Empathy and conservatism

Direct democracy is mob rule. Direct democracy cannot work. So far the only form of democracy that has truly worked is representative democracy, a republic.

 

Yes I spoke imprecisely. Representative democracy is what I was referring to. Which means our representatives cannot consult us for EVERY decision they make.

 

which is a republic...

 

What does charity have to do with empathy? How does one prove the other? I think that there is nothing more telling than ideology and policy, and for that, conservatives lack empathy completely in relation to their fellow man. I've more convinced that the conservative Christian right is such only for their own individual benefit. And any law, policy, regulation or demand must adhere to maintaining and protecting their own individual status and beliefs, no matter what happens with or to another human being.

 

The real question is whether there are any liberals who do.

 

I really doubt guilt goes very far towards driving charitable giving. Maaaaybe if you're being put on the spot. But not from the comfort of your home.

I think charity, either in the form of money or voluntering, has more to do with a comparison of ones empathy to ones selfishness.

I think you need to seriously reconsider your frame of mind if you've managed a feat of rationalization where it's better just feel bad for someone than to actually do something for them.

Don't worry, if you actually do some good with your own time or money you won't turn into a republican. There are charitable liberals and selfish conservatives. It just tends to be the other way statistically.

Um. No. That's the mentality of the conservative. I'm serious. You could get a "right on!" with the bolded bit from almost anyone leaning to the conservative side.

The "leftist" mentality would be to just give them a bunch of money, require them to learn nothing, and assume that will fix the problem.

Are you actually in Finland? I suppose things could be really different there. But if you're in the US, you might have to re-evaluate where you fall on the political spectrum.

Perhaps you've become older and wiser without noticing.

Hurm. If you really lacked empathy, the fundamental response, that would put you in the autism spectrum. I suppose that's an interesting question, and perhaps there is a study on it.

I suppose that depends on how one defines empathy. Going by the almost biological human response I suppose we might each just be born with it, possibly to varying degrees, and it's more a matter of what else is in play in a situation, parental love, wisdom, or selfishness or prejudice.

I think that's universally true.

The distinction is in the response the leftist response seems to be "wow, I think somebody else should do something about that." That they had this emotion seems to be enough to make them feel self rightious. Even moreso if they can vote at some point.

A conservative might feel compelled to do something themselves. Or to look to some of the underlying problems and reality as opposed to just figuring if you're spending someone elses money, everything will work great.

I suppose I'd consider empathy to possible be an innate human trait. It's more about how one responds.

The charitable giving demonstrates that selfishness overides that empathy with liberals more often than with conservatives in practice.

Liberals seem more "empathich" because it is their rhetorical crutch for getting others to give them money. Or to give others money that they perhaps feel guilty for being too selfish to share themselves.

I'm sure there are some selfish conservatives out there.

But fundamentally there is a difference the left does not appreciate.

The left wants to take their aunts gold necklace and give to their crack addicted sister so she can get her fix to feel better. The right would want to send her to rehab.

Rehab sucks, it is not fun, and in the short run it will hurt. But it is also the best thing in the long run.

 

So, we'll all be fisherman...nobody to dig the worms though. Huh...Strange thing, this republican philosophy. LOL

 

Thanks to progress we now have lures, artificial and supposedly delicious as far as fish are concerned "powerbaits", and live bait comes from farms selling minnows, leeches, and worms by the thousand to your local bait shop.

So, no, nobody has to dig any worms.

Extend the methaphor if you wish.

 

You've not understood my comment, and for me the charity has bad connotations, like the ones that I indicated.

I think that many times we have problems because you use that word, and for me charity means doing something for religious reasons, and that is not good or feeling sad for someone. For me that is not good. Charity for me means do something from a superior position.

And did you read my comment? Because I think that I said what I defend.

The boy scouts... no comments. But in Spain doesn't have a good image, just that.

 

What do you mean? Someone that many times what is defending is harming people, I can't feel any empathy to that people. I can't understand them. Sorry, that is impossible, for me understand that.

 

Many Conservatives have a certain form of empathy; but I think it is their devotion to mechanized policies which cause that 'form' of empathy to be inferior to that form of empathy that one might observe or experience in most who embrace a Liberal mindset.

 

No, well, then maybe the problem as I've said many times is the use of the word charity. For me means give something.

The left for example is the one that is more participating in direct action to help people to support themselves by their own. That is something that you don't see.

Solidarity that means help someone from the same position, for me the word charity have negative connotations, like offering help from a superior position to an inferior. You feel sorrow for that person, so you help him. I don't know how to explain, but charity from my point of view is bad.

And in Finland is seen good that people pay taxes, because that is used to improve the lifes of the people there. The people are more equal. Everybody have the same opportunities, real same opportunities.

