Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

bumharmony t1_itr95q2 wrote

How the hell is the golden rule supposed to solve any conflict where cooperative benefits are inevitably unequally distributed? What benefits are even cooperatively produced so that the distribution of them can be dependant on the participation in cooperation.

But yeah how does empathy work in general? Does the rich take the shoes of the poor or does he take the shoes of the poor in the shoes of the rich?

Shaming can be used opportunistically for the pursuit of any aim. From the viewpoint of autonomy we should not seek for honor because it depends on others.

1

simonperry955 OP t1_itrl6mn wrote

>What benefits are even cooperatively produced so that the distribution of them can be dependant on the participation in cooperation.

You live in a country, do you not? That country forms a massive, but closed, sharing network. A large group. The people who live in a country are usually entitled to generous benefits of one kind of another just because they are its citizens. People from outside that country are not seen as entitled to those same benefits.

The Golden Rule applies (I think) any time we see ourselves or a loved one in another, perhaps a stranger. So it could be any kind of empathic situation of equivalence.

Rich people and poor people do empathy in different ways. If you like, you can read my article about it here: "Empathy and socio-economic class". Turn to page 169.

I agree that shame can be a weapon (used by wicked people). Honour? How about honour in our own eyes? That depends on our own behavoiur.

1

bumharmony t1_itrrw84 wrote

I was talking about empathy in the rules of distribution not in the case of accidental charity to which we should not leave our distribution in any case.

Surely all kind of authorities ”give” all sorts of things or make me ”deserve” them of which both seem arrogant and narcissistic, if not transparently calculated.

1

simonperry955 OP t1_itubpsp wrote

Well, perhaps the authorities would not just give and give without some kinds of restrictions, otherwise they might go bankrupt. They have to have some kind of critieria for their giving.

How empathetic are they? I'm sure that depends on individual workers or personnel within the authorities.

Is the giving used as a tool for social policy, a way of influencing people? Maybe. I can't think of any examples.

1

bumharmony t1_ituef0a wrote

Empathy in the (making the) rules of distributive justice. Not in the execution or interpretation of them ex post.

1

simonperry955 OP t1_itykfk4 wrote

I think that would be "helping in response to need".

1

bumharmony t1_ityw11l wrote

That would still be part of the subsequent ex post interpretation.

1

simonperry955 OP t1_itzuwg3 wrote

Prior to helping, need would have to be determined using cognitive empathy, that anyone can learn to do (better), in my opinion.

Truth and compassion equals wisdom. Truth about the person in need is found by empathy.

1

simonperry955 OP t1_itzve57 wrote

>Empathy in the (making the) rules of distributive justice

That would be the "need" part. When morality was evolving, < 2 million years ago, people were interdependent, living and surviving together in small groups. People needed each other to cooperate with to survive, so, they were concerned to see that everyone in the group got enough to eat and was fit and well.

1

bumharmony t1_iu3tlgh wrote

We have not lived only to fulfill some ambiguous ”need” for millions of years now.

Also ethical naturalism and nonmoralism have been dead for a long time if they ever even were alive.

1

simonperry955 OP t1_iujxebr wrote

>We have not lived only to fulfill some ambiguous ”need” for millions of years now.

We all experience a pressure to thrive and survive, i.e., to do what will cause our inclusive thriving and surviving.

&#x200B;

>ethical naturalism and nonmoralism

I looked it up: I think I'm an ethical non-naturalist. We feel we ought to fulfil ethical norms. I make a descriptive ought.

Morality has to evolve from the interplay between the needs and goals of humans, and their social and physical environment. Both of these are factual and non-moral.

1