Do you read the book.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jul 19, 2023 1:58 pmYou are both overreacting, and your conclusion is not logical.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Jul 19, 2023 5:58 am I stated;
If Bloom get his way with;
"we are better off without it [empathy]".
... and
"encouraging people to be less empathic",
we will not be able to reduce the numbers of humans killed by humans in the future via morality-proper.
Bloom does not encourage people to be less empathetic. Nor does he say we're better off without it. Rather, he points out that we are wise not to let something that is a mere emotion take over from our judgment and become the basis for decision-making, especially in regard to morality.
And he's right about that. He gives good reasons for that conclusion, and I've given you additional ones. The evidence is in: when it is detached from sound reason, empathy becomes too easily misdirected, and actually can cause evil.
So we should still have empathy, Bloom says, but not let it drive the ship. That's a much more accurate and fair synopsis of Bloom's point.
Moreover, the conclusion you attribute to him is one he never draws -- and one which logically does not follow, even from your own earlier premises. Even were we to eliminate empathy, that does not mean we would "not be able to reduce the numbers of humans killed by humans." For there is no evidence empathy stops people from killing; and false empathy, empathy directed to a despot or to a "master race," for example, could get far MORE people killed.
So the point is, have empathy, but don't treat it like an infallible touchstone to morality, and don't suppose it's the basis of ethics. It is sometimes the basis of evil, as well.
Now you've got it...we can hope.
I got the above [bolded] from his book.
Mine is an Ebook so no page reference but note this from Chapter 1 just before he dealt with the objections;
How can you insist "Nor does he say we're better off without it."?Cognitive Empathy is a useful tool, then—a necessary one for anyone who wishes to be a good person—but it is Morally neutral.
I believe that the capacity for emotional Empathy, described as “sympathy” by philosophers such as Adam Smith and David Hume, often simply known as “Empathy” and defended by so many scholars, theologians, educators, and politicians, is actually Morally corrosive.
If you are struggling with a Moral decision and find yourself trying to feel someone else’s pain or pleasure, you should stop.
This empathic engagement might give you some satisfaction, but it’s not how to improve things and can lead to bad decisions and bad outcomes.
Much better to use Reason and cost-benefit analysis, drawing on a more distanced compassion and kindness.
The rest of this book will elaborate and qualify this position.
It will pull back to explore global politics and zoom in on intimate relationships; it will address the causes of war and the nature of evil.
And while I will sometimes concede the benefits of Empathy, the verdict is that, on balance, we are better off without it.
