How do your religious beliefs impact your views on medicine if at all?

[Bacchus]

I'm curious how the religious vs. non-religious folks weight in on this one: Do you think humans are inherently good and in some cases later corrupted, evil , or born as a blank slate and thus a product of their enviroment?

Personally I'm in the camp of everyone is born as a blank slate, and their goodness vs. evilness is slowly made over years of experiences.

I believe environmental factors play a huge role in anger development. Here are three papers that I used for a topic I wrote about in genetics, anger expression.

1Bendersky M, Bennett D, Lewis M. 2006. Aggression at age 5 as a function of prenatal exposure to cocaine, gender, and environmental risk. J Pediatr Psychol. 31(1):71–84.
2Nurse J, Woodcock P, Ormsby J. 2003. Influence of environmental factors on mental health within prisons: focus group study. BMJ. 327(7413):480-85.
3Quigley DD, Jaycox LH, McCaffrey DF, Marshall GN. 2006. Peer and family influences on adolescent anger expression and the acceptance of cross-gender aggression. Violence and Victims. 21(5):597-611.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Chemdude]

Not likely. Odds are good that there is a very strong nature component to sociopathy. Not all children are pure, not all people are born good.

I have to disagree. IMO, an individual can not be born a criminal. This is totally based on my religious opinion(so I can't really prove it to you).

Of course there are always two sides to the nature-nurture debate, but proving someone can inherit criminal qualities is very serious. This would mean that some individuals would be more prone to committing murder, rape, theft, etc. I'm pretty sure that if a strong link between sociopathy and genetics was found, a lot of people would want pre-emptive justice. People would start asking for the abortion or confinement of "unwanted" individuals. It would probably become illegal for people who have "criminal genes" to reproduce. Because this sounds so outlandish, I don't think there is a relationship between genetics and sociopathy.

 

[Retsage]

A person has a right to their own life, including the right to end it. Absolutely no person on earth has any claim to the existence of another. None. You do not get to force a person to live when they wish to die, THAT is the real moral crime.

And you do not get to force somebody to murder you because you want to die. Sorry, it doesn't work like that.


Chemdude, that may possibly be the most ridiculous reasoning I have ever read in my life. That's like saying because of the potential of the atomic bomb, you don't believe fission exists. Social ramifications do not influence truth or reality, they are merely byproducts of it.

 

[HeatherMD]

And you do not get to force somebody to murder you because you want to die. Sorry, it doesn't work like that.

Who said anything about forcing?

 

[Chemdude]

I don't believe in afterlife.

My best friend died, after we'd essentially been raised together for 20 years. I would love for there to be some magical place where she's now hanging out, eating good food (calorie free!), listening to our favorite songs, and watching down on me living a life she didn't get to live. That'd be great, and thinking that she really is "out there" somewhere is certainly comforting, and was a really good tool to help me cope with the fact that I'll live the rest of my life without her. Not to mention that the idea of just ceasing to exist is pretty abstract in itself. How can people so complex just decompose into, like you said, organic matter?

The idea of an afterlife is tempting. But it's not something I can logically reason is true. It's not something that I've ever seen any evidence for. And most of all, I just isn't something I feel or have faith in... which I think is really the bottom line. No logical argument can persuade someone either way, I think it's just what you believe.

Wow..although I disagree with you, that was a very powerful statement.
I think your friend is in "some magical place where she's now hanging out, eating good food (calorie free!), listening to our favorite songs, and watching down on me living a life she didn't get to live"

 

[Retsage]

Who said anything about forcing?

*shrug* Your previous posts paint you as someone who believes all physicians must ignore their morals and values when it comes to "treatment." It didn't seem like euthanasia would be different for you.

 

[HeatherMD]

I have to disagree. IMO, an individual can not be born a criminal. This is totally based on my religious opinion(so I can't really prove it to you).

Of course there are always two sides to the nature-nurture debate, but proving someone can inherit criminal qualities is very serious. This would mean that some individuals would be more prone to committing murder, rape, theft, etc. I'm pretty sure that if a strong link between sociopathy and genetics was found, a lot of people would want pre-emptive justice. People would start asking for the abortion or confinement of "unwanted" individuals. It would probably become illegal for people who have "criminal genes" to reproduce. Because this sounds so outlandish, I don't think there is a relationship between genetics and sociopathy.

oh get real.