For that I believe that the best system to give opportunities to someone are the collective ones. Individualist systems like capitalist promotes inequality. And that is proven when more deep go into capitalism more inequal society you create.

The problem is that the right doesn't understand that his system would create more poverty and inequality, just we have to look Chile, or any other capitalist country.

 

Don't conservatives give more to charity? Hmmmm...I'm pretty sure we do.

Not supporting big nanny governments doesn't mean we don't care for our fellow man.

 

What a moronic point of view, and oh ya you're either selfish or just plain lazy.

You have a problem with charity because you would rather have somebody else do the work for you.

 

Where do you get that idea?

Here's the one I have in mind:

Merriam-Webster
Medical Dictionary

em·pa·thy definition
Pronunciation: /ˈem-pə-thē/
Function: n
[...]

2 : the action of understanding, being aware of, being sensitive to, and vicariously experiencing the feelings, thoughts, and experience of another of either the past or present without having the feelings, thoughts, and experience fully communicated in an objectively explicit manner​

Do you mean to imply the underlined can exist apart from empathy?

 

Excuse me, conservatives have traditionally given more to Charity than Liberals,,,30% more to be precise, and more time and blood as well....
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html

Care to explain?????

Sixteen months ago, Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University, published "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism." The surprise is that liberals are markedly less charitable than conservatives.

If many conservatives are liberals who have been mugged by reality, Brooks, a registered independent, is, as a reviewer of his book said, a social scientist who has been mugged by data. They include these findings:

-- Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

-- Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.

-- Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush.

-- Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average.

-- In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent.

-- People who reject the idea that "government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality" give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.

Brooks demonstrates a correlation between charitable behavior and "the values that lie beneath" liberal and conservative labels. Two influences on charitable behavior are religion and attitudes about the proper role of government.

The single biggest predictor of someone's altruism, Willett says, is religion. It increasingly correlates with conservative political affiliations because, as Brooks' book says, "the percentage of self-described Democrats who say they have 'no religion' has more than quadrupled since the early 1970s." America is largely divided between religious givers and secular nongivers, and the former are disproportionately conservative. One demonstration that religion is a strong determinant of charitable behavior is that the least charitable cohort is a relatively small one -- secular conservatives.

Reviewing Brooks' book in the Texas Review of Law & Politics, Justice Willett notes that Austin -- it voted 56 percent for Kerry while he was getting just 38 percent statewide -- is ranked by The Chronicle of Philanthropy as 48th out of America's 50 largest cities in per capita charitable giving. Brooks' data about disparities between liberals' and conservatives' charitable giving fit these facts: Democrats represent a majority of the wealthiest congressional districts, and half of America's richest households live in states where both senators are Democrats.

While conservatives tend to regard giving as a personal rather than governmental responsibility, some liberals consider private charity a retrograde phenomenon -- a poor palliative for an inadequate welfare state, and a distraction from achieving adequacy by force, by increasing taxes. Ralph Nader, running for president in 2000, said: "A society that has more justice is a society that needs less charity." Brooks, however, warns: "If support for a policy that does not exist ... substitutes for private charity, the needy are left worse off than before. It is one of the bitterest ironies of liberal politics today that political opinions are apparently taking the place of help for others."

In 2000, brows were furrowed in perplexity because Vice President Al Gore's charitable contributions, as a percentage of his income, were below the national average: He gave 0.2 percent of his family income, one-seventh of the average for donating households. But Gore "gave at the office." By using public office to give other peoples' money to government programs, he was being charitable, as liberals increasingly, and conveniently, understand that word.

 

FTFY - and here's why:

A Conservative understands the difference between knowing what is best for individuals within society - by fostering an environment that forces self-accountability - versus simply providing a cradle-to-grave system of subsistence. A Conservative can simultaneously support a world with little to no Government assistance while also providing the needy money out of their own pockets (as has been established: Conservatives are more charitable).

The Conservative understands that minimizing the need for the latter requires a disciplined approach on the former.

The Conservative understands that the emotion of empathy is innate in man, regardless their political belief, and the Conservative recognizes that empathy requires responsibility on the part of the empathetic: it is not salve to simply provide support for the moment to the target of the empathy: it is far more important to work on the underlying dysfunctions that require the expression of the emotion.

Whereas the Liberal cannot fathom objections to supporting even more tax dollars going to programs which do nothing to change the circumstance which leads to the need for systemic empathy - and salves their own conscience in supporting those programs (while simultaneously caterwauling about the insensitivity of others), the Conservative understands human nature well enough to wisely administer short-term charity while working hard to create environments where each individual becomes self-sufficent, and - as a result - finds value in themselves, and in their existence.

