Am I a horrible person for not feeling anything?

[spinner981]

Complex question. What makes a person a bad person? If a person dies, are they required to feel sadness or distress if they want to be deemed a 'good' person? On the contrary, does feeling pleasure or satisfaction with the deaths of others make you a 'bad' person? What about when something good happens? If somebody were to announce that they are getting married, am I a 'bad' person for not caring or even detesting them because of it? Would I be considered a 'good' person for simply feeling glad or happy for them? Are we 'good' for when our emotions align with the norm, or the average reaction from a person given a situation, and 'bad' when they do not?

What does it mean to be either 'good' or 'bad' at being a person anyway?

[TheMediator]

I remember 9/11. I didn't live in the US then, and I saw footage on the screen of a burning building and another plane hitting another building. I thought it was a fiction movie or something. Then my parents told me that it was for real. And then there was footage of people jumping out of the buildings to their death. Damn...

I'm an American but I still can't help but have an internal *chuckle* when people say "ground zero" and mean 9/11. I never did and still continue to not think that 9/11 is big deal - I acknowledge that other people think it is a big deal and understand the cultural impact it has had, but when you compare it to the REAL ground zeroes, the Hiroshima/Nagasaki bombings, and then you think about how fucked up that situation was and how people in this country did and still continue to view it as a justifiable measure... it's hard for me to feel any sort of sympathy when what goes around comes around.

[GennGreymane]

I never actually feel anything.

[hrugner]

I suppose this thread is asking, "Why is extended empathy needed? Do people naturally have such an emotional link to those they'll never meet, or are they trained to think this way because society says they should?" And am I conflating/confusing empathy with sympathy? I probably just lack both.

Note: I'm not trying to ask if empathy is a "social construct". Fucking sick of that phrase.

As with most things, empathy is just short hand for some pretty complicated thought. You don't need to feel empathy if you're willing to act on the understanding that you, or someone you do care for, could be in the position of these victims at some point in the future. Getting jerked around by your emotions isn't as important as being able to respond to the suffering of others by improving the world in a way that reduces all suffering.

You can be kind and good without "religion", empathy, or any other sort of human caring, so long as you're willing to do the extra leg work. And I'm pretty convinced that the arguments for reducing inequality, and doing the sort of good that helps others do good, are sufficient to act on empathy regardless of any feelings.

[Kasterix]

Nobody except the media really cares.

If you think the media actually cares I feel sorry for you... Wait, no I don't. Because I don't care.

If the media truly gave a shit it wouldn't constantly be trying to frame every single situation in some fucked up way like how EVERYTHING is supposedly racially motivated these days, etc, which does NOT help to solve anything and only creates more problems.

All most media outlets actually care about is clicks, views and convincing people to think however those paying them want people to think.

[Seani]

I don't know why people insist on assuming they're sociopaths.

I think the correct term is psychopath, not sociopath. Sociopath has to do with multiple personalities.

[spinner981]

I'm an American but I still can't help but have an internal *chuckle* when people say "ground zero" and mean 9/11. I never did and still continue to not think that 9/11 is big deal - I acknowledge that other people think it is a big deal and understand the cultural impact it has had, but when you compare it to the REAL ground zeroes, the Hiroshima/Nagasaki bombings, and then you think about how fucked up that situation was and how people in this country did and still continue to view it as a justifiable measure... it's hard for me to feel any sort of sympathy when what goes around comes around.

I think the difference is that one was an act of terror that destroyed lives for no reason, while one was an act of war provoked by the enemy that very likely saved more lives than it cost.

[Swizzington]

OP reminds me of myself when I was like 16/17. I remember trying to convince my aunt I was definitely schizophrenic, plus I was probably a sociopath with borderline personality disorder who probably had asbergers too.

Turns out I was being (as another poster in this thread put it) an "edgy mcedgelord".

[Seani]

The difference between the OP and a true psychopath would be in his/her neuro-biochemistry. The condition of Psychopathy usually involves having a dysfunctional amygdala.

Edit: Although it is possible for the OP to be a psychopath, lack of empathy would be one of many attributes they would consider in the Hare Psychopathy checklist. Just having lack of empathy would not necessarily make one a psychopath. Of course being a psychopath is not illegal unless you act in a criminal manner.

[Kasterix]

I think the correct term is psychopath, not sociopath. Sociopath has to do with multiple personalities.

That's dissociative identity disorder (aka- multiple personality disorder), also wrongly called schizophrenia, being a sociopath has nothing to do with it.

[Ulfric Trumpcloak]

Got news for you buddy, none of us cares neither.

[Kasterix]

I disagree, I think you need to look at a medical dictionary.

Yeah, I'm not the one that needs to look it up.

It's an anti-social personality disorder. Not a multiple-personality disorder.

And seeing as you just deleted the post quoted, I'll assume you went and looked it up.

[Seani]

Yeah, I'm not the one that needs to look it up.

It's an anti-social personality disorder. Not a multiple-personality disorder.

And seeing as you just deleted the post quoted, I'll assume you went and looked it up.

I think that's enough of that

[Speaker]

When I hear about these shootings in the US, innocents being bombed overseas, children in Africa starving, yada yada... I don't feel any emotion. I get that these things shouldn't happen. I'd be cool with people getting along and living good lives, but I'm not sad or angry that this stuff happens.

