Empathy

I recently read this article [1] and thought it really exemplified my position on the question "Would the world be better if people had more logic or more empathy?". My position on this is that we need more empathy.

In the article we see several anecdotes showing what seems to be a double standard - females¹ getting abortions and then, or even during the abortion, complain or articulate a disliking of abortion. An initial look at this may make it seem as though these females are being illogical - thus supporting the view that logic is more necessary for a better world. However, this isn't what is actually going on here. Here we see the females realize that they are establishing a "double standard", but they justify the extra standard with additional philosophical nuance, i.e. they realize the illogic of their ways (reminiscience of cognitive dissonance theory) but fix it through self-serving bias and exceptions for themself. Thus it can be better classified as selfishness. Selfishness by itself isn't illogical; the illogic of selfishness is only embedded in philosophical systems. Thus by calling their actions illogical, one assumes they have the same philosophical system as yourself. Furthermore, it is evident that no philosophical system has been devised that is more "right" than others (throughout history, philosophy has really made no progress, only new ideas). Thus one can't justify your own philosophy as more "logical" than theirs. If instead these females had more empathy, by definition, they would come to realize that the others in the abortion clinic may be in the same situation as them. Thus if they had more empathy, they wouldn't be against abortion. There was also an interesting undertone in several of the stories. In many of them, the return to protest after an abortion seems to just be to fit into society. Thus if society as a whole had more empathy, perhaps people would be more open to admitting their true beliefs. This has a horrifying implication though: if every individual female weren't against abortions, but they simply protested to fit in, then it is possible that the entire protest against abortion is against the true belief of every individual protesting. This chain of reasoning is remarkably similar to the chain of reasoning in Moloch [2]. In this scenario, every individual pursues their self-interest of fitting into society, everyone does the same, then every one (as in every single individual, not just overall) suffers. Another great reason to hate society.

Furthermore, the reasoning about philosophical progress can be generalized: if no philosophical system is better than the other, we hate others less because they may have differing, yet valid, philosophical systems. Thus everyone should have more empathy on all issues. There is also the argument of the unknowability, in entirety, of another person. It is impossible to fully know another person, including their life situation, experiences, genetic dispositions, etc. that have made them who they are today. This is evident as for one, nobody has been fully described by information yet; for two a person already has a self, thus making it impossible to be two selves through absorption of another; for three, humans are imperfect and thus in the process of "fully" understanding another person mistakes will happen and "full" understanding won't be achieved; and for four, in my philosophical system we have varying levels of free-will, making it impossible for yourself to understand someone else's free-will (part of their self) as you and learning of another is tied to the physical world, making learning of a non-physical free-will impossible. Admittedly, this argument isn't air-tight - I realized that the perfectibility argument could be countered by happy accidents (accidents that still preserve your learning or help you). And I realize that I don't have a counter-argument for them. But, I think taken as a whole my arguments are stronger. Feel free to put in my guestbook any more arguments against me. Thus the impossibility of understanding another person in their whole makes it impossible to really cast a complete opinion on them. Hence any negative thoughts we have about another person may simply be due to a lack of understanding of them. Thus empathy is the only option.

¹I use females because the article has examples of female teens (who aren't women). In addition, getting an abortion (the topic of the article) is more relevant to biological females.

[1] https://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org/articles/anti-tales.shtml
[2] https://listed.to/@vt/33797/competition