A constant theme on the Left of late is empathy. They constantly insinuate that we hesperians lack empathy, and that empathy is the foundation of morality. The Left also offers the corollary that women are more empathetic and are therefore more moral than men. Actual science tells a more complicated story, but paying attention to science is not something the Left does much anymore. They prefer to just make it up. Back to the matter at hand. Does their argument hold water?
As with most liberal arguments, the answer is fuck no.
They are wrong that empathy is the end-all, be-all of morality. They are wrong that women are more moral. They are wrong that we are not moral or empathetic. Lastly, they are wrong that they themselves are very empathetic or moral at all. On every score, they are incorrect, victims to their own narrow, provincial thinking.
Empathy is one component of moral reasoning. Others include weighing ends versus means, utilitarian ethics, divine command systems, sanctity, and principle. The thing liberals often do not consider is that empathy is often self-involved. You might understand, or try to understand another person, but usually it is to do what is best for you, or to make a decision that you are comfortable with. There are of course exceptions, but these are often not about moral reasoning. We might try to understand what our kids really enjoy in order to plan a great vacation or birthday present, but those are not instances of moral reasoning. Empathizing for a lot of people is about advantage, not altruistically helping another. So empathy by itself is not inherently moral. In fact, it can be used for insidious purposes.
Secondly, empathy does not always lead to the best moral choices. The clearest example of this I can think of is people who take in shelter animals. I knew a family a few years ago who sheltered more animals than you could count. They had over a dozen dogs, two dozen cats, and tons of other animals. I never went to their house, but I understand that it smelled heavily of cat piss, dog shit, death, and insincerity. They had more animals than they could reasonably care for, which led to their children often being neglected (they were often sent to school in clothes covered in animal urine and feces) and the animals suffering. Some died from lack of attention, and as far as the dogs are concerned, none got the attention that dogs require. The entire situation was born out of concern for the animals and a desire to do humanitarian work. However, because of overactive empathy without concern for ends and logistics, the animals suffered more than they might have elsewhere. This was about personal distress over the condition of the animals, not what was actually best for the animals. Here, empathy might have been a useful component of caring for the animals if it had been tempered by utilitarian thought, logistics, and weighing of consequences. Instead, the need to assuage guilt was the only impetus, with predictable results.
The left certainly is selective with its empathy. Has it ever legitimately tried to empathize with us? Rhetorical question. Of course they haven’t. If they had, they would probably have realized that our positions make sense. This is what happens to most leftists when they actually listen to us. To the contrary, they refuse to engage in any real debate because they know it will not work out for them. Their feelings-based, self-centered, logic-eschewing positions cannot stand up to our arguments (which are actually much more empathetic; more on that shortly), so they not only avoid it, they constantly seek to destroy our people publicly with no regard to their ability to provide for their families. Even the slightest deviation from liberal orthodoxy can get someone fired. There is no concern for legitimate gripes, or free speech. There is no trial. Just abuse and condemnation. Liberals do not agree in empathy for everyone, so their appeals to empathize as a means of counteracting our positions should be disregarded.
As for their allegations that we lack empathy, nothing could be farther from the truth. We empathize greatly, but we tend to reserve it for people that actually matter to us. Most rightward people I know are very good at empathizing with friends and family, or like-minded people. These are the people who should matter most to us, so it makes sense for us to be most concerned with their happiness and well-being. We also have empathy for strangers, though takes different forms than liberals’ empathy. The average Hesperian makes a better citizen and neighbor than your average leftoid. We tend to be courteous, private, and good stewards of our property. It’s a form of empathy. We worry about our personal responsibilities and do not try to hinder others in theirs. It’s a form of concern that respects other people’s autonomy. Or, as I like to call it, thinking like a goddamn grown-up.
Regarding women’s empathy, I will not rehash the details from the article to which I linked above. Suffice it to say, there are different levels of empathy, and women are not necessarily better at all of them. Regardless, empathy is not the only component to moral decision making, so absent other mental tools, women may not make more moral decisions based on the vaginas alone.
As usual, when we apply adult thinking to a topic, we find liberals to be half-baked assfucks who have no idea what they’re talking about.
Incidentally, this blog post was inspired by the dumbfuck liberal rantings of a libtards who served as a NASA engineer. It’s good to know our so-called scientists are this fucking stupid. If you want to read a liberal who actually does know how to think morally (he literally wrote a book on the subject), check out the work of Jonathan Haidt.