, so if you want to be happy, you should try to be empathetic. I'm not one to talk since I tried and failed miserably.

There's a misunderstanding here. Ethics is not the branch of philosophy that deals with how you treat others. Ethics is the branch of philosophy that deals with morality, with the concepts of good and bad, right and wrong, just and unjust, virtuous and vicious. The difference is clear; with your concept of ethics whatever I do with myself that does not involve treating others is not a matter of ethics, but according to the general concept of ethics it is an issue for ethics.

You don't see how improving one's own happiness can be the basis of one's ethical philosophy because you're not using the regular definition of ethics.

Mike Retriever wrote:There's a misunderstanding here. Ethics is not the branch of philosophy that deals with how you treat others. Ethics is the branch of philosophy that deals with morality, with the concepts of good and bad, right and wrong, just and unjust, virtuous and vicious. The difference is clear; with your concept of ethics whatever I do with myself that does not involve treating others is not a matter of ethics, but according to the general concept of ethics it is an issue for ethics.

You don't see how improving one's own happiness can be the basis of one's ethical philosophy because you're not using the regular definition of ethics.

Can thoughts be considered unethical? In any event, I've been talking about normative ethics.

Mike Retriever wrote: [...]

Ubuntu wrote:Can thoughts be considered unethical?

Is such an event a possible scenario (for thoughts to be considered unethical)? The answer is, quite obviously, yes. Anything that might be considered can be considered.

Ubuntu wrote:In any event, I've been talking about normative ethics.

1^4 is 1. Normative ethics is ethics.

I thought that normative ethics dealt with ethical decision making. I'm talking about ethical decision making.

I don't see where you're heading at. For that matter, what hedonism are you talking about? Epicurean? Utilitarian?

Mike Retriever wrote:I don't see where you're heading at. For that matter, what hedonism are you talking about? Epicurean? Utilitarian?

The hedonism of Jeremy Bentham and the hedonism of Epicurus posit the same basic idea : that happiness is the only intrinsic good and stress is the only intrinsic bad. This is the 'hedonism' I'm talking about. (edit : did the ancient Greeks advocate egoist hedonism making Bentham the first to promote the idea of aggregate hedonism?)

This is my basic argument : empathy is an emotional identification with the feelings of others, to empathize with someone is to share their emotions. Ethical hedonism is the idea that an action is only ethical if it minimizes stress/increases happiness. If you empathized with someone, you would want them to be happy and you wouldn't want them to be sad, this leads to ethical hedonism (although not necessarily psychological hedonism - the view that pleasure/stress are the only things that sentient beings actually do value/dis-value or pursue/avoid, regardless of whether or not they should). An ethics of empathy and ethical hedonism (altruistic hedonism, not egoist hedonism) aren't two separate schools of thought, they are one and the same.

Character is an ethical issue, you're right (since being an empathetic person is why you care whether or not other people are happy or sad to begin with), but I'm talking about what makes an action ethical. I don't think it makes sense for people to place virtue ethics in contrast with deontology and consequentialism. D and C deal with decision making and either are compatible with VE.

Hedonism has something that empathy doesn't. Care for the self. There is no I in empathy, there is an I in hedonism. Through empathy there is no interest in the happiness of the self.

Ergo an ethics based on empathy is not equivalent to an ethics based on happiness, not in the all-inclusive sense of happiness you make reference to.

^^ And this is why people don't see the connection between the two. 'Hedonism' has undeserved, egoistic connotations.

Hedonism is a theory of value, it states that happiness is the only thing that is intrinsically beneficial and that stress is the only thing that is intrinsically harmful. Hedonism doesn't state that you should or should not harm others or that you should or should not care about your interests alone, it only defines 'harm', 'benefit' and 'interests'.

Empathy is an emotional identification with the (perceived) feelings of other beings. In order to justify an ethics of empathy, you have to resort to ontological hedonism. Making ethical decisions based on empathy alone can only be justified if feelings alone are intrinsically good or bad.

A consistent hedonist has to regard happiness/suffering as equally valuable and dis-valuable regardless of which nervous system it takes place in, at least in terms of quality. If you had access to the feelings of others, you would realize this. Empathy gives us such access. Since the ego is an illusion, we have to regard emotional experiences themselves to be good or bad period, not just good or bad for the specific 'minds' that experience them since the 'mind' is an illusion.