| | |
|
EmpathyAndTheLaw 10 - 06 Apr 2010 - Main.ConradCoutinho
|
| | I am lucky, in that my name begins with a C and Eben edited my paper a long time ago. Still, it took me some time to inure myself to the scary red ink and actually digest his comments. His notes, along with this class, raise some issues I find both interesting and very complicated and I welcome your thoughts and help in sorting them out. (You can read his edits here - CarolineFerrisWhiteFirstPaper)
If I understand correctly, Eben sees empathy and empathic responses as one way of distinguishing between criminal/antisocial and social behavior. The ready distinction seems to be between those who feel for and can imagine the experiences of others, leading them to treat others with respect, and those who for whatever reason can't imagine the experiences of others, and so think only of their own interests and desires. But it's not always so clear: Eben points to the case of the empathic individual who nonetheless behaves antisocially, and the complex system of internal justifications this creates. Probably most people who commit crimes fall into this category. | | |
-- MikeAbend - 04 Apr 2010 | |
>
> |
@Mike
From an evolutionary perspective, it's unsurprising that human's are empathetic to individuals that they do not know.
Disclaimer: What follows is speculative, rough, "just so" story about human evolution. It's not meant to be "the truth," but simply a very possible account of how empathy for strangers might have come about in human social groups. Moreover, it's a very gene-centered account of evolution which opens it up to a whole host of criticisms.
There are different levels of empathy. Empathy for close family members is unsurprising evolutionarily--we share genes with our family members, behaviors that help spread those genes is evolutionary beneficial, so we care about the well-being of our family members. Many "less complex" animals display this type of empathy.
As cooperation became more important for survival, and, similarly, there were significant survival benefits for larger groups (something like gains from scale), the well-being of any individual became more and more dependant on individuals outside one's immediate family. The upshot: since cooperation amongst large groups became important or even necessary for survival, and empathy is necessary for cooperation, empathy became more prevalent.
Finally, as significance survival benefits accrued to larger and more complex societies, the need to cooperate--and thus the need for empathy--expanded to include individuals that we never met before.
Since human evolution , more so than many other animals, has been driven by cooperation and social groups, it makes more sense for us to be more empathetic.
This isn't to say empathy--or the morality that comes from it--is, at base, "secret selfishness." Many traits can simultaneously have an evolutionary significance and a "higher" significance--what might be called psychological or philosophical significance. For example, acknowledging the evolutionary significance of our sense of taste--to help us distinguish between poison and food, to help us eat high calorie foods, etc--does not take away from the enjoyment of a gourmet meal. Nor is it the case that we aren't "really" enjoying the meal just because there is an evolutionary explanation of our sense of taste.
-- ConradCoutinho - 06 Apr 2010 | | | |
|
|
|
|
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform.
All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
All material marked as authored by Eben Moglen is available under the license terms CC-BY-SA version 4.
|
|
| | |