When questioned about what sort of morality or what overarching concerns should guide humanity, the credulous liberal will often boldly pronounce “Empathy” as the solution with the sort of glib breathlessness common to plebeians regurgitating some nugget of stupidity they feel is especially compelling. By appealing to a vague combination of sympathy and pity, the leftist has now dazzled you with his severance of the Gordian Knot in a single stroke of Kumbaya and compassion. Still unconvinced? Then you need to research mirror neurons or *seriously contemplate the possibility that you are in fact a psychopath, which is an obsolete way to tell someone that you think they are a bad person with poor morals.
In fact this is the heart of the shitlib’s post hoc rationalization endeavor; to summarily declare empathy to be a form of morality itself, and not merely a sentiment or subjective emotional state with no more weight than other emotional states. To be empathic is to be morally good, and to lack empathy is to be dysfunctional and evil.
Of course this is a grandiose lie. Empathy is merely the capacity to abstractly contemplate how being in an identical situation with someone else would feel. It’s closely linked to theory of mind, and exists mostly as part of our social cognition, as an exercise of mental energy used to hypothesize about the internal states of others. Regardless of whether one voluntarily exercises it or cannot help but “empathize” with everyone they meet, ultimately empathy is just painting illusory abstractions of how it might feel to be the other person using the subjective inferences of the subject’s own mind. No one literally “feels” what someone else “feels”, they feel what they imagine they themselves would experience and this simulation can definitely be wrong.
As far as a moral imperative goes, having strong empathy for others is about as useful as having a finely honed sense of irony. One can make strong moral arguments for many a position without consulting their sense of compassion, and empathy itself can be used as a justification for any number of atrocities including the extinction of all human life. Empathy might inform one doctor to ease his patient’s pain as much as possible in the face of terminal illness, while another may believe Jack Kevorkian‘s approach shows the most sympathy and alleviates the greatest volume of suffering.
Whether liberals admit it or not, they themselves are quite selective at picking targets for their much vaunted capacity for compassion. A Syrian refugee might receive all the plaintive bleating imaginable from Blue State SWPL’s posting anti-Trump tweets from their local Whole Foods, but curiously the plight of under-privileged West Virginians is only remarked on with passing scorn.
Why it’s almost as if their “empathy” is no more developed than the shriveled set of estrogen drenched balls dangling between their legs.
Some of these hypocrites with pretensions to intellectualism might bring up the BuzzFeed Science on “mirror neurons” with the same overconfident sense of final authority they normally reserve for discussions of climate change. Now from a pure philosophical basis, the existence of mirror neurons or a cognitive network for duplicating the internal states of other humans doesn’t give empathy any more moral authority or relevancy than discovering the genes responsible for why some people write auto-erotic Sonic The Hedgehog fan-fiction, but as luck would have it, the actual neuro-science here is decidedly skeptical. There are studies that call into question the very existence of mirror neurons in humans, and a cursory examination of the concept will produce some fatal curiosity about why a species already capable of abstract reasoning would even need specialized brain cells like this in the first place. I don’t need to use mirror neurons to figure out how it would feel to be Stephen Crowder pushing Tim Wise out of a helicopter, my imagination already works perfectly fine.
Instead of focusing on the latest overhyped theoretical science, we might be better off acquainting ourselves with the concept of Pathological Altruism and how it relates to the world views of people who believe that importing an unlimited number of repressed young male Muslims into a country with regular gay pride parades is what makes liberals morally superior to “xenophobic nationalists”. In fact, when one considers the very real damage done to society by people promoting policies that better gratifies their own need to project compassion and sympathy, concluding that the modern world is actually plagued by a maladaptive exaggeration of empathy would not be an unreasonable conviction. Scientific research in a number of fields is quite visibly over-burdened with a need to balance rational inquiry against the petulant demands of hyperactive empathy. We can’t look into connections between race, IQ, and violence, this would make negroes feel bad, and negroes feeling bad is objectively worse than drawing naive and incorrect conclusions that result in decades of human suffering. Serious contemplation of the human enterprises ruined by an over-abundant and misplaced application of empathy are too depressing to even catalog, just look at recent headlines featuring Ebay’s founder attempting to provide a fixed daily income for 26,000 Kenyans out of a delusional belief this will “raise them out of poverty”.
Just imagine, we could be terraforming Mars right now, but instead our
empathy pathological altruism would have us donate money to the production of more impoverished violent niggers in Africa.
I believe people with this sentiment are credulous morons
Granted, I don’t suspect that the average modern liberal has given empathy any real thought and merely seizes upon the concept as a sort of post hoc deflection designed to assign moral goodness to himself and pathology to his opposition. It’s yet another intellectually lazy excuse by a stunted abhuman collection of domesticated herd-animals trying to quietly chew their cud; the realization that the world is a cruel place with even crueler predators stalking upon it would give these dumb cattle indigestion. To the modern shitlib, the sheep dog is the only inconvenience they’ve ever known, so of course they don’t recognize the howls of wolves in the distance. Why answer the hard questions about whether our country should take in refugees that are potentially violent young Muslim radicals, or whether or not public assistance is essentially subsidizing a homicidal inner city demographic to the detriment of everyone involved? Just moo something trite about empathy and go back to clickbait articles about Donald Trump’s dad being mean to black people. Serious adult discussion of real world problems and their solutions is hard; mumbling vague non-positions is easy.
What they would fain attain with all their strength, is the universal, green-meadow happiness of the herd, together with security, safety, comfort, and alleviation of life for every one, their two most frequently chanted songs and doctrines are called “Equality of Rights” and “Sympathy with All Sufferers”–and suffering itself is looked upon by them as something which must be DONE AWAY WITH.
-Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil, Chapter II