Is E M P A T H Y the strongest bases and motivation a person can use for moral compass and guideline to become his better self?
What books, besides anything on the Bible, can help me become more empathic towards others and more importantly to do so without the feeling of proud that comes with it?
Peter Kropotkins is kino.
Nel Noddings also wrote a good book on how morality is based on the maternal caring for eachother. Pretty kino
>implying it isn't the categorical imperative
>implying reason isn't the ultimate moral arbiter
>Implying people observe contractual agreements in their every moral interaction and not their inherent values like a healthy individual.
Enlightenment memers were all high on 'muh western society/state' memes, best to rip that bandaid off fast user.
Yikes!
This. Empathy is a tool for understanding how others feel. The fact that the feelings of others has moral significance requires a justification.
Any book which encapsulates a position/worldview you currently find loathsome
I don't understand where moral realists muster up the hubris to call their moral suggestions 'imperatives' or 'laws'. I am physically unable to break the laws of physics; not adhering to the laws of logic would leave me stupefied and confused; once I transgress the laws of the state I am hung, but what is the consequence of breaking this moral 'law'? I feel bad, maybe, but what if I lack empathy? Even if there was a moral law there would be absolutely no reason to follow it.
>there would be no reason to follow it.
That's a normative evaluation.
>what is the consequence of breaking this moral 'law'?
Nigga you don't want to know
Firstly not all normative statements are moral statements nor are they all categorical. I can make a normative statement in reference to a subjective goal I have. For example, 'if I want to get at truth, I should be rational'.
Secondly, 'there is no reason to follow it' does not mean 'there is a reason not to follow it'. Rather it is the agnostic position that there is an absence of a reason to follow it.
Yeah, the only moral realists I respect are theists. At least, under their system, I will face a consequence for breaking these laws. Unfortunately I am not convinced of theism.
>Firstly not all normative statements are moral statements nor are they all categorical.
Correct
> I can make a normative statement in reference to a subjective goal I have.
And this is the basis of some systems of morality. Which has been the basis of the moral systems of utilitarianism virtue ethics and so on.
>Secondly, 'there is no reason to follow it' does not mean 'there is a reason not to follow it'. Rather it is the agnostic position that there is an absence of a reason to follow it.
Kantian ethics is reason based. So there is a case to make that it's reasonable to be moral, atleast according to Kant.
I give your comment 3/10. Good memes but could be better.
You'd have to be crazy to expect or want everyone to live without doing what they emotionally want to do. A tortured life isn't one worth living.
''Empathy'' is a weak word, I hate it. Show no mercy for humanity.
>And this is the basis of some systems of morality.
Those people would not be moral realists.
>Kantian ethics is reason based
What's unreasonable about breaking his imperative? What will be done to me?
I don't believe in his imperative in full, but it will make the world worse to violate it.
> Those people would not be moral realists.
Wrong. Utilitarians believe that good or evil objectively corresponds to the natural goals of beings, to achieve happiness and so on. This is the same as the goal based morality you talk about.
>What's unreasonable about breaking his imperative? What will be done to me?
Kant believed that morality was a priori, prior to experience. This is becuase of Humes critque of morality. To then discover the objective moral norms we need to apply reason to morality and find the a priori imperative behind morality. Morality needs to be binding for everyone, universal and maxim based. I'm not intrested in explaining kantian philosophy. If you're intrested you can read Groundwork to the metaphysics of morals, Crtique of practical reason and the metaphysics of morals for free on the internet.
>Kant believed that morality was a priori, prior to experience.
It doesn't answer the question. I have a hard time conceiving of actions being reasonable unless they correspond to a subjective goal of mine. It may be the case that I recognise Good as an objectively real thing while having a subjective goal to commit Evil. Committing Evil in this case would be reasonable as it falls in line with my subjective goal.
And even if I give more ground and grant that striving for the Good is the objectively reasonable, you have yet to convince me that being objectively reasonable is preferable to being evil. I may, in my unreasonableness, commit innumerable evils and nothing will be brought on me. Thus your moral 'laws' and 'imperatives' are just suggestions unless you believe in hell.
>It doesn't answer the question.
Reason leads to kantian ethics ( according to Kant). Reason is reasonable, therefor kantian ethics is reasonabe.
> I have a hard time conceiving of actions being reasonable unless they correspond to a subjective goal of mine. I
>Committing Evil in this case would be reasonable as it falls in line with my subjective goal.
Literaly feels over reals. Moral facts don't care about your feelings. Also, it may have to be more with your low iq rather than moral philosophers missing this huge thing that you have discoverd while not watching Rick and morty.
>And even if I give more ground and grant that striving for the Good is the objectively reasonable, you have yet to convince me that being objectively reasonable is preferable to being evil.
Moving the goalpost. Also in kantianism, preferabilty is not relevant for morality.
> I may, in my unreasonableness, commit innumerable evils and nothing will be brought on me. Thus your moral 'laws' and 'imperatives' are just suggestions unless you believe in hell.
That's becuase morality is what you ought to do, not what someone can convince you to do.
Think about it like this.
