Societal lack of Empathy

[_Jersey Girl]

Greetings!

A friend posted this link on Facebook today. I've read through the article and I hope you will, too. In my view it's missing critical pieces of information and I'd like to see what you think about it. It basically states "what is" from the author's point of view and fails to identify causes or possible solutions.

It has something for the political folks here and for me. It mentions Idealists. That is my personality type. Probably why the topic resonates with me and I hope you'll find it relevant to you. If you are someone who is disturbed by the headlines about incidents in our country that you see every day, I think you'll appreciate the topic.

Busy day for me, I'll check in later.


https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/ou ... ss-empathy

Beware America's Shocking Loss of Empathy--David Noise

The symptoms of a society coming unhinged

Posted Mar 06, 2016

Photo by Gage Skidmore, creative commons license
Source: Photo by Gage Skidmore, creative commons license

Here’s a sobering thought for the idealists among us: Even if we someday achieve a truly fair and just society, that society will nevertheless be inhabited by the same species that produced the Holocaust. “Humans are capable of many things,” as author Noam Chomsky once told me(link is external). “Some of them are horrible, some are wonderful.”

Knowing that the human animal’s behavioral capacities cover a spectrum from the horrific to the kindhearted, it seems obvious that our challenge going forward is to create social structures that lead to the more desirable outcomes. There’s plenty of room for debate over details, but the basic framework of where we want to go shouldn’t be very controversial: general prosperity, a healthy and educated population, a government free of corruption and responsive to human needs, a sustainable natural environment, and a safe and free social environment.

Most would agree that the political realm is an important component in achieving such a society, but if that's so we should be concerned about the state of affairs in America today. That is, the country’s political dynamics—the interactions between candidates, the policy proposals being considered, and even the conduct of ordinary citizens—increasingly reflect a complete lack of human empathy, a view toward others that is willfully insensitive, if not outright contemptuous. The objective observer is left wondering whether the United States, politically and as a society, is sliding toward ominous realms on that aforementioned spectrum of potential behaviors.


Donald Trump’s now-famous Mexican wall proposal is perhaps the most obvious example of America’s conscious detachment from the rest of humanity, but it’s not the worst. That distinction would probably go to Ted Cruz, who declared that he would carpet bomb(link is external) the Middle East, bragging that he would find out “if sand can glow in the dark,” apparently with little concern about the loss of innocent life.

Blame the candidates for this devolved level of discourse, but bear in mind that they make such statements with confidence that voter support will follow. And it has, for Trump and Cruz are among the few still standing from what was once a large field. As the candidates on the GOP debate stage last week chose to insult one another(link is external) rather than debate serious policy, voters are getting the political discourse that reflects their own mindset: angry, fearful, incapable of complex analysis, and hostile toward others.

Little wonder, then, that Trump’s demagoguery has such appeal. Feeding the frustration of a working class that has been decimated, Trump disparages one group after another—Mexicans, Muslims, African-Americans, Asians, women, and of course his competitors—and he rises in the polls. Adversaries are quickly branded “losers”(link is external) or “flunkies”(link is external) or “dopes”(link is external) or “lowlifes.”(link is external)

Empathy, and its close cousin compassion, can be reflected in public policy that shows concern for fellow humans. In response to the economic crisis of the 1930s, for example, America embraced the New Deal, with public works projects(link is external) that benefited everyone and other programs(link is external) that promoted a sense that, as a society, we are all in this together. Even though politics was still contentious and the nation grappled with numerous social problems, a sense of a shared humanity was seen in public policy and political rhetoric.

Contrast this to the mood in America today, where almost all discourse is uncivil, whether online, on cable television or on the debate stage, and the utter lack of empathy becomes apparent. Nobody cares to calm down, to consider what it’s like to walk in the other person's shoes, to entertain the notion that others may feel the way they do for reasons that are understandable and valid. Instead today's America, from our presidential candidates to our blogosphere and major media, more often thrives on outrage, emotion, and personal attacks.

It's noteworthy, and undeniable, that two antonyms of empathy—disdain and indifference—have become cornerstones of American politics. When outsiders are routinely reviled, targeted for blame by an impulsive population that isn’t capable of rational thought, bad things can happen. Add doses of anti-intellectualism, nationalism(link is external), and militarism(link is external) to the mix, and you have a formula for disaster. Just ask Germany(link is external).

Empathetic and compassionate policy does not require that a society sacrifice its well being for the betterment of strangers, but it does require an intelligent assessment of what is happening internally and around the world, a minimal level of humane values, and rational attempts to apply those values. Nobody would ever claim that America has been a model for empathy—our history of slavery and racism negates that possibility immediately, as do many of our military escapades and foreign policy priorities. But nevertheless, the affirmative disavowal of empathy in America today is in many ways unique.

