| | |
|
EmpathyAndTheLaw 11 - 06 Apr 2010 - Main.KrishnaSutaria
|
| | 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. | | | -- KalliopeKefallinos - 01 Apr 2010 | |
<
< | To the writer above: I think self-awareness of the kind that you allude to eventually leads to cohesion or something like it. If I am aware of all my roles and personalities, and know which one to marshal in any given situation, then at the very least, I have a dominant personality that regulates those activities. The complex process of self-observation that you just described seems to involve a coherent "you" that watched, objectively, what went on, with all the other "yous". To me, that objective observer implies some over-arching personality whose goal is to integrate all the other personalities into a functional framework so that you get what you need (or don't go plumb mad). Can't that functional framework be seen as some attempt at cohesion?
Slightly tangentially, it'd be interesting to explore how much of our own internal social organization, if it can be called that, mirrors society itself. | >
> | Kalliope, I think self-awareness of the kind that you allude to eventually leads to cohesion or something like it. If I am aware of all my roles and personalities, and know which one to marshal in any given situation, then at the very least, I have a dominant personality that regulates those activities. The complex process of self-observation that you just described seems to involve a coherent "you" that watched, objectively, what went on, with all the other "yous". To me, that objective observer implies some over-arching personality whose goal is to integrate all the other personalities into a functional framework so that you get what you need (or don't go plumb mad). Can't that functional framework be seen as some attempt at cohesion? | | | -- KrishnaSutaria - 02 Apr 2010 | | | 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 | |
>
> | Conrad, I agree with your sense of how human evolution and empathy might be linked. There has been some interesting research on empathy and mirror-neurons in recent years. If the studies can conclusively show that mirror-neuron activity is the basis for our sense of empathy, your argument will have greater force. It would mean empathy was so necessary for our survival that our brains developed a special network of neurons to ensure we feel it even for strangers.
Caroline, to tie all this back to your initial concern that you feel like a "rod for every passing emotional lighting bolt", perhaps the science means that you are one of those people with a particularly strong mirror-neuron system, and in some sense, neither law school, nor anything else short of a lobotomy will change your ability to empathize the way you do! But it doesn't have to be a toxic thing - you might be able to see your "problem" as a skill to be nurtured and harnessed.
-- KrishnaSutaria - 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.
|
|
| | |