No one's going to start practicing eugenics because genetic pre-disposition to certain behaviors exists.

We've already proven there's genetic pre-disposition to many, many diseases and ailments, and yet there is no forced abortion or confinement for these individuals that will require a ton of professional care and sometimes experience a greatly reduced quality of life.

We can't remove a person's right to have children, nor can we execute punishment for crimes not yet committed -- ones that may never be committed.
Have some faith in reason. I like to believe the population isn't THAT ridiculous.

 

[Retsage]

Why would weeding out sociopathy be a bad thing again?

More importantly, if we find out about the predispositions, we're better able to treat off the bat.

 

[GoSpursGo]

I have to disagree. IMO, an individual can not be born a criminal. This is totally based on my religious opinion(so I can't really prove it to you).

Of course there are always two sides to the nature-nurture debate, but proving someone can inherit criminal qualities is very serious. This would mean that some individuals would be more prone to committing murder, rape, theft, etc. I'm pretty sure that if a strong link between sociopathy and genetics was found, a lot of people would want pre-emptive justice. People would start asking for the abortion or confinement of "unwanted" individuals. It would probably become illegal for people who have "criminal genes" to reproduce. Because this sounds so outlandish, I don't think there is a relationship between genetics and sociopathy.

I don't think anyone is born to be a criminal, however it is certainly possible to inherit criminal qualities. If we accept that traits such as intelligence and compassion can be inherited, then we also have to accept that negative qualities such as laziness and deviousness can be inherited as well. I wouldn't go so far as to say that these traits can be inherited directly, but I definitely think that certain predispositions towards these attributes can be inherited, and this is supported by mountains of literature.

Edit: as Retsage says, just because someone may be predisposed to certain actions doesn't mean that society would preemptively execute judgement.

 

[HeatherMD]

*shrug* Your previous posts paint you as someone who believes all physicians must ignore their morals and values when it comes to "treatment." It didn't seem like euthanasia would be different for you.

No. I even stated in another post that I would not put myself in a position that I felt compromised my own morals (ie. being forced to keep someone alive when they wish to die).

I respect the rights of physicians to draw their own boundaries, within the boundaries of the law. I do not believe the state or the country has the right to force you to take away or maintain the life or a person that wishes to die, just as I do not believe the state or the country has the right to force you to perform an abortion.

I think there are many, many different people in this world that will, at some point in their lifetime, require the care of a physician, and I believe we need many, many different physicians to fill this role.
A person needs to feel safe with their doctor. They need to trust them and believe their physician will always act in their best interest, should there be a point where the patient is not able to make their own decisions about their health.

 

[HeatherMD]

Why would weeding out sociopathy be a bad thing again?

You are joking, right?

 

[GoSpursGo]

Why would weeding out sociopathy be a bad thing again?

The end result of weeding out sociopathy would almost certainly be a good thing. However, the individual rights that would have to be trampled upon in order to attain that end result would be terrible. You can't tell someone, "Sorry, you can't reproduce because your parent turned out to be a sociopath, and we're trying to eliminate all genes that might predispose people towards sociopathy from the gene pool. But rest assured your sacrifice is for the good of society!"

In this case, the ends would not justify the means necessary to get there.

 

[HeatherMD]

Not to mention, first we're weeding out sociopathy, then we're weeding out stupidity. Pretty soon we're getting rid of down syndrome, cystic fibrosis, heart disease, and cancer.

Let's all be a society of identical robots!

 

[Retsage]

Joking? Not especially. Sociopathy is infinitely more dangerous than, say, trisomy-21 which people abort against regularly. Sociopaths murder, abuse, manipulate, rape, and do as they please indiscriminantly. Why would we, as a civilization, not want to select against that? Slippery slope arguments don't quite work here. This is not the same as stupidity or most any other traits. Sociopathy is fundamentally dangerous to people and society. The great sociopaths in history can speak to that point. The great idiots of history cannot.

Now, naturally, I don't believe the government should be in the business of forcing people to abort if they detect this, but:

1) Parents should be informed that their child will lack all empathy and love.
2) Prescreening allows for a better chance of rehabilitation from the get-go.