If something happens to an acquaintance, friend, or family member, then it might get me riled (never had anything happen to those I know), but I don't feel much empathy for those I've had no contact with. Even when there were stabbings recently-ish at my high school and college, I only really felt surprised. One shrug later, and I was over it.

Should I care more about people that have no consequence on my life? Why? Do you? What are your reactions to various goings-on in the world? I'm probably just a sociopath (or is it psychopath?). I have enough empathy to know not to be mean to people, in fact I've been told I'm too nice and don't say "no" enough.

I suppose this thread is asking, "Why is extended empathy needed? Do people naturally have such an emotional link to those they'll never meet, or are they trained to think this way because society says they should?" And am I conflating/confusing empathy with sympathy? I probably just lack both.

Note: I'm not trying to ask if empathy is a "social construct". Fucking sick of that phrase.

One, why are you trying to have a philosophical debate on a gaming forum? Two, if you were a sociopath you wouldn't be making a thread about it. Three, get over it, you aren't special, and no one else is either. It really doesn't matter who thinks what. What you think matters to you, and what I think matters to me, but I don't expect what matters to me matters to you, so don't expect me care what you think.

[Alteiry]

When I hear about these shootings in the US, innocents being bombed overseas, children in Africa starving, yada yada... I don't feel any emotion. I get that these things shouldn't happen. I'd be cool with people getting along and living good lives, but I'm not sad or angry that this stuff happens.

If something happens to an acquaintance, friend, or family member, then it might get me riled (never had anything happen to those I know), but I don't feel much empathy for those I've had no contact with. Even when there were stabbings recently-ish at my high school and college, I only really felt surprised. One shrug later, and I was over it.

Should I care more about people that have no consequence on my life? Why? Do you? What are your reactions to various goings-on in the world? I'm probably just a sociopath (or is it psychopath?). I have enough empathy to know not to be mean to people, in fact I've been told I'm too nice and don't say "no" enough.

I suppose this thread is asking, "Why is extended empathy needed? Do people naturally have such an emotional link to those they'll never meet, or are they trained to think this way because society says they should?" And am I conflating/confusing empathy with sympathy? I probably just lack both.

Note: I'm not trying to ask if empathy is a "social construct". Fucking sick of that phrase.

Empathy basically boils down to "What if it was me?", and the more first-hand experience you have, the more affected you'll be. If you've never been to Africa and met starving children, it's more difficult to emphasize with their experience, especially when we've trained our minds to accept what we see in photography and video as something fabricated.

Basically, the fact that you don't dwell on all the shitty things going on in the world doesn't mean you're the emotional equivalent of a white walker, it just means your filter is doing its job.

[Mistame]

"That which does not affect me does not concern me."

General rule of life.

[PeterTheGreat]

I suppose this thread is asking, "Why is extended empathy needed? Do people naturally have such an emotional link to those they'll never meet, or are they trained to think this way because society says they should?" And am I conflating/confusing empathy with sympathy? I probably just lack both.

You shouldn't feel you have to think about it. This should trigger a thought process, if not, then you have a problem with the head. Everything has to be meaningful, you probably don't think enough about it to feel emotions. Or maybe you need to go on a trip and see everything with your own eyes. Only you know what's going on in your head.

[HumbleDuck]

When I hear about these shootings in the US, innocents being bombed overseas, children in Africa starving, yada yada... I don't feel any emotion. I get that these things shouldn't happen. I'd be cool with people getting along and living good lives, but I'm not sad or angry that this stuff happens.

If something happens to an acquaintance, friend, or family member, then it might get me riled (never had anything happen to those I know), but I don't feel much empathy for those I've had no contact with. Even when there were stabbings recently-ish at my high school and college, I only really felt surprised. One shrug later, and I was over it.

Should I care more about people that have no consequence on my life? Why? Do you? What are your reactions to various goings-on in the world? I'm probably just a sociopath (or is it psychopath?). I have enough empathy to know not to be mean to people, in fact I've been told I'm too nice and don't say "no" enough.

I suppose this thread is asking, "Why is extended empathy needed? Do people naturally have such an emotional link to those they'll never meet, or are they trained to think this way because society says they should?" And am I conflating/confusing empathy with sympathy? I probably just lack both.

Note: I'm not trying to ask if empathy is a "social construct". Fucking sick of that phrase.

When it does, you will see these kind of news would trigger you. But generally we are all selfish people, so nah.

[Ragedaug]

When I hear about these shootings in the US, innocents being bombed overseas, children in Africa starving, yada yada... I don't feel any emotion. I get that these things shouldn't happen. I'd be cool with people getting along and living good lives, but I'm not sad or angry that this stuff happens.

If something happens to an acquaintance, friend, or family member, then it might get me riled (never had anything happen to those I know), but I don't feel much empathy for those I've had no contact with. Even when there were stabbings recently-ish at my high school and college, I only really felt surprised. One shrug later, and I was over it.

Should I care more about people that have no consequence on my life? Why? Do you? What are your reactions to various goings-on in the world? I'm probably just a sociopath (or is it psychopath?). I have enough empathy to know not to be mean to people, in fact I've been told I'm too nice and don't say "no" enough.

150,000 people die every day. 6,000 die every hour. If you got emotionally distraught by the death of strangers, you would not be able to function.

Feeling and caring are different things. You can still care even though you don't feel.

[Deleted]

Most people dont care, some try to impose moral monopoly but to hell with them.