To a Liberal, the momma robin pushing the baby out of the nest to learn how to fly through being forced to do it...is shocking heartlessness.

To the Conservative, this is the only way to seed the power of self-sufficience, and promote a life of self-value and productivity and role-modelling.

To a Liberal, it is empathetic to put out loads of bird seed so that these same birds do not starve to death over the winter: having been motivated to action through the empathetic experience of seeing a dead bird on the sidewalk the day before.

To a Conservative, life cannot be made perfect, and will become incumbered with additional dysfunction to remedy such a contrived injustice. This same Conservative wisely understands that providing a constant supply of bird seed simply provides a location for cats and other predators to prey on these predictable and non self sufficient victims in the same location every day, while make a fabulous mess of the surrounding patio.

Empathy is just another human emotion, and Conservatives understand how far better to avoid its pitfalls while minimizing its need. Conservatives feel it as much as Liberals. Only Conservatives have a mechanism to heal its need.

 

I've said thousand times that charity is something for the conservative. Not the people of leftist ideas. We don't like that.

 

It's not so much "sorrow" that you feel for the person, but empathy, which is what we're talking about.

Charity means the voluntary giving of help to those in need. But you're throwing in an elitist angle that doesn't have to be there.

Maybe somebody that is a higher class falls down some stairs. I don't think I'm better then them now, but they could use some help. A charitable act would be helping instead of just walking along like I didn't see them fall.

I'm telling you that unless that's some kind of political speech with a twisted meaning, helping people to support themselves falls squarely on the right side of the spectrum.

Maybe things are different in Finalnd, but you could pitch "helping people to support themselves" as a show for Fox news here in the US.

That's not how the term is generally used here. Solidarity implies teaming together with peers in order to go after a third party in order to enrich oneself.

It requires no feelings of empathy, just an understanding that you will be better able to advance your own agenda if you have allies.

Occasionally the term is used by a leader to imply that a group should establish a relationship with the feeling of the alliance of equals with a group in an inferior position against a third party.

These statements are forumlated like. We the *first group* needs to stand in solidarity with our brothers and sisters in *second group in a bad spot* against *third group that the speaker wants their first group to go after alongside the second group*.

However even then the argument tends to play on a feeling of selfishness. The leader will attempt to convince the first group that even though they may have to give more or gain less than they second group, they're still going to be better off overall for having tackled the third.

Every country is in a different situation. However while capitalism can create inequality, it also can eliminate poverty.

Or put a different way it redefines poverty. The poverty of an American is nothing like the poverty of a Somalian, and provides a life supiriour to that experienced by many middle class individuals a houndred years ago. That was capitalisms advantage over communism in the cold war.

People could see that even the poor among the capitalists often had it better off than those in the communist bloc, to say nothing of the freedoms they enjoyed. And the socialist systems were deeply dysfunctional and falling apart.

Yes, you can have wisdom and love apart from the experience of empathy. It is associated with autism spectrum/aspergers disorders. You have relatively normal people who just do not have that thing which lets normal people understand what another person is feeling by reading their facial expressions or body language, and they simply do not vicariously experience what others do. But these individuals certainly have wisdom and love.

The rest of us have empathy. And it causes us to feel for our children when they cry for candy or junk food. However it takes love and wisdom to make them cry all the louder because you won't let them live on cheetos and candy bars.

 

I suppose that's why year after year after year Conservative's give a great deal more to charities than do liberals? They give when/where it is needed...this has happened for centuries...it's all that "love thy neighbor" stuff we learn, but liberals do not. Before we had entitlements this is how it was done. Needy families relied on neighbors, co-workers, and most especially their church.

Conservative's are about God & Country, I personally have give to many AMERICAN charities for The AMERICAN People in need...they show compassion every day buy not taking out the radical liberals who have infested this country and the democratic party.

Liberals are all talk, liberals are all about taking, liberals are all about having the nanny government take care of it.


Thank God for Conservative's.

 

You can certainly not like to give, but you can hardly say we dont,,,AND we pay the same tax's as you,,,,soo they benefit much more from the conservative....those are the facts....

 

I'm aware that is the modern psychological consensus. What I'm missing is how it is representative of the objective reality of human nature.

What about people who have the former but don't do the underlined? Are they somehow deficient?

Then why is it associtated with a psychological disorder?

Which means empathy and wisdom/love are at odds with each other, so what good is the former?

 

I've explained many times the reasons. But charity is a problem. And for giving to charity you don't need to be empathic neither solidary.

If you were, you would have different values.

 

You don't need to be empathic to give to charity? What do you need, hatred? You make zero sense with this...keep posting you are digging a hole.

 

Yes, but only within the limits set on government by the Constitution.