nator writes:
It also seems to be quite hard-wired into humans, and is only completely absent in a very small percentage of the population, whom we call "sociopaths".
I quite don't agree with this statement.
first of all, by my standard at least, I don't see that many individuals in our society capable of empathising for others. What I see masses of people conforming to social standards. Sociopaths are just the extreme cases of most of these people.
We can also look at other societies to see examples of the inability to empathise with others being more prevalent. Biblical accounts, whether they were work of fiction or not, and the greek myths portray the savagery of bronze age societies (jar and purple might not agree with me on this one). The middle ages showed us perfect examples of people's inability to empathise. And let's not forget that slavery used to be a good thing. The nazis somehow got the overwhelming majority of their people to throw their conscience away. Even in this day and age, we have examples of mass murders and genocides that result in hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people dying.
Schraf, you don't have to look far to see just how heartless people are. The fact that the evangelical movement is somehow taking over this country should be telling enough just how little empathy people have.
Just as we evolved to feel hunger in order to motivate us to take on fuel for the operation of our bodies, we evolved to feel empathy in order to motivate us to live together in cohesive social groups.
I don't think so. Society is mostly held together by ideals that at one time or another were conjured up by the few that actually had empathy. I'd say that most people, while lacking the ability to empathise, are closer to the neutral part of the spectrum and therefore can be easily swayed either way. In our case, the masses have been swayed toward the better part of the spectrum.
We are BOG. Resistance is voltage over current.
Disclaimer:
Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.
He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!
™ Version 4.2
