Hey Justin! Stumbled upon your piece and had to chime in! So, you're saying empathy should be "cultivated for its own sake", but isn't empathy inherently relational by nature?( If it’s not about connecting with others, then what is it? Also, where does the Atheist notion of morality come from in this context? morality in its essence is concerned with right and wrong behavior, which begs the question of what is right and wrong behavior? ) Doesn’t that risk an ethical conception that’s a little… egocentric? 🤔 Also, how do you acess moral worth definitively, then? Just by intention, background/ context, or are outcomes totally off the table?
I agree that empathy is inherently relational — the question is whether it's inherently consequentialist. In other words, is it about building connection (a spiritual trait) or about helping others (a utilitarian instrument)? On morality, I believe in intuitionism — although there are many ambiguous areas in which reason is useful, on the whole, I think we should rely on our conscience rather than seek to back-deduce why our conscience is a natural result of abstract assumptions. It's not definitive, but I think our souls are less manipulable than our brains. Given this view, we can contemplate moral worth by one's effect on humanity, an ideal that lies above of any of its particular incarnations in individuals, whether as intention or action. Finally, I agree that my perspective has the danger of egocentrism — that's why we should be open to other ways of moral reasoning! I just wanted to counterbalance the other extreme of complete detachment from the self, which rational philosophers often lean too far toward. In the end, the self and the world are two sides of the same coin.
Hey Justin! Stumbled upon your piece and had to chime in! So, you're saying empathy should be "cultivated for its own sake", but isn't empathy inherently relational by nature?( If it’s not about connecting with others, then what is it? Also, where does the Atheist notion of morality come from in this context? morality in its essence is concerned with right and wrong behavior, which begs the question of what is right and wrong behavior? ) Doesn’t that risk an ethical conception that’s a little… egocentric? 🤔 Also, how do you acess moral worth definitively, then? Just by intention, background/ context, or are outcomes totally off the table?
Happy Holidays!
I agree that empathy is inherently relational — the question is whether it's inherently consequentialist. In other words, is it about building connection (a spiritual trait) or about helping others (a utilitarian instrument)? On morality, I believe in intuitionism — although there are many ambiguous areas in which reason is useful, on the whole, I think we should rely on our conscience rather than seek to back-deduce why our conscience is a natural result of abstract assumptions. It's not definitive, but I think our souls are less manipulable than our brains. Given this view, we can contemplate moral worth by one's effect on humanity, an ideal that lies above of any of its particular incarnations in individuals, whether as intention or action. Finally, I agree that my perspective has the danger of egocentrism — that's why we should be open to other ways of moral reasoning! I just wanted to counterbalance the other extreme of complete detachment from the self, which rational philosophers often lean too far toward. In the end, the self and the world are two sides of the same coin.