Morality is the regulation of behavior according to abstract principles. We axiomaticaly assume reason and so on as we argue, meaning that reason is the base of our worldview. The morality is based on reason becuase theese abstract principles needs to be applied, which require reason. But if we say base it on some emotion, like utillitarians do, then Kant would say that its irrational becuase they can't motivate their goal using reason.
>That's becuase morality is what you ought to do, not what someone can convince you to do.
Nice, so you've conceded the original point, which was that morality holds no weight and is just a bunch of suggestions. Not 'imperatives' and 'laws' as they're called.
>Nice, so you've conceded the original point,
Can you read?
>which was that morality holds no weight and is just a bunch of suggestions.
Morality indeed hold weight. Just becuase your feefees don't get affected, doesn't mean it has weight.
>Not 'imperatives' and 'laws' as they're called.
You don't know what any of theese words mean.
Again, every law I conceive of has me bound. I can't break the laws of physics; I can't not adhere to the laws of logic; the state would have me hung if I broke its laws; morality, well, nothing...
This is why I'm telling you it holds no weight.
>Again, every law I conceive of has me bound.
Define bound.
>I can't break the laws of physics;
They don't really exist, they are merely social constructs.
>; I can't not adhere to the laws of logic;
There exis different laws of logic, but you can obey the laws of logic. People do it often while reasoning and so on.
>the state would have me hung if I broke its laws;
Well not really. I jay walk from time to time and the state hasn't hang me yet.
>morality, well, nothing...
Depends on your system of morality. I'll argue for ethical egoism right now becuase it suits my needs. If you disobey ethical egoism and that will make you feel bad. This argument will work because you're a feels guy.
>This is why I'm telling you it holds no weight.
Try going against ethical egoism and hurt yourself. That ought to have some weight for you.
>define bound
restrained; placed in chains
>They don't exist
They do
>Can obey laws of logic
That's what I said. I said you can't not obey them.
>ethical egoism
I personally adhere to ethical egoism, but I would never posit it as a universal norm
Anyway I'm done my friend. You conceded the original point so I won.
>restrained; placed in chains
Ok then I won becuase logic and laws aren't binding
>That's what I said. I said you can't not obey them.
I mistype. You can disobey the laws of logic while arguing.
>I personally adhere to ethical egoism, but I would never posit it as a universal norm
Ok so you prove my point, meaning that I won.
>Anyway I'm done my friend. You conceded the original point so I won.
Actually my non friend, you conceded my point.
I destroyed all your arguments so I won! I say that the objective moral law is ethical egoism, and then it means that disobeying it while hurt your feefees, making it having weight over you, as you defined it.
Do not confuse empathy with sympathy.
>Even if there was a moral law there would be absolutely no reason to follow it.
The reason to follow moral law is implicitly given in the existence of the moral law. If there is no reason to follow the moral law, then it isn't a moral law.
>hung
Please leave and never come back.
Schopenhauer and Hume were both sentimentalists, in the sense that they considered that any moral impulse is derived from compassion rather than reason or a sense of duty. Nothing can help you feel more compassion other than allowing yourself to feel more compassion, in the same way that having sexual fantasies increases your sex drive, ability to become aroused, etc. But there are a number of philosophers who put rational moral duty to the knife; once you do that, nothing is left but conscious compassion.
this ones much more detailed. lets see, for judas we have:
>chewed endlessly in lucifers jaws
For suicides:
>transformed into thorny trees that are ripped apart by harpies
Betrayers of kin:
>lodged head first in blocks of ice
Diviners:
>Contorted until theirs heads are backwards and they cry until blind
There was a really good chart of it ill see if I can find it
yes
im writing the book anonymously. it will be available and free in 2021. i think i may have the most complete idea of empathy, and how it can be applied as a moral philosophy. but i also might be full of shit. only one way to find out. see you in a while
metta meditation
>implying reason isn't the ultimate moral arbiter
Reason in itself? How can it be when it is procedural. Rather, reasoning is grounded in something other, and that itself is arbitrary. Btw Kant grounded it in God. So you now have a fixed moral arbiter whose absolute power alone makes these axioms ''right''.
>What books, besides anything on the Bible, can help me become more empathetic towards others and more importantly to do so without the feeling of proud that comes with it?
No book. Go on Liveleak maybe. Also, you can't really become more empathetic, its innate. You are either affected or not.
The #1 people who screech about empathy are SJWs, and they're the last ones to actually practice it.
They do practice it. Empathy is predicated on identification. And that itself sets the determination of what is to be devalued, or in their case, dehumanized, specifically.
Empathy is not a tool, its a process, a state of being in inter-subjectivity.
>Kropotkin
this
Daodejing also
holy hell
look at that ressentiment
christcucks are weak faggots
>Reason in itself? How can it be when it is procedural. Rather, reasoning is grounded in something other, and that itself is arbitrary. Btw Kant grounded it in God. So you now have a fixed moral arbiter whose absolute power alone makes these axioms ''right''.
Actually no, Kant postulated the existence of god from the existence of morality. Instead of talking about philosophy, you should read a book.
Look man, follow that logic through. He does not ground it in morality, he builds up to god from it, ultimately grounding morality in god. Otherwise no determinate right is had, no arbitration.