 

[HeatherMD]

I'm all for genetic counseling and screening for all types of diseases and temperments, but we cannot remove the right of an individual to have a child. Any child.

We can't exercise social darwinism. It's excessively cruel.

I want to say more but I'm a bit horrified right now.

 

[Retsage]

"Now, naturally, I don't believe the government should be in the business of forcing people to abort if they detect this, but:"

Are you quite done with the histrionics now?

 

[GoSpursGo]

Joking? Not especially. Sociopathy is infinitely more dangerous than, say, trisomy-21 which people abort against regularly. Sociopaths murder, abuse, manipulate, rape, and do as they please indiscriminantly. Why would we, as a civilization, not want to select against that? Slippery slope arguments don't quite work here. This is not the same as stupidity or most any other traits. Sociopathy is fundamentally dangerous to people and society. The great sociopaths in history can speak to that point. The great idiots of history cannot.

Now, naturally, I don't believe the government should be in the business of forcing people to abort if they detect this, but:

1) Parents should be informed that their child will lack all empathy and love.
2) Prescreening allows for a better chance of rehabilitation from the get-go.

I find the bolded problematic, as there's just no way with any kind of genetic screening that we would be able to determine that. I would say something along the lines of that they MAY lack empathy and love.

Furthermore, you can't punish people for acts they have not committed yet. Just because someone has the "sociopath genes" doesn't mean they shouldn't have the opportunity to live and become more than the sum of their genes. Not even a mother should have the right to take away that chance.

Civilization would probably prosper from the loss of sociopathic genes from the gene pool. That doesn't mean that we should do it considering what doing so would entail.

 

[HeatherMD]

How are you going to accomplish this though? Force people to get genetic testing?

We can't execute preventative measures without interfering with someone's free-will somewhere along the line.

We all want to live in a world where all pregnancies are well-thought out and planned, by responsible, rational parents ready to raise offspring, but this is not reality. Plenty of children are born to ill-equipped human beings, ones that never considered genetic testing and probably can't even spell the word sociopath.

 

[Retsage]

Well, naturally I'm talking about a genetic test that was very strong. Something that would say - "Look, the limbic system will be underdeveloped, they will be incapable of empathy." Kind of like we can state positively about Down's Syndrome. Obviously, this is a few decades off, but it's coming.

As for becoming more than the sum of your genes, that's simply not something I consider possible. Again, if your limbic system doesn't work, your limbic system doesn't work. You can aspire to make it work as much as a paraplegic can aspire to move his legs, but it won't happen. At the end of the day, the question is simply asking how many more hundreds of millions of people have to die before we can justify treating this problem. We can look at the Charles Mansons and John Wayne Gacys of the world and be horrified, but the real horror are the sociopaths who reach true power. Genghis Khans, Stalins, Pol Pots, Saddam Husseins. What choice do we have as a society but to ensure that people like this cannot rise to power and eradicate millions more? Up to today, we've had none. If tomorrow we gain that power, we'd be monsters not to use it.

Heather, people get genetic testing of their own accord today. As the technology becomes more widespread and costs go down, it will become as standard as an ultrasound.

 

[HeatherMD]

I have nothing against genetic testing -- I'm a big supporter, and since I'll be in med school until 30, I'll probably have to sign up for it when I finally decide to have children given the risks accompanying having a baby in your late 30's.

Still can't force it.
Some people don't get ultrasounds, so they won't get genetic testing either.

Do all sociopaths become Charles Mansons or are all Mansons just sociopaths?

We can't assume a child lacking empathy & love is going to become a mass murderer. I lack empathy, I haven't killed anyone.

Empathy is not morality.

 

[Chemdude]

And you do not get to force somebody to murder you because you want to die. Sorry, it doesn't work like that.


Chemdude, that may possibly be the most spacious, ridiculous reasoning I have ever read in my life. That's like saying because of the potential of the atomic bomb, you don't believe fission exists. Social ramifications do not influence truth or reality, they are merely byproducts of it.

No it's not.

God is omnificent, all-knowing and the essence of good. Since God will not allow for the degrading of human society in that matter, I don't believe that could be possible. This reasoning is what has lead me to believe that the cloning of humans will never be possible as well. Having things like this occur would destroy the natural fabric of the universe--> Something God will never allow for.

