Community Chat

[Quse]

---

@Noel7 wrote:

---

@Quse wrote:

---

@Noel7 wrote:

---

@Quse wrote:

---

@151949 wrote:

I think I disagree with the OP's definition of EMPATHY. I just googled to be sure and it is defined as the ability to see & understand another's feeling. That does not aty all fit the description the OP gave  where the person feels compulsion to act on the other person's feelings. Instead it describes a person who can see things from everyone's POV .An empathetic person would make a great judge because they see all parties side of the story.

---

I wouldn't want a judge deciding with empathy. I want a judge to look at the evidence in a case and apply law, not emotions and feelings.

******************************

@Quse

People are more complex than merely having one trait. Most people have some degree of empathy.  It's a good thing to have because the opposite is a lack of understanding and a lack of the ability to read people.

Empathy has nothing to do with logic and reason, and being empathetic does not mean someone cannot recognize when someone else has done something wrong.

---

---

Of course people are more complex than having one trait, and, of course, most people feel compassion and empathy. That doesn't mean they'd make good judges. What's a "good" decision by one may not be a "good" decision to another, and, therefore, should be based in law. Empathy can interfere with logic and reason if it's the basis of a decision. There is too much "justice" based on emotions coming from benches now. Equal justice under the law should be blind and not biased, based on how the judge "feels"

---

*******************************

@Quse

Your comment about too much justice based on emotions is pure opinion, and again, conspiracy theory.  It is without evidence.

---

There is plenty of evidence based on the decisions of certain courts and the cases they cite for their decisions, but I'm not going to waste my time getting into weeds. You can think what you want. Everything seems to be a "conspiracy" these days...even truth.

[suzyQ3]

---

@CrazyDaisy wrote:

---

@suzyQ3 wrote:

---

@Quse wrote:

---

@suzyQ3 wrote:

---

@Quse wrote:

---

@Noel7 wrote:

---

@Quse wrote:

---

@151949 wrote:

I think I disagree with the OP's definition of EMPATHY. I just googled to be sure and it is defined as the ability to see & understand another's feeling. That does not aty all fit the description the OP gave  where the person feels compulsion to act on the other person's feelings. Instead it describes a person who can see things from everyone's POV .An empathetic person would make a great judge because they see all parties side of the story.

---

I wouldn't want a judge deciding with empathy. I want a judge to look at the evidence in a case and apply law, not emotions and feelings.

******************************

@Quse

People are more complex than merely having one trait. Most people have some degree of empathy.  It's a good thing to have because the opposite is a lack of understanding and a lack of the ability to read people.

Empathy has nothing to do with logic and reason, and being empathetic does not mean someone cannot recognize when someone else has done something wrong.

---

---

Of course people are more complex than having one trait, and, of course, most people feel compassion and empathy. That doesn't mean they'd make good judges. What's a "good" decision by one may not be a "good" decision to another, and, therefore, should be based in law. Empathy can interfere with logic and reason if it's the basis of a decision. There is too much "justice" based on emotions coming from benches now. Equal justice under the law should be blind and not biased, based on how the judge "feels"

---

@Quse, you ask for the utter impossible. Even the law is written by humans, who by definition are never without emotions or bias. It's how we deal with that fact that matters. A good judge knows how to blend feelings with the law and case at hand. That's all he or she can do.

---

I agree. A good judge knows how to blend feelings with the law, but there are many these days that are defining case law with their biases. To get around it, judges would have to be robots, and I'm not advocating that. But sometimes, the best outcome is counterintuitive...and a judge has to discern that

---

@Quse, and therein lies support for my post. When someone posits that many judges these days are defining case law with their biases, that statement, in and of itself, reveals the bias of the commenter. Do you get my drift? It's a neverending pit of biases. :-) And it always will be.

So this is why I have no more trust in those who are Originalists (treat the Constitution as written in stone) than I do those who don't don that label. It's meaningless. They all interpret, just with different POVs and biases.

---

There is a difference between making a decision within the constraints of the law, and creating them from the bench.

---

@CrazyDaisy, all judges believe that they are making a decision based on the body of law (including applicable statutes and precedents). But it still boils down to interpretation. We see this everyday when we read about reactions to court decisions.

Interpretation is simply not made within a vacuum. It brings with it the whole person's being, for lack of a better word -- his or her experience, education, environment, etc., ad nauseam.

[Noel7]

---

@Quse wrote:

---

@Noel7 wrote:

---

@Quse wrote:

---

@Noel7 wrote:

---

@Quse wrote:

---

@151949 wrote:

I think I disagree with the OP's definition of EMPATHY. I just googled to be sure and it is defined as the ability to see & understand another's feeling. That does not aty all fit the description the OP gave  where the person feels compulsion to act on the other person's feelings. Instead it describes a person who can see things from everyone's POV .An empathetic person would make a great judge because they see all parties side of the story.

