Why isn’t empathy just the answer for moral philosophy...

Define "empathy"

Because empathy doesn't mean what you think it does. Kant is definitely not empathetic, whence his many many defences of the categorical imperative against common feeling.

Setting innocent babies on fire purely for the act of setting innocent babies on fire.

Categorical Imperative isn't about empathy but rather finding a common ground of ethical structure that can be applied for many different situations rationally.

>innocent babies
This is a Catholic board user

Freshly baptized and fully innocent babies

Do you know what objective means? You've just given an act plus a motivation (doing something BECAUSE you simply want to). Am I to understand that your objective ethics would expressly allow the setting on fire of innocent babies for one or more reasons? Or did you make a formulation error?

You will never make me empathize with incels. Sorry

>If it’s selective, then it’s not empathetic. It’s conditionality is rational, as said before
Empathy as being an emotion is not in of itself rational, it is only thus rationalized.
>Empathy requires love of the self, or of individuality. Collectivism would be the death of the self
The most I could say here is that empathy is the acknowledgement of the personal self, and in some cases, of individuality, but the elevation of the self of others beyond the personal self. Typically it would however not even be quantified in social-atomistic terms, because non-selective empathy, as you say is the true empathy, is based upon the irreversible emotional reaction of the admixture of social reactants, producing a society inseparable into distinct parts, forging truly a collective community. In that case only is it in-group empathetic, without specification, and in each case it is emotional bonds and their unconscious invocation which calls and iterates empathy - no rationality is involved in the process of itself, only if it is to be rationalized after the fact.

Empathy is largely emotional and relying solely on emotions to determine ethics is probably bad. You are going to be pretty easily exploited and taken advantage of if not have your ethics subverted also.

bruh, the categorical imperative is as far away from empathy-based ethics as you can get. Kant’s project was to reach an objective, completely DISINTERESTED ethics.

His project can biographically be read in connection with large disdain for the bourgeoisie of his day, where giving charity to the poor to boost ones feeling of moral goodness was prevalent.

is right when he says
>empathy involves the love of the self. On top of that, it is conditional.

This is why Kant objects to it.

>Why isn’t empathy just the answer for moral philosophy?
The Trolley Problem

>Even Kant’s “categorical imperative” seems to be an attempt to get at empathy
wat

Empathy isn't really a good thing. What you need to have is compassion.
Read this:
firstthings.com/article/2017/10/empathy-is-not-charity

Because Submission is

Wait, have any* of those Anglo consequentialisms actually been tried?

The effort to understand and respond to both your and others’ underlying intentions, whether or not they’re conscious of it, with the intention of becoming more self actualized. It means that, if anyone intends to exact harm, that they be stopped and encouraged to realize the source of their misanthropy. If they aren’t willing to do so, then that indicates they need to have more experiences that drive them to eventually help themselves. This is probably the most pretentious way to put it, but it’s how I understand it
Thanks for the explanation. Is rationality even compatible with a realistic moral system, as reason always falls short of objectively assessing reality? Even with an ethical system guided by reason, it’s common for people to feel more confident about fulfilling their intuitive/unreasonable sense of morality. There’s also the problem of not having enough time to reason through moral dilemmas.
As for the categorical imperative being distinctive of empathy, Kant seems to be exposing an intuitive ethical system that is rooted within consciousness. However, as I’ve said in the past paragraph, I don’t feel that this ethical system is reasonable, as reality itself doesn’t seem reasonable. Kant’s system leads to absurdities like “to always tell the truth,” which WD Ross tried to resolve by implementing a system of contextual moral requirements (eg: to tell the truth only if it means not harming anyone else) underlied by the non-contextual rule to not harm others. I agree with Ross when he says that the individual needs life experience to accurately assess this objective ethical system, since experience with reality, which is unreasonable, develops your understanding of what’s unreasonable.
I suppose this is what I’m getting at when I mention empathy, I want to highlight the effort to understand the intentions that underlie individuals’ actions, however.

To clarify my definition, by additional life experiences, I mean being subjected to the consequences of your actions, for instance, ostracization, imprisonment, etc

anymore of these "watcha doin" memes? I tried to google them but all I got was outdated normie cancer

>Even Kant’s “categorical imperative” seems to be an attempt to get at empathy without realizing it
No.

>Aaah, some dumb magazine said it therefore it's true.

only have this one
savor it, and post more if you find any

Attached: NAZBOL.jpg (929x3027, 476K)