This has nothing to do with the potential of the atomic bomb and fission.

 

[HeatherMD]

cloning human beings would destroy the natural fabric of the universe, which God would never allow.

...

Well, haven't heard that before. Chemdude, you are something else.

 

[Retsage]

All sociopaths may not become serial killers, but all serial killers are sociopaths. More importantly, all sociopaths will abuse people without second thought given the opportunity (not necessarily physically, but they have no qualms with lying, cheating, manipulating, etc.).

As for empathy, it is the very crux of all morality. And I sincerely hope you do not lack it - if I showed you a video of a starving child, would you feel nothing?


Chemdude, let's stop. There's no point for our conversation to continue. I cannot logically defeat God for you, and you sure as hell aren't going to convince me he exists.

 

[HeatherMD]

All sociopaths may not become serial killers, but all serial killers are sociopaths. More importantly, all sociopaths will abuse people without second thought given the opportunity (not necessarily physically, but they have no qualms with lying, cheating, manipulating, etc.).

As for empathy, it is the very crux of all morality. And I sincerely hope you do not lack it - if I showed you a video of a starving child, would you feel nothing?

I don't want to get into this here. You can PM me if you want my opinion or "feelings" on any issue.

 

[HeatherMD]

And empathy is not the very crux of all morality, reason is.

 

[Chemdude]

oh get real.

No one's going to start practicing eugenics because genetic pre-disposition to certain behaviors exists.

We've already proven there's genetic pre-disposition to many, many diseases and ailments, and yet there is no forced abortion or confinement for these individuals that will require a ton of professional care and sometimes experience a greatly reduced quality of life.

We can't remove a person's right to have children, nor can we execute punishment for crimes not yet committed -- ones that may never be committed.
Have some faith in reason. I like to believe the population isn't THAT ridiculous.

umm...It has already happened. Ever heard of Hitler? Thousands of Germans were exterminated because they had diseases which were "deterring" the "Aryan Race" from becoming successful. Check out Social Darwinism.

 

[Retsage]

No, it's not.

Reason and logic do not make one moral nor immoral. There was nothing unreasonable about the Ukrainian famine from Stalin's perspective - he used it to consolidate power and punish those who would threaten it.

Morality is about how you relate to other people in society. It is about understanding that those around you are also human and capable of feeling the same things you feel - and not just at an intellectual level. It's about being able to feel for their plight. That is empathy. Without it, you cannot have morality.

 

[GoSpursGo]

cloning human beings would destroy the natural fabric of the universe, which God would never allow.

...

Well, haven't heard that before. Chemdude, you are something else.

Again, try to be civil.

Chemdude, I disagree with you on the grounds that we, as humans, could never hope to fully understand God's will. In the past, humanity believed that the sun revolved around the earth, and that God would not allow it to be otherwise. We now know this is false, and so our conception of exactly what the will of God is had to change. I would like to believe that genetic screening for a condition such as sociopathy would never become a standard procedure, simply because I don't THINK God would allow that to come to pass. However, I can't stand here and say definitively what God would and would not allow.

 

[HeatherMD]

umm...It has already happened. Ever heard of Hitler? Thousands of Germans were exterminated because they had diseases which were "deterring" the "Aryan Race" from becoming successful. Check out Social Darwinism.

Oh here we go, breaking out the Hitler..

 

[GoSpursGo]

I don't want to get into this here. You can PM me if you want my opinion or "feelings" on any issue.

Do what you want... but I'm getting a lot out of this discussion. I'd like it if the discussion could stay public.

 

[HeatherMD]

Do what you want... but I'm getting a lot out of this discussion. I'd like it if the discussion could stay public.

but then I'll get likened to Hitler!

Always happens. It's rather unpleasant. I just end up misunderstood and everyone else ends up angry.

 

[DrMattOglesby]

Do what you want... but I'm getting a lot out of this discussion. I'd like it if the discussion could stay public.

I agree.
Just remember that we are debating ideas and not the persons who hold them. Personal attacks and insults are not tolerated per the Terms of Service at SDN. Let's keep this thread going with mature discussion

 

[Flushot]

No, it's not.