---

I wouldn't want a judge deciding with empathy. I want a judge to look at the evidence in a case and apply law, not emotions and feelings.

******************************

@Quse

People are more complex than merely having one trait. Most people have some degree of empathy.  It's a good thing to have because the opposite is a lack of understanding and a lack of the ability to read people.

Empathy has nothing to do with logic and reason, and being empathetic does not mean someone cannot recognize when someone else has done something wrong.

---

---

Of course people are more complex than having one trait, and, of course, most people feel compassion and empathy. That doesn't mean they'd make good judges. What's a "good" decision by one may not be a "good" decision to another, and, therefore, should be based in law. Empathy can interfere with logic and reason if it's the basis of a decision. There is too much "justice" based on emotions coming from benches now. Equal justice under the law should be blind and not biased, based on how the judge "feels"

---

*******************************

@Quse

Your comment about too much justice based on emotions is pure opinion, and again, conspiracy theory.  It is without evidence.

---

There is plenty of evidence based on the decisions of certain courts and the cases they cite for their decisions, but I'm not going to waste my time getting into weeds. You can think what you want. Everything seems to be a "conspiracy" these days...even truth.

---

************************************

@Quse

Truth requires evidence.  There is no hard evidence that what you say is true, there is only opinion. 

@suzyQ3made a good point, that pretty much everyone is biased in some ways.  I am biased toward truth based on evidence, I don't accept opinion as evidence.

[Quse]

---

@suzyQ3 wrote:

---

@Quse wrote:

---

@suzyQ3 wrote:

---

@Quse wrote:

---

@Noel7 wrote:

---

@Quse wrote:

---

@151949 wrote:

I think I disagree with the OP's definition of EMPATHY. I just googled to be sure and it is defined as the ability to see & understand another's feeling. That does not aty all fit the description the OP gave  where the person feels compulsion to act on the other person's feelings. Instead it describes a person who can see things from everyone's POV .An empathetic person would make a great judge because they see all parties side of the story.

---

I wouldn't want a judge deciding with empathy. I want a judge to look at the evidence in a case and apply law, not emotions and feelings.

******************************

@Quse

People are more complex than merely having one trait. Most people have some degree of empathy.  It's a good thing to have because the opposite is a lack of understanding and a lack of the ability to read people.

Empathy has nothing to do with logic and reason, and being empathetic does not mean someone cannot recognize when someone else has done something wrong.

---

---

Of course people are more complex than having one trait, and, of course, most people feel compassion and empathy. That doesn't mean they'd make good judges. What's a "good" decision by one may not be a "good" decision to another, and, therefore, should be based in law. Empathy can interfere with logic and reason if it's the basis of a decision. There is too much "justice" based on emotions coming from benches now. Equal justice under the law should be blind and not biased, based on how the judge "feels"

---

@Quse, you ask for the utter impossible. Even the law is written by humans, who by definition are never without emotions or bias. It's how we deal with that fact that matters. A good judge knows how to blend feelings with the law and case at hand. That's all he or she can do.

---

I agree. A good judge knows how to blend feelings with the law, but there are many these days that are defining case law with their biases. To get around it, judges would have to be robots, and I'm not advocating that. But sometimes, the best outcome is counterintuitive...and a judge has to discern that

---

@Quse, and therein lies support for my post. When someone posits that many judges these days are defining case law with their biases, that statement, in and of itself, reveals the bias of the commenter. Do you get my drift? It's a neverending pit of biases. :-) And it always will be.

So this is why I have no more trust in those who are Originalists (treat the Constitution as written in stone) than I do those who don't don that label. It's meaningless. They all interpret, just with different POVs and biases.

---

No, I don't  "get your drift". I could argue you have a bias against believing that any of this happens, although I could give you case after case evidence....and on and on it goes. Additionally, using the Constitution versus case law as a basis for a decision depends on the courts involved, but that would be a total waste of time trying to explain.

[Mominohio]

---

@Isobel Archer wrote:

I'm sure that empathy and compassion can be defined differently than he does - and some may define it as exactly the same thing.

I think the point he is making - and why he takes care in his definition so that this will be clearer - is that "feeling someone's pain" can make you less rather than more able to help them deal with their problems effectively.  And can have adverse consequences for others as well (as in the moving the child they heard about to the top of the list without knowing anything about the others.)

Enabling can come from empathy. 

---

This is where I'm having a problem, is with his definitions of empathy and compassion. I'm not sure he is spot on with his definitions, or that people in general view those two words with his attached definitions.

I tend to view those two words with just the opposite definitions of each other, but I'm not at all saying his is wrong and mine is right, just the way I've processed those two words over my lifetime and the way I hear people use them connected to their actions.  We have heard for decades about compassion and it is usually linked to social programs, and giving physical aid to lift people up, Empathy on the other hand, isn't much addressed in the media or attached to whatever we are doing to lift people up (social programs through the government, private charity etc.) 

