119
submitted 9 months ago by Weirdbeardgame@lemmy.ml to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] southsamurai@sh.itjust.works 61 points 9 months ago

Simple. True empathy for everyone. Literally feeling what others feel

[-] horsescorpion@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 9 months ago

So every time someone stubs their toe, every other human would feel the pain? Everyone would be completely overwhelmed by all kinds of feelings all the time.

[-] southsamurai@sh.itjust.works 10 points 9 months ago

Apparently, the word empathy isn't as well understood as I thought.

Under typical usage, it refers to emotions, not full sensory input. Think Deanna Troi from star trek.

I've never actually heard/seen it used to refer to sensory input.

And, yes, even if it's "only" emotions that are picked up, it would be distracting. This would radically change human society. That's the entire point of the question in the post. It would be even more of a change with full sensory input though.

Imagine a world where that guy that's creeping along on the highway isn't just making people angry, because everyone that gets close knows that he's grieving so hard he can barely function. You feel that grief yourself. Or, if you prefer your interpretation of empathy, you can feel his bowels cramping and realize that he's going slow because he's looking for an exit.

Now, this doesn't automatically mean that everyone is going to act with kindness. But it does mean that none of us could ever again just dismiss someone else's state of being. We would know that the other person is a feeling being and that makes being cruel an entirely different proposition. Whe we would feel, just like it were our own pain, what our actions cause, it's gong to make people slow down and think before acting.

[-] teawrecks@sopuli.xyz 2 points 9 months ago

If people are only able to respond in a socially appropriate manner as a result of literally feeling others' feelings, doesn't that mean they still only care about others to the extent that it affects them? Wouldn't such a response still be rooted in self-centeredness?

Wouldn't actual selflessness mean accommodating someone else's emotional state specifically when you don't/can't identify with them? (Maybe more like sympathy than empathy?)

[-] southsamurai@sh.itjust.works 2 points 9 months ago

Sure, but the net effect is still the same. Giving everyone true empathy wouldn't eliminate psychopaths and sadists entirely, I'm sure. But for the average person, that barrier to spite and cruelty would be enough.

this post was submitted on 31 Oct 2023
119 points (93.4% liked)

Asklemmy

43027 readers
1419 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy ๐Ÿ”

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS