The real issue behind so many of the world's problems...

[Lenonis]

So for a while now I've seen people's ability and willingness to empathize with their fellow man take a drastic downturn. From so many issues from war, marriage equality, social spending, etc. there is a shocking lack of empathy in the political discourse.

For example -- Here in the US, we frequently talk about how horrible (which is it) that thousands of servicemen have died in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Yet it's almost never mentioned that orders of magnitude more civilians of those countries have died as well. For some reason, the US public can empathize with one of their own, but seems to be complete unable to grasp the concept that innocent people over there have died as well. These people are wives, husbands, parents, children...and yet it doesn't even cross their minds.

On the social issues, both sides seem to be completely unable to look past their own issues to try to sympathize why someone might feel the way they do. I could give examples but I fear that would be encouraging a derailing of this thread for people to debate their favorite hot topics.

So why is this the case? What has changed that has caused people to lose their empathy? Has it always been this way and it just seems more blatant? Is this something that is a natural progression of society? Does it need to change?

Am I on to something or am I totally off course?

What are your thoughts?

[Rukentuts]

It's because people are making decisions without actually meeting those directly affected by those decisions. It's very easy to dismiss people you have never met. Just look at those Senators that have done an about-face on same-sex marriage once one of their children has been directly affected as an example.

[Lenonis]

It's because people are making decisions without actually meeting those directly affected by those decisions. It's very easy to dismiss people you have never met. Just look at those Senators that have done an about-face on same-sex marriage once one of their children has been directly affected as an example.

But do you think it's always been this way, or something that has been increasingly prevalent?

[StayTuned]

But do you think it's always been this way, or something that has been increasingly prevalent?

It has ALWAYS been like this. In fact, today is where we actually care the most for civilians during war than ever in human history before.

[TheGravemind]

No, you are 100% correct and I actually completely agree. It feels as though a lot of people today are incredibly shallow, fairly stupid and would rather concern themselves with petty, trivial things rather than realizing what matters, what doesn't and empathizing with a fellow human.

[Reeve]

But do you think it's always been this way, or something that has been increasingly prevalent?

It's always been this way. Actually, we're far more empathetic to people on the other side of the world now than we every have been previously. Do you think a Roman citizen concerned themselves with the well-being of the Gallic peoples when Gaius Julius Caesar was conquering them?

[Rukentuts]

But do you think it's always been this way, or something that has been increasingly prevalent?

I believe as media coverage has increased, as well as means toward global virtualization and communication, that it has increased throughout the years; domestically speaking.

[StayTuned]

No, you are 100% correct and I actually completely agree. It feels as though a lot of people today are incredibly shallow, fairly stupid and would rather concern themselves with petty, trivial things rather than realizing what matters, what doesn't and empathizing with a fellow human.

You must be crazy lol... sorry but just think a few hundred years back. During conquest, we enjoyed killing whatever wasn't one of us. We killed men and raped their women. Emphasis for civilians? No such thing during the past.

Mankind was in war since... well, basically always. Only today things like war crimes are being prosecuted.

[Tzalix]

But do you think it's always been this way, or something that has been increasingly prevalent?

I think it's always been this way but it's been less noticeable in the past. Without the media that we have today, nobody really know what was going on outside their own countries in the past. For most of human history, you were personally involved with all the people you knew. Now we hear about people dying on the other side of the globe, and because we're not personally involved with it, it's easy to dismiss.

[Lenonis]

So war has more empathy -- in that we try to minimize collateral damage and try to avoid killing people. I can see this -- but it also doesn't change that a lot of people just don't seem to care about the losses unless their our own. To me that seems to be lacking empathy, even if the actual activities of war seek to minimize it.

But what about politics and social issues -- it seems so us vs them -- which to me screams a lack of empathy.

[PaladinBash]

They're the enemy though. I don't care what happens to my enemies. Whether they are good people, bad people, justified extremists or simple dupes...they are the enemy. They are a threat through whatever means they have and should be destroyed. Sadly, there are laws and other nonsense that stops this happening. Maybe I am the bad guy here. Maybe I am the true evil. Maybe they are the noble kind souls that I am exploiting or picking on but by that logic, I've got even less of a reason to care. I'm not saying they aren't people or can't be reasoned with, I see it in a very real 'us and them' way. If they stop whatever they are doing and submit to our will or judgement, they can go on living. If they don't, they should be destroyed so that we are safe. In the pursuit of this, men on my side die. That saddens me. Plenty more of the enemy die too and while it is sometimes unfortunate that they are children or genuinely innocent, that is the problem of the enemy to think about. Why should we care more about the suffering of enemy civilians than they do themselves? If they value the lives of their own people so much, why do they keep fighting us? Why don't they surrender and accept their fate to preserve their children's lives. The Japanese did it. The Germans did it. Look at those two countries now. Surrendering when you've lost to preserve your own people is wise. They don't though...and that's their problem, not ours.

[TheGravemind]

They're the enemy though. I don't care what happens to my enemies. Whether they are good people, bad people, justified extremists or simple dupes...they are the enemy. They are a threat through whatever means they have and should be destroyed. Sadly, there are laws and other nonsense that stops this happening. Maybe I am the bad guy here. Maybe I am the true evil. Maybe they are the noble kind souls that I am exploiting or picking on but by that logic, I've got even less of a reason to care. I'm not saying they aren't people or can't be reasoned with, I see it in a very real 'us and them' way. If they stop whatever they are doing and submit to our will or judgement, they can go on living. If they don't, they should be destroyed so that we are safe. In the pursuit of this, men on my side die. That saddens me. Plenty more of the enemy die too and while it is sometimes unfortunate that they are children or genuinely innocent, that is the problem of the enemy to think about. Why should we care more about the suffering of enemy civilians than they do themselves? If they value the lives of their own people so much, why do they keep fighting us? Why don't they surrender and accept their fate to preserve their children's lives. The Japanese did it. The Germans did it. Look at those two countries now. Surrendering when you've lost to preserve your own people is wise. They don't though...and that's their problem, not ours.

rofl, you are delusional. They are not my enemy, or even the United States' enemy. you are simply a jingo mongoloid idiot. sorry

Flaming is not tolerated here

[Felya]

So war has more empathy -- in that we try to minimize collateral damage and try to avoid killing people. I can see this -- but it also doesn't change that a lot of people just don't seem to care about the losses unless their our own. To me that seems to be lacking empathy, even if the actual activities of war seek to minimize it.

But what about politics and social issues -- it seems so us vs them -- which to me screams a lack of empathy.

This is how it's always been. The current motivation seems to be Ayn Rand's objectivism.

[Lenonis]

I see it in a very real 'us and them' way.

Which means you are entirely devoid of any sort of empathy. And, ironically enough, this is exactly how extremists on the other side view us. So you aren't so different from them.

I would think that should give you pause...

[Reeve]

So war has more empathy -- in that we try to minimize collateral damage and try to avoid killing people. I can see this -- but it also doesn't change that a lot of people just don't seem to care about the losses unless their our own. To me that seems to be lacking empathy, even if the actual activities of war seek to minimize it.

But what about politics and social issues -- it seems so us vs them -- which to me screams a lack of empathy.

That may be a lack of empathy, but it's certainly less lack of empathy than we've had in the past. In fact these days we have huge programs made specifically to provide aid to disadvantaged parts of the world, efforts to cheaply eradicate malaria that are being worked on in non-malarial countries, etc. Hell, when a lot of major disasters happen, public outpouring of aid is often massive. The amount of money donated after the Indonesian Tsunami or the Haitian Earthquake or the Japanese Earthquake/Tsunami was huge.

We don't have a lack of empathy for tragedy. We have a lack of capacity to care about ongoing tragedy. If terror attacks are happening every week in some parts of the world, it's hard to get upset or saddened or moved to action for each and every one of them. That's just too much emotional requirement for any human being.

[StayTuned]

So war has more empathy -- in that we try to minimize collateral damage and try to avoid killing people. I can see this -- but it also doesn't change that a lot of people just don't seem to care about the losses unless their our own. To me that seems to be lacking empathy, even if the actual activities of war seek to minimize it.

But what about politics and social issues -- it seems so us vs them -- which to me screams a lack of empathy.

Give us some time man. We improved in all areas (social, political, etc) so fast within the last 50 years... we actually improved more during that time than in 1000 years before.

I am pretty sure that one day wars will die out because we advance so far that we actually need a full global cooperation and you will inevitably start to care for everyone around the globe.

[Lenonis]

This is how it's always been.

If this is how it's always been, then why does it seem that (at least in the US) our political system is paralyzed by partisanship? I really can't remember a time when things have been like this in our history.

Maybe it is because people paint history with a kinder brush, but it seems like politicians always pulled together for the sake of the common good when the country was in need. You can look at the great depression, the world wars -- how united people can be in the face of difficult times. Yet now, people refuse to do ANYTHING because they don't want to be seen as capitulating to the "other side".

---------- Post added 2013-05-02 at 10:48 AM ----------

We have a lack of capacity to care about ongoing tragedy.

Oooh, that's an excellent point. Like how we responded to 9/11 vs the ongoing wars overseas. Something acute really captures our attention and makes us react, but long term issues we have an issue with. So perhaps attention span instead of empathy.

[Reeve]

If this is how it's always been, then why does it seem that (at least in the US) our political system is paralyzed by partisanship? I really can't remember a time when things have been like this in our history.

Maybe it is because people paint history with a kinder brush, but it seems like politicians always pulled together for the sake of the common good when the country was in need. You can look at the great depression, the world wars -- how united people can be in the face of difficult times. Yet now, people refuse to do ANYTHING because they don't want to be seen as capitulating to the "other side".

That's just not true. Just take a quick look at how acrimonious the fights between the federalists and antifederalists got back in the early days of the US. There has usually been political acrimony and deadlock in our country with rare exceptions.

[Pull My Finger]

It has a lot to do with the constant notion of shortage and strategic allocation in the postmodern world, and the competition that comes with it.

[Felya]

It's because people are making decisions without actually meeting those directly affected by those decisions. It's very easy to dismiss people you have never met. Just look at those Senators that have done an about-face on same-sex marriage once one of their children has been directly affected as an example.

The fact that they now meet people that are part of the issue, is not necessarily fulfilling a need to see it in action. It is also reflective of how prevalent an issue has become. When it gets to the point where the issue penetrates their bubble, the popular opinion on it has become prevalent enough that they can use it to gain votes. Having a direct source for their change of mind, simply serves as a legitimate reason to change your mind. For some reason, changing your mind on issues due to growing public support is seen as a bad thing for politicians. We live in a time, where doing something to help Americans, is used as evidence of buying votes. Meaning, politicians need a personal reason, to deflect the idea that their doing this because voter's demand will no longer hinder their reelection.