But let's us just take those definitions at HIS face value. When we do that, I agree that the empathy becomes crippling. We tend to do for others, rather than assisting them to do for themselves. In my opinion that is often not a good thing. It only enables and continues the cycle.

Very interesting topic though!

[suzyQ3]

---

@Isobel Archer wrote:

I'm so glad that the enlightened among us have decreed that making any sort of distinction concerning empathy and compassion is misguided/ignorant at best - and more likely motivated by political animus toward the unfortunate.

Education is a wonderful thing.

---

Sarcasm is a weak response. Why not just accept that there are varying degrees of opinion here? I've read some excellent posts.

I try to look beyond what one person is saying literally to what the consequence of that statement might mean. I infer from the author of the article differently than you do, obviously.

I think he makes a distinction without a difference or plays with minor definition variances in order to get to a particular point -- that we best not let our emotions get involved.

But both empathy and compassion call for emotion. So it's clear to me that is trying to make a decided political statement, one that I don't favor.

[dooBdoo]

---

Isobel Archer wrote:

I'm so glad that the enlightened among us have decreed that making any sort of distinction concerning empathy and compassion is misguided/ignorant at best - and more likely motivated by political animus toward the unfortunate.

Education is a wonderful thing.

---

           I'll respond since your post is directly after my comments.    Your sarcasm aside, I hope you don't feel that anyone here thinks by posting that means they have the final answer.    We're just offering opinions, or at least that's what I do when I post here, and sometimes our views will be opposing ones.   And maybe, in the process, we'll think of the issue in a way we didn't think about before we read all the comments.    I believe all of us here are "enlightened," and I agree, education is wonderful!

[suzyQ3]

Here is a very cogent argument against Bloom's point. From Psychology Today:

Why Bloom is Wrong about Empathy and Morality

[Noel7]

@dooBdoo

I don't agree that empathy and compassion are one and the same.

As noted before, empathy is being able to understand the feelings of others, whereas compassion is, as defined in Psychology Today as a source: "Sympathy (‘fellow feeling’, ‘community of feeling’)  a feeling of care and concern for someone, often someone close, accompanied by a wish to see him better off or happier."

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/hide-and-seek/201505/empathy-vs-sympathy

[suzyQ3]

---

@Quse wrote:

---

@suzyQ3 wrote:

---

@Quse wrote:

---

@suzyQ3 wrote:

---

@Quse wrote:

---

@Noel7 wrote:

---

@Quse wrote:

---

@151949 wrote:

I think I disagree with the OP's definition of EMPATHY. I just googled to be sure and it is defined as the ability to see & understand another's feeling. That does not aty all fit the description the OP gave  where the person feels compulsion to act on the other person's feelings. Instead it describes a person who can see things from everyone's POV .An empathetic person would make a great judge because they see all parties side of the story.

---

I wouldn't want a judge deciding with empathy. I want a judge to look at the evidence in a case and apply law, not emotions and feelings.

******************************

@Quse

People are more complex than merely having one trait. Most people have some degree of empathy.  It's a good thing to have because the opposite is a lack of understanding and a lack of the ability to read people.

Empathy has nothing to do with logic and reason, and being empathetic does not mean someone cannot recognize when someone else has done something wrong.

---

---

Of course people are more complex than having one trait, and, of course, most people feel compassion and empathy. That doesn't mean they'd make good judges. What's a "good" decision by one may not be a "good" decision to another, and, therefore, should be based in law. Empathy can interfere with logic and reason if it's the basis of a decision. There is too much "justice" based on emotions coming from benches now. Equal justice under the law should be blind and not biased, based on how the judge "feels"

---

@Quse, you ask for the utter impossible. Even the law is written by humans, who by definition are never without emotions or bias. It's how we deal with that fact that matters. A good judge knows how to blend feelings with the law and case at hand. That's all he or she can do.

---

I agree. A good judge knows how to blend feelings with the law, but there are many these days that are defining case law with their biases. To get around it, judges would have to be robots, and I'm not advocating that. But sometimes, the best outcome is counterintuitive...and a judge has to discern that

---

@Quse, and therein lies support for my post. When someone posits that many judges these days are defining case law with their biases, that statement, in and of itself, reveals the bias of the commenter. Do you get my drift? It's a neverending pit of biases. :-) And it always will be.

So this is why I have no more trust in those who are Originalists (treat the Constitution as written in stone) than I do those who don't don that label. It's meaningless. They all interpret, just with different POVs and biases.

---

No, I don't  "get your drift". I could argue you have a bias against believing that any of this happens, although I could give you case after case evidence....and on and on it goes. Additionally, using the Constitution versus case law as a basis for a decision depends on the courts involved, but that would be a total waste of time trying to explain.

---

@Quse, my reference to Originalists was just to illustrate my first point.

I see that you're not getting my drift, even though I'm quite sure that I was darn clear in my wording. I guess you see bias where you want to see it and not where you don't want to see it.

My point exactly.