Richie Waves

By Ernest Partridge

1946, Dr. Gustav M. Gilbert, a psychologist fluent in German, was assigned by the U.S. Army to study the minds and motivations of the Nazi defendants at the Nuremberg tribunals. The following year, his Nuremberg Diary was published, containing transcripts of his conversations with the prisoners. (Excerpts here).

In words consistent with what I have read of, and about, Gustav Gilbert, he is portrayed in the 2000 TV film "Nuremberg," as telling the Head Prosecutor Robert Jackson (Alex Baldwin), "I told you once that I was searching for the nature of evil. I think I've come close to defining it: a lack of empathy. It's the one characteristic that connects all the defendants: a genuine incapacity to feel with their fellow man. Evil, I think, is the absence of empathy."

"Absence of empathy" is likewise, I submit, "the one characteristic that connects" most of the immoral and misbegotten tenets of Bushism: that dogmatic mix of market absolutism, libertarianism, corporatism and simple greed that falsely describes itself as "conservatism," and which I choose to call "regressivism." "Absence of empathy" is the essence of evil which, if unchecked and unreversed, is certain to bring about the demise of the American republic as we know it, just as it led to the fall of the Third Reich.

In contrast, empathy, the capacity to recognize and cherish in other persons, the experience, emotions and aspirations that one is aware of in oneself, is the moral cornerstone of progressive politics. It is a principle recognized and taught in all the great world religions, reiterated by numerous moral philosophers, and validated by the scientific study of human personality.

Empathy is the foundation of the moral teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. In that most-quoted New Testament verse, the golden rule, Jesus said: "as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise." (Luke 6:31, also Matthew 7:2). Also, "thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." (Matthew 22:39, also Leviticus 19;18). Both commandments imply recognition in others of the human dignity and worth that one recognizes in oneself. In a word, empathy.

The golden rule is echoed in the moral teachings of Islam: "None of you (truly) believes until he wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself." And as Mohamed taught in his last sermon, "Hurt no one so that no one may hurt you." (Mohamed, last sermon). And Rabbi Hillel, a contemporary of Jesus, taught "What is hateful to yourself, do not do to your fellow man. That is the whole Torah; the rest is just commentary."

And yet, how much empathy is to be found among self-proclaimed "Christian" end-times preachers, such as James Hagee and Tim LeHaye, who eagerly anticipate "the rapture" and the eternal torment and damnation that awaits virtually all of humanity, as punishment for the sin of failing to agree with the preachers' theology? How much empathy is evident in the late Jerry Falwell's on-air remark to Wolf Blitzer, about Islamic militants, "If it takes 10 years, blow them all away in the name of the Lord," and Ann Coulter's infamous outburst, "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity." Because they explicitly renounce Jesus' injunction to "love thy enemies" these hate-mongers are, in a literal and moral sense, "anti-Christs."

More at link:

Democratic Underground - Evil as the Absence of Empathy - Democratic Underground

__________________
My lastfm

Oooh, Betty! the cat did a shit in the hat

Lucifer Baphomet

I fully endorse this product and or statement.

__________________

Richie Waves

this is an interesting snippet from of down in the article

Progressivism and Empathy

In stark contrast, empathy – awareness of the needs, sufferings, aspirations, rights, and dignity of others – is the unifying theme of the progressive agenda, and of the history of political/economic liberalism (in the traditional sense of the word). The elite and wealthy delegates to the Continental Congress, when they demanded recognition of their rights, did not fail at that time to acknowledge the rights of all persons:

We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights; that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

True, at the outset the full "rights" of citizenship were restricted to white, male, landowners. But through time and constant struggle, those rights were extended to include all adult citizens, regardless of gender, race or creed. These struggles, which continue today, were led by "liberals," and resisted by self-described "conservatives."

Joe Conason eloquently describes these struggles and achievements:

Lucifer Baphomet

Richie.. is this a thread a personal attack on a certian member of this forum who shows a total lack of empathy for anyone except the rich?

Lianne Marten

Sounds accurate to me.

Sociopaths are scary as fuck.

