>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.

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.

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

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.

>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.