Victor said:
Ok, I'll play along with your understanding of it...
Isn't really relevent, but just to let you know, it isn't just my understanding of it. It's the proper psychological term as opposed to the common useage term that you cited from that dictionary reference. If you search "empathy" in wikipedia for example, it will give you my definition.
Victor said:
As I said before, I do think that sympathy, empathy, or just any feeling plays a role in a persons decision and in identifyng right from wrong. And more then likely this is what does it for many people. But I think it can be dangerous, if not accompanied with some thorough reasoning and nurtured is some way. Can you think of anything you personally think is wrong, but have absolutely no feelings towards it? That it's just obvious it's wrong that no feelings was necessary to conclude it.
I hate to bang on and on about the bloody definition of empathy that we've got caught up in, but under the definition that we are now using, empathy is not a feeling. It is a part of reasoning. Empathy comes in because the logic goes like this: "this person has feelings like me, therefore if I hit them they will experience pain." Now, if someone also decides that it is a bad thing for others to experience pain, then they will not hit them. If they decide it is a good thing for others to experience pain, then they will not hit them. But if they did not understand from the beginning that the other person would experience pain if they hit them, then they would not be able to make a concious "good" decision to not cause someone pain, or a consicous "bad" decision to cause someone pain.
Victor said:
For the psycopath the problem lies in both his understanding and his feelings.
If you begin from the assumption that the understanding that it is good to cause others pain is a bad one, and that having violent feelings is also a bad thing, then that is correct. And I'm sure we both start from those assumptions, so yes that is correct.
Victor said:
Not with my understanding and definition I provided.
But using my definition, then it is true that sympathy is a possible but not certain by-product of empathy.
Victor said:
That's true, but where does using your noggin come in? Are we to excuse people simply because of their potentiality? Maybe some will, yes. But the overwhelming majority of us have the capacity to think and reason to things without feelings.
As I said, empathy is part of the reasoning process. We all have different abilities to reason.
Victor said:
You mean like heaven and hell?
Heaven and Hell is the exact opposite of a spectrum of punishment and reward. It's a black and white thing. You either get rewarded, or punished.
Victor said:
Perhaps that person wil, but I don't believe it should be solely based on empathy (using my definition). If your definition of empathy includes using your noggin, then I agree.
Ok. So, using my definition of empathy, you agree that someone with less empathy can be punished and rewarded more. So, do you now agree that there is a spectrum of empathy (my definition again)? If so, you must conclude that a certain act can be worse if committed by one person than another, and therefore deserve more punishment. Does God's justice work like that?
If you believe that justice is a desirable thing, and that God's justice would be perfect, and that perfect justice would mean giving a punishment in proportion to the crime, and that crimes can be throughout a range of severity, then why do you not conclude that a black and white justice system, where people are either punished or rewarded, is unjust, and therefore could not be part of God's justice system?
(apologies for the ridiculously long length of that last sentence)