Reason and logic do not make one moral nor immoral. There was nothing unreasonable about the Ukrainian famine from Stalin's perspective - he used it to consolidate power and punish those who would threaten it.

Morality is about how you relate to other people in society. It is about understanding that those around you are also human and capable of feeling the same things you feel - and not just at an intellectual level. It's about being able to feel for their plight. That is empathy. Without it, you cannot have morality.

Couldn't you compromise that reason and logic work with empathy to create this morality or lack thereof? The word itself is so complicated that I can't imagine only one aspect being a major player.

 

[GoSpursGo]

but then I'll get likened to Hitler!

Always happens. It's rather unpleasant. I just end up misunderstood and everyone else ends up angry.

I would be very interested to hear what you have to say, and for what it's worth, I promise I won't liken you to Hitler.

I think we've done a good job of carrying on a good, level-headed conversation, and I think we can keep doing so without anyone getting angry or inciting personal attacks.

All the same, if you're truly uncomfortable, I wouldn't want you to feel compelled to share your opinion. I just don't want you to feel like you CAN'T either.

 

[HeatherMD]

No, it's not.

Reason and logic do not make one moral nor immoral. There was nothing unreasonable about the Ukrainian famine from Stalin's perspective - he used it to consolidate power and punish those who would threaten it.

Morality is about how you relate to other people in society. It is about understanding that those around you are also human and capable of feeling the same things you feel - and not just at an intellectual level. It's about being able to feel for their plight. That is empathy. Without it, you cannot have morality.

Reason and logic are the only moral laws of the universe.

Emotions are subjective. This is not a subjective universe, so I do not abide by subjective morals, like those ruled by "feelings".

 

[DrYoda]

oh get real.

No one's going to start practicing eugenics because genetic pre-disposition to certain behaviors exists.

We've already proven there's genetic pre-disposition to many, many diseases and ailments, and yet there is no forced abortion or confinement for these individuals that will require a ton of professional care and sometimes experience a greatly reduced quality of life.

We can't remove a person's right to have children, nor can we execute punishment for crimes not yet committed -- ones that may never be committed.
Have some faith in reason. I like to believe the population isn't THAT ridiculous.

umm...It has already happened. Ever heard of Hitler? Thousands of Germans were exterminated because they had diseases which were "deterring" the "Aryan Race" from becoming successful. Check out Social Darwinism.

I'm guessing most of the posters here already know a good deal about the American eugenics movement, but if not look it up. A somewhat dark chapter of American history, which did use forced sterilization to try and weed out behavioral traits from the population. It's fairly interesting and distrubing topic which our history books do a pretty good job of glossing over.

 

[Chemdude]

Again, try to be civil.

Chemdude, I disagree with you on the grounds that we, as humans, could never hope to fully understand God's will. In the past, humanity believed that the sun revolved around the earth, and that God would not allow it to be otherwise. We now know this is false, and so our conception of exactly what the will of God is had to change. I would like to believe that genetic screening for a condition such as sociopathy would never become a standard procedure, simply because I don't THINK God would allow that to come to pass. However, I can't stand here and say definitively what God would and would not allow.

I think that is where a lot of people differ. It is my belief that God is capable of doing anything possible. I wouldn't call it blind-belief; more like guaranteed-belief. When I see things like the complexity of the human body, I get chills down my spine. Why? Because this gives me the proof required to believe in God. This could have never happened by coincidence. When I see his greatness through the complexity of his creation, I am guaranteed that a "being" so great will not allow for destruction of the morality.

 

[Chemdude]

Oh here we go, breaking out the Hitler..

I'm not saying you have anything in common to Hitler. I'm just saying that humans have tried to "purify" their race by exterminating "unwanted" individuals(specifically people that are diseased).

 

[Flushot]

Reason and logic are the only moral laws of the universe.

Emotions are subjective. This is not a subjective universe, so I do not abide by subjective morals, like those ruled by "feelings".

Heather, that would be in a perfect world. To completely be objective about moral issues in our time is nearly impossible for human beings.

Empathy, whether you like it or not, will probably play a part. Empathy doesn't always equate to sympathy though too. You might know what they're going through, but that can be used for evil as well as good. The same goes for cold logic.