Consider, for example, the way Trump not only endorsed the use of torture, but did so in a way that doesn’t even portray the decision as regrettable, as a necessary evil. Instead, he boldly insisted(link is external) that “even if it doesn’t work, they deserve it anyway.” And the crowd erupts in cheers.

If this doesn't worry you, it should. Bear in mind that even the Democratic frontrunner points to an alleged war criminal(link is external), Henry Kissinger, as her foreign policy mentor of sorts. Suffice it to say that empathy was not one of Kissinger’s prominent qualities.

Meanwhile, the one major-party campaign that rejects such a view of the world is labeled "too idealistic(link is external).” Though I began this piece with a sobering thought for idealists, I wouldn’t necessarily want to suggest that idealism should be dismissed. After all, nowadays it seems to be the only view that doesn’t reject empathy. And without empathy, our humanity is dead.

David Niose's latest book is Fighting Back the Right: Reclaiming America from the Attack on Reason(link is external).

[_ajax18]

There's nothing wrong with being charitable or empathetic. It can be beneficial to both the giver and the receiver when man is permitted his agency to choose such. But charity is not to force your morals upon other people through violence and imprisonment. There's nothing generous about confiscating the wages of workers to give to someone you personally think is more deserving. That's tyranny and it's being rightfully rejected by conservative voters this primary.

[_The CCC]

Taxes are the dues we pay to live in a civilized society.

[_Jersey Girl]

There's nothing wrong with being charitable or empathetic. It can be beneficial to both the giver and the receiver when man is permitted his agency to choose such. But charity is not to force your morals upon other people through violence and imprisonment. There's nothing generous about confiscating the wages of workers to give to someone you personally think is more deserving. That's tyranny it's being rightfully rejected by conservative voters this primary.

Define empathy.

[_honorentheos]

But charity is not to force your morals upon other people through violence and imprisonment. There's nothing generous about confiscating the wages of workers to give to someone you personally think is more deserving.

The other side probably shares your view expressed in the first sentence. Where you seem to be in disagreement is in whether or not social organization and structure causes imprisonment and enacts a form of social violence on those unfortunately born into circumstances largely determined by the lottery of birth. And you may be one of the fortunate but on the fringe of that good fortune compared to the most elite. You say it's being taken from you unjustly and given to others, while some such as myself would say it's an act of justice more than charity to collaboratively organize society such that some balancing on the social order's part can create the opportunities for self-realization that conservatism claims is behind it's ideology. To me, conservatism in the US isn't about charity or justice, but defending injustice. I disagree with the OP article that indifference and disdain are primary motivators. I think it has more to do with insufficient exposure to the world; a desire to live in and preserve a mythological Westphalia of the mind that never existed but is used to discourage an acknowledgement that this injustice and imbalance that encroaches ever deeper into our own western society can't be defended through further building walls of defense around the most fortunate in the hopes we'll somehow find ourselves on the "good" side of those walls. Trump has made the wall physical rather than metaphorical, but that just makes the fantasy of the solution all the more tangible as well.

[_EAllusion]

But charity is not to force your morals upon other people through violence and imprisonment.

Tell us again why we need to prosecute the drug war?

[_ajax18]

Tell us again why we need to prosecute the drug war?

You first stripped my right of choice through taxation that pays for the consequences of peoples poor decisions regarding drug use. Give me back the choice to pay for the consequences of drug use or not and I'll return your right to choose to use them or not.

[_EAllusion]

Tell us again why we need to prosecute the drug war?

You first stripped my right of choice through taxation that pays for the consequences of peoples poor decisions regarding drug use. Give me back the choice to pay for the consequences of drug use or not and I'll return your right to choose to use them or not.

Two problems here:

1) You claim to be an advocate of limited government in other circumstances. Yet all behavior has the potential to incur costs t government services that you are taxed for. All. So this is really just an argument for the government to regulate all behavior according to your moral dictates. If incidental costs of a behavior is all it takes to justify you controlling that behavior, then everything is on the table. This makes you literally the opposite of an advocate for limited government.

2) The drug war, especially the ratcheted up version you have advocated for in other threads, is more expensive than the negative repercussions of drug use. If you were actually in favor of picking the least expensive solution because of tax impact, you wouldn't favor the policies you do.

[_canpakes]

There's nothing generous about confiscating the wages of workers to give to someone you personally think is more deserving.

This sounds like a definition that you've created to justify your anger over taxation while allowing yourself to reject any other rationale for its existence, but I could be persuaded to change my mind if you can point to a well-constructed argument somewhere discussing this 'more deserving' claim.

[_subgenius]

But charity is not to force your morals upon other people through violence and imprisonment.

Tell us again why we need to prosecute the drug war?

Really? You just can't quite figure this one out?