In the firestorm of the right decrying empathy as a desirable trait in a Supreme Court Justice, I went back and reread this excellent essay about Objective Morality.
I highly recommend reading the entire thing. It explains clearly and concisely how empathy is the beginning of an evolving moral society and how we might evolve into a global, more moral society.
For the purposes of this diary however, we will explore our modern political dynamics seen through the lens of empathy and evolving morality.
I'm going to keep this simple as its really just an overview. If I'm unclear please refer to the essay linked above.
Empathy as the beginning of morality
Simple formula. Emotion+Empathy=Morality.
All humans experience emotion. Emotions have a neurological and physicological basis, as evidenced by the physical symptoms of emotion. The tensing of the body in fear, the universal desire to lash or strike out in rage, the smile that appears with peace or happiness.
One of the functions of morality is to "modify the links of the emotion to reaction",to quote from the essay.
Thus, one may be enraged, have an overwhelming desire to break someone's head open and choose to break a vase instead. Why? Because the morality of the group demands that. Indeed, we might go to prison if we don't amend our behavior, i.e. the group withdraws its consent to have us among them.
But empathy is the reason the group has the moral imperative that we do not break someone's head open. We empathize with the victims of violence and murder, at least, within our own group. We have laws against it. The law then, is a direct result of empathy.
A person without empathy is most probably amoral (without group morality)
From the essay:
A group's morality is concerned not only with how an individual should judge his own action but with how other members of the group, and the group collectively will judge the individual's actions and respond to them. Judge your own action so that you are not judged by others. Others will do unto you what you do unto them. So do not do unto them what you would not want them to do unto you. An individual who rejects the morality of the group rejects empathetic membership of the group and empathetic recognition by others of his membership of the group. The individual becomes a moral parasite living on the morality of the group which he does not observe. To him a different level of morality will apply -- the more primitive kind of morality applied to those not members of the group, to outlaws and outcasts. By asserting your unlimited moral freedom, you risk losing your own freedom.
It follows then that a person who has empathy is the best judge of not only individual actions, but group actions.
Group morality: Republicans vs. Democrats
This is where it gets interesting, because it's one of the places where group morality could be evolving.
How could the analysis of the evolution and development of morality be applied at the inter-societal level? This paper has argued that morality exists to modify the expression of basic emotions and that it depends directly on empathy between members of the group. Emotions expressed in action in inter-state relations are essentially the primitive emotions found in every individual -- but there is no similar empathetic sense necessarily operating between nations which speak different languages and have different histories. The motivation for a superior moral code is less impelling between nations than within small communities. Death is inevitable for the individual but not so obviously inevitable for the nation.
With all due respect to the brilliant Robin Allott we have seen our nation dying. At least, the one we knew. The one that had safety nets for the least fortunate among us, the one that had the moral sense not to torture, the nation that was a beacon of hope during the days since Reagan becoming nothing more than a nation of corporations and our politicians their whores.
Republicans have stood for this system time and time again, they are the old morality. They visciously attack anyone percieved as not in the group, like the rats in Robin's lab.
Democrats have begun the task of evolving, so that we don't all exterminate each other. The weapons that nations have at their disposal today make this an imperative. The fight is no longer for the group, the fight is now for the species. That is the new task of morality.
Nevertheless there are signs of an incipient international morality. Although the young often ignore or dismiss traditional moral rules, "whether they recognise it or not, they have not renounced values -- they have merely found a new focus for them. A whole new range of issues has displaced the old as subjects for moral reasoning and moral reaction: race, environment, human rights, terrorism and political oppression" (Almond, 1990, p. 129). People in many countries would now agree that, as a general principle, disputes between nations 'ought not' to be settled by warfare; humankind 'ought not' pollute the environment, destroy other species, destroy the forests, destroy the ozone layer, be unnecessarily cruel to other living things. Because of technology, television, ease of travel, the development of English as a universal language, there is now the possibility that empathy can extend across nations and continents, producing, as De Nouy (1949, p. 260) put it nearly half a century ago, "a new solidarity, unaware of distance, of mountains, of oceans".
snip: At the level of the group of all groups, the human race, as well as at the level of the individual, morality could become objective. And this world-objective morality would reside not in the institutions, the bureaucracies, the apparatus, but in the individual. The many levels of morality, stretching up to the morality between societies, between states, would be integrated within the individual consciousness.
So yes, a wise Latina woman who possesses empathy should be a great Supreme Court Justice. And yes, Democrats who have empathy for those without health insurance and for those of other nations living with the burden of war are the future of our country's and perhaps the worlds morality. Democrats who are ready to face the realities of global warming and dependance on foreign oil, are the link and hope for our country's evolving above coporate interests bottom lines. Democrats who fight for social justice are the new global morality.
Republicans COULD do these things, but they are not, and they won't. They are stuck in an old paradigm of defending the group. Their group. Individuality used to be a Republican ideal, but it has fallen by the wayside.
I wonder if this actually helps explain the unlikely election of President Obama. Perhaps as a nation we are actually consciously aware that we must evolve or the consequences could be devastating, to us, and to the world.