__________________


I hope that whoever you are, you escape this place. I hope that the world turns and that things get better. But what I hope most of all is that you understand what I mean when I tell you that even though I do not know you, even though I may never meet you, laugh with you, cry with you, or kiss you... I love you. With all my heart, I love you.

-Valerie

Brenda Archer

Richie, thanks for this post. It's spot on. I have had personal experience of sociopaths and the people in power in the U.S. fit the description to a T. They are exploiting the ignorance of Protestant fundamentalists by manipulating symbols, and this keeps them in power. They are also (to keep power in a Senate defined by physical geography) taking advantage of the Mormon political machine in the Western states.

The key to breaking neoconservative power is to force either their Southern or Western supporters to become disillusioned with them and either defect to the Democrats or form a new party. The focus that is most important to accomplish this is the Senate, as the House is easily made Democrat.

I predict this task will occur in one of two ways:

In the South, where the hard right is not under a single leadership and religious organizations are fragmented and relatively democratic, a political movement led by the young would be sufficient to accomplish the task. Katrina drove a wedge in long-standing political assumptions here in the South. Obama doesn't have a large enough organization to take advantage of it, although it may get him elected.

In the West, the key will come as younger generations in the upper-middle class drop out of Mormonism, and immigrants to the area move into the upper-middle class. This is a slow process though, and I give it a twenty-year window. Eventually the politics of Utah, Nevada and possibly Idaho will resemble those of Oregon. Again, the reason why this is important is because control of the Senate depends on physical and not demographic geography.

A new party with a platform that basically amounts to Goldwater conservatism could do well in the South and West, but would have to make headway against the many formal and informal restrictions against third parties. I don't see this as a possibility yet.

The only way the Republicans can prevent these scenarios is by moving gradually back to the center over the next two decades.

If they do not, and continue down their current criminal and unconstitutional path, I expect an economic collapse. One of the features of sociopathy is a poor ability to forecast long-term results. This is because people are not well understood by sociopaths, except in the short-term time frame of manipulation. The underlying motives that provide identification and planning would require empathy to be understood.

The same lack of empathy is likely to cause a lot of business failures as technological change forces certain monopolies to compete with newly empowered consumers. I believe the RIAA lawsuits are only the beginning of a new wave of attacks by entrenched interests directly on consumers, who are learning to both vote with their feet, and do without.

Did anyone else hear about the health crackdown on truckers that is happening now, and how much of that is motivated by payback for their recent gas price protests?

Jellin Pico

I disagree only in the definition

I don't think the lack of empathy itself defines evil, since +I feel that just because you don't "feel" or "care" abut other people doesn't automatically mean you will do them harm.

I myself have been called a cold hearted motherfucker, yet I don't really consider myself "EVIL" ... ok maybe I am, but you get what I mean I hope.

However, I certainly think the lack of empathy is the gateway to evil. The start of evil.

I suppose it depends on the strength of ones personal ethics

__________________
Dolphins ... The Smug Bastards of the Sea

WarKirby Magojiro

I'd be interested in a more detailed explanation of this

__________________
Wounds, both physical and mental, heal in time. bones reknit, therapy and drugs make you forget. Life goes on.
But nothing cures death. Please remember this.

Asher Bertrand

But what about all the harm done by willful inaction, by neglect - in short, by not caring?

__________________

Surreal

I think the definition of evil as lack of empathy is a bit simplistic and doesn't tell the whole story. Any definition founded on what someone feels as opposed to what they do is unjust.

I may hate you, but so long as I do you no harm, or fail to act when it would be the right thing to do, then I've committed no evil.

armozel

I'm not very empathetic, therefore I am evil? The funny fact is that I'm also very nice to my nieces and nephew, and most folks in general, but I much rather be alone working on my programs and theories. I think defining evil within emotions is faulty at best, and dangerous at worse. True evil has no feelings attached, just pure contradictory reasonings and mystical excuses for behaviors that fundamentally are anti-human and anti-life. Once folks acknowledge that it takes a sound mind to know right from wrong, then maybe folks will once again know what is good and what is evil.

Until then, folks will continue to rely on faulty emotivist ethics to explain the world in our heads and the world which our heads have to guide us through.

