interesting pieces of information (facts of note, points of interest, research for life), etc.

Some research suggests that people are more able and willing to empathize with those most similar to themselves. In particular, empathy increases with similarities in culture and living conditions. Empathy is more likely to occur between individuals whose interaction is more frequent.

Interesting. I guess it isn't surprising that people are more willing/able to understand and give credence to the feelings of other people when those other people are more familiar to them, either in the sense that they are similar in terms of culture, living conditions, etc, or in the sense that they see them more often and therefore gain the understanding of that person's culture/living conditions, whatever that they didn't have by default - either way both factors make a person familiar to oneself and therefore easier and more appealing to understand and justify.

Empathy is not a process that is likely to deliver certain judgments about the emotional states of others. It is a skill that is gradually developed throughout life, and which improves the more contact we have with the person with whom one empathises. Accordingly, any knowledge gained of the emotions of the other must be revisable in light of further information.

Duhh. Of course empathy can't give you certain judgments about someone's emotional state. The credibility of the judgment always depends on the information available and the attributes of the judge. DUHH.

The appropriate role of empathy in our dealings with others is highly dependent on the circumstances. For instance, it is claimed that clinicians or caregivers must take care not to be too sensitive to the emotions of others, to over-invest their own emotions, at the risk of draining away their own resourcefulness. Furthermore an awareness of the limitations of empathic accuracy is prudent in a caregiving situation.

Interesting. I think that's probably sound advice for anyone learning to be in a resourceful-giving position, not just doctors and caregivers. Like, I could really have used that information when I was maybe like thirteen or so and trying to learn about friendships and relationships.

In evolutionary psychology, attempts at explaining pro-social behavior often mention the presence of empathy in the individual as a possible variable. Although exact motives behind complex social behaviors are difficult to distinguish, the "ability to put oneself in the shoes of another person and experience events and emotions the way that person experienced them" is the definitive factor for truly altruistic behavior according to Batson's empathy-altruism hypothesis. If empathy is not felt, social exchange (what's in it for me?) supersedes pure altruism, but if empathy is felt, an individual will help regardless of whether it is in their self-interest to do so and even if the costs outweigh potential rewards.

Interesting. I would probably theorize that social exchange will always win out and discount empathy as an ultimately self-involved process; even though it looks like concern for others, altruism based on empathy is still essentially self-motivated because if you are truly empathetic to someone you feel their emotions, so those emotions become your own, and whether you are motivated by your own (actual) feelings or the feelings you have acquired by empathetic default, the act is still based on something YOU feel. I guess that's my cynical and slightly unpleasant opinion of mankind. But it's true and I stand by it. Notice that I'm not saying people won't do anything good, I'm just saying that people do things because of themselves, not other people. You do something good for someone else, fine, but it's still prompted by your own feelings and how you relate to that person and how they relate to you.

In the 2007 book The Ethics of Care and Empathy, philosopher Michael Slote introduces a theory of care-based ethics that is grounded in empathy. His claim is that moral motivation does, and should, stem from a basis of empathic response. He claims that our natural reaction to situations of moral significance are explained by empathy. He explains that the limits and obligations of empathy and in turn morality are natural. These natural obligations include a greater empathic, and moral obligation to family and friends, along with an account of temporal and physical distance. In situations of close temporal and physical distance, and with family or friends, our moral obligation seems stronger to us than with strangers at a distance naturally. Slote explains that this is due to empathy and our natural empathic ties. He further adds that actions are wrong if and only if they reflect or exhibit a deficiency of fully developed empathic concern for others on the part of the agent.


Interesting. In a lot of ways I like this, especially since it gives a clear and logical definition of when, why, and how you know that things are morally wrong. Because storm asked me about that the other day and I had no good answer other than "some things are just wrong", which I wasn't about to say. It makes sense to me that morality is based on empathy because that's how you know when a lot of things are wrong..the golden rule and all that. But I don't like how this explanation ties morality to social responsibility...if there is no society, is there no right and wrong? Is morality entirely relative? Or would there be some sort of hypothetical empathy in place, as in, IF someone else were here, how would this action affect them? I also disagree completely with the premise that morality is dependent on who you're dealing with. I can understand why you would feel more empathy for someone you're connected to, and certainly why you would feel more obligated to do the right thing for that person than you would for a stranger, but I think the action that constitutes the right or wrong thing is concrete, either right or wrong, regardless of who the subject is, how you feel about them, or how far away they are. But the circumstances. The circumstances variable niggles me. Good word, niggles. Can we guess its derivation? I think so. The relativity of morality - what an irritating concept.