I mean, you have to take the bad with the good and balance it. To say that logic and reason are the ONLY moral laws reminds me of dogma, absolutes, etc., which I think are not only impractical, but a little dangerous.

I hope you don't take all of this the wrong way, but I'm trying to be a little more pragmatic in a very uncertain world.

 

[GoSpursGo]

I think that is where a lot of people differ. It is my belief that God is capable of doing anything possible. I wouldn't call it blind-belief; more like guaranteed-belief. When I see things like the complexity of the human body, I get chills down my spine. Why? Because this gives me the proof required to believe in God. This could have never happened by coincidence. When I see his greatness through the complexity of his creation, I am guaranteed that a "being" so great will not allow for destruction of the morality.

I agree that God can do whatever He wants. I disagree that we as humans could ever hope to fully understand morality as He does, and so there will always be cases where we're left scratching our heads and not understanding what He's doing.

 

[RySerr21]

I think that is where a lot of people differ. It is my belief that God is capable of doing anything possible. I wouldn't call it blind-belief; more like guaranteed-belief. When I see things like the complexity of the human body, I get chills down my spine. Why? Because this gives me the proof required to believe in God. This could have never happened by coincidence. When I see his greatness through the complexity of his creation, I am guaranteed that a "being" so great will not allow for destruction of the morality.

Exactly. I would hardly call millions of years of evolution a "coincidence."

Questio: do you believe that God has the ability to intervene in our daily lives? And has been involved in our history and is the one who determines our future? Sorry if you answered this before, I havent read every post on this thread.

 

[HeatherMD]

I'm not saying you have anything in common to Hitler. I'm just saying that humans have tried to "purify" their race by exterminating "unwanted" individuals(specifically people that are diseased).

I know they have, thanks, I've taken history too.

But I don't live in 1943 Germany. I live in 2008 Canada. We're not exterminating anyone.

 

[Retsage]

Couldn't you compromise that reason and logic work with empathy to create this morality or lack thereof? The word itself is so complicated that I can't imagine only one aspect being a major player.

I could agree that evolutionary logic play a role in the grand scheme of establishing morality (do not murder because that means you have less people in your tribe to fight alongside you). On a personal level, though, there is nothing that keeps logic and morality in line. It is not illogical to cheat on your girlfriend when you're in another country. You don't do it because you understand the sort of pain you'll cause her. You don't murder a competitor when you can get away with it because you understand the sort of anguish you'll cause to those around him. That is empathy. That is the crux of morality.

There is no universal moral code. That would presuppose a universe that cares about us. As such, believing that we can decipher it using reason or logic is preposterous. True morality is built around empathy - doing unto others as you would like them to do unto you, as you both understand each other's pain.

 

[GoSpursGo]

Exactly. I would hardly call millions of years of evolution a "coincidence."

Questio: do you believe that God has the ability to intervene in our daily lives? And has been involved in our history and is the one who determines our future? Sorry if you answered this before, I havent read every post on this thread.

Yes, I believe God has the ability to intervene in daily lives if He so chooses. Whether he does or not is another question; I personally think that at times He does bless me and give me strength when I otherwise wouldn't have it.

I believe He has been involved in our history as well-it would be hard to believe otherwise, as a Christian, otherwise He wouldn't have sent Jesus

As for whether He determines our future... I'm going to say a decisive "I don't know." I think He knows what the future holds, but whether he is actively determining every aspect of what will happen in the future is not something I would claim to know.

 

[HeatherMD]

It is not illogical to cheat on your girlfriend when you're in another country. You don't do it because you understand the sort of pain you'll cause her. You don't murder a competitor when you can get away with it because you understand the sort of anguish you'll cause to those around him. That is empathy. That is the crux of morality.

Except it is illogical to maintain contradictions, which lying does, and lying would result from cheating.

Lying to a person impedes their ability to make rational decisions for their own good, because it presents them with a false reality and prevents their access to actual reality. Removing a person's ability to make decisions is like removing one of their senses. It's potentially equivalent to forcing them to act for their own destruction, which is profoundly immoral.

 

[Flushot]

I could agree that evolutionary logic play a role in the grand scheme of establishing morality (do not murder because that means you have less people in your tribe to fight alongside you). On a personal level, though, there is nothing that keeps logic and morality in line. It is not illogical to cheat on your girlfriend when you're in another country. You don't do it because you understand the sort of pain you'll cause her. You don't murder a competitor when you can get away with it because you understand the sort of anguish you'll cause to those around him. That is empathy. That is the crux of morality.