Jellin Pico

Apathy is not evil

Asher Bertrand

Disagree.

I see you flailing in the water and I don't care enough to try to help, I'm evil.

Decadent

Reprehensible, yes. Evil, no -- unless you held the person down yourself.

__________________
You suck, and that's sad.

Asher Bertrand

I'm not saying to jump in the water if you're scared of the stuff and don't know how to swim, but ffs, pick up the phone and call for help? Scream for help? Anything? Seriously, you could see that going down and do nothing and be able to sleep at night? Really?

Decadent

Me, personally? No.

But I wouldn't call someone evil for doing nothing, either. I'd shun them and think them morally bankrupt, but it takes a lot for a person to be truly evil.

Asher Bertrand

Maybe we just look at it different. I think evil comes in gradations and we all have at least an inclination to it in our nature. I don't think one has to be 100% bad to finally be considered evil.

Arilynn

I agree with your basic idea, Jellin, although I've never been called a cold hearted motherfucker that I know of.

I think a lack of empathy can come from many sources. One big one is ignorance - if you do not fully understand the problems another faces or the consequences of those problems you will have a harder time empathizing. Another is defensive - you don't want to imagine yourself in such a bad situation or have similar weakness with faced with problems, so you reject it and refuse to put yourself in that person's shoes. You may even react very negatively to the person to show that you are nothing like that person. Another is experiencing very hard times yourself. If you are really struggling with something, very depressed, in deep grief, you may not have the energy and open heart enough to extend your thoughts to another's feelings. In a different situation you may be very empathetic, but in your crisis you have to retreat and become self-centered to survive. None of this is evil or even a certain gateway to evil IMO, and all can be reversed. Evil to me is not reversible, which is why you see Dick Cheney only walking forward.

I don't know if anything I wrote has anything to do with politics, however (aside from the mean Dick Cheney comment).

Decadent

I think we all have the ability to be evil, but, yeah, I also think you have to do something so far over the line that there's no chance of redemption in order to be called evil.

I don't think this makes me a bad person with questionable ethics and I don't think that people who think like you are quick to judge. I don't see a right or wrong, or any schism at all.

It just is what it is.

RandoymRandt

"Evil" is a religious concept I don't believe in, in large part because I don't believe in the "devil", except of course for Lucifer Baphomet.

I do however believe in suffering, and that there is a way to release yourself from it while alive on Earth. His Holiness the Dalai Lama: The Four Noble Truths

or if you prefer video on topic...
His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama speaks of the "Four Noble Truths" in a four part video series at youtube.com:

Jellin Pico

Well OK, let's look at the situation and look back at my first post.

Your hypothetical question actually, without I think your realizing it, already contains an outcome and a conclusion.

1 Someone is drowning

2 You don't care

3 you chose to do nothing

4 because of your inaction, you are evil

But there's more to it than that. Naturally, I can't speak for others, but I see the thought process more like this;

1 Someone is drowning

2 Is there a reason to care?

3 After looking at the situation, in my mind, is helping the "right" thing to do whether or not I personally care or have in investment in the person ... OR ... do I maybe the deliberate choice not to act, let the person drown perfectly aware that regardless of my feelings, doing so would be considered by common morality to be evil?

4 Choice

YMMV

Lianne Marten

If the thought process is like that, I would consider the normal answer to #2 to be...

YES


If it's not, then I can consider the person to be a sociopath, and therefore, scary as fuck. Seeing someone drowning, not just not caring enough to help but also not caring enough to even ask someone else to help, and then feeling no remorse for the lack of action... that quite handily covers two of the requirements for sociopathy. Sorry to break it to you.

armozel

I only would care since I have a reason to care. Caring is not the originate of the reason to act, but rather the report that you are going to act. I have no issue with saving the life of another human being in an emergency situation as for me life is the start of morality, and the promotion (passively or actively) of death is the antithesis of it.

Midi Reifsnider

Jellin Pico

No need to be sorry, I agree.

My point is, the lack of empathy itself is not evil, only actions, or the lack of appropriate action, is evil

The lack of empathy is however a huge gateway to evil