There is no universal moral code. That would presuppose a universe that cares about us. True morality is built around empathy - doing unto others as you would like them to do unto you, as you both understand each other's pain.

That's the thing though: you're implying that empathy can only lead to some mutual good through a sharing of emotions/feelings. My understanding of empathy is that two people understand each other's emotions through similar experiences. This does not necessary mean that good can come out of this.

My example would be a case of two generals, both coming from small villages. Both generals had their villages burned down while growing up. In wartime, the generals can be empathetic to each other since they understand the loss...but I can see why one general would exploit these feelings by distracting the other general by burning down more villages since the other general could become furious at the act.

Your examples can also have logic applied to them as well. You don't cheat on your girlfriend while in another country because the consequences of her telling others and potentially ruining a fulfilling relationship, in addition to empathy, tell you this is wrong. By murdering a competitor to get ahead while getting away with it could be logically excused if you believe your promoted position can be compromised in the future due to your dubious actions. I know this isn't the best way to include it, but I hope you see the point.

Empathy has the capacity for immorality, just as logic does.

EDIT - On a second read through, are you actually talking about sympathy? Because that's a different case.

 

[Retsage]

I don't think you understand what empathy is.

Empathy, not sympathy, is being able to put yourself in someone else's shoes. To understand life from their perspective. To feel, if you will, what they feel. Sympathy is merely pitying somebody, but pity underlies the notion that it could never happen to you (you pity those who are beneath you).

The girlfriend example is the perfect one - there is nothing illogical about maintaining contradictions (lying). You have a one-night stand with some Greek girl when you're visiting the Parthenon and you can get away with it. There would be no ramifications, no blow-back, nothing. People do not do it because of empathy and little more.

I haven't the foggiest clue what you're talking about with your generals example.

 

[DrYoda]

I don't think you understand what empathy is.

Empathy, not sympathy, is being able to put yourself in someone else's shoes. To understand life from their perspective. To feel, if you will, what they feel. Sympathy is merely pitying somebody, but pity underlies the notion that it could never happen to you (you pity those who are beneath you).

The girlfriend example is the perfect one - there is nothing illogical about maintaining contradictions (lying). You have a one-night stand with some Greek girl when you're visiting the Parthenon and you can get away with it. There would be no ramifications, no blow-back, nothing. People do not do it because of empathy and little more.

I haven't the foggiest clue what you're talking about with your generals example.

Putting yourself into someone else's shoes could be used to better understand them for the purpose of causing them harm. In the general example, find an emotional weakness and exploit it.

 

[Flushot]

Well, if that's how you view empathy, then I guess it's more of an extrapolation of how I view it. That's probably why my Generals example kinda sucks

Back to the girlfriend example: if you're going to assume that doing such things (one night stand) will have zero consequences, now and forever, yeah then empathy is the only thing that will apply. If you want to argue morality in the extremes, that's fine, but understand it hardly works that way.

Logically, you could argue the risk of her finding out in several years, or the potential for an STI. Yeah, the thought of cheating on someone you care about is empathetic, but in a practical situation, it's probably not the only thing to consider.

EDIT - I cleared up the Generals example. And DrYoda put it pretty well too.

 

[ANF1986]

This thread has really taken a turn for the worst...

The idea that all mass murderers are sociopaths is, well...........ridiculous. There are plenty of people who have engaged in mass murder for plenty of other reasons. 19 people killed 3,000 people on Sept 11th because of deeply held extreme religious beliefs, there is no indication that all 19 of them were absolutely sociopaths. During the Crusades, 1 million people were indiscriminately slaughtered for a "moral" and "just" cause. I suppose the people who committed those acts were all sociopaths.

And to the people advocating the eugenics, jesus christ, you people sound like you're right out of George Orwells 1984. Im more scared of you people than I am of a sociopath. A sociopath can only kill a small number of people and must do it by his own hands. You people, advocating eugenics and other forms of social darwinism, have the ability to kill millions of people, should enough of you link minded individuals ever influence policy or grow large enough...SCARY