Have you donated to Haiti yet?

Yes, but we do have newspapers and reports on the TV, and unless you're living under a rock, it's impossible not to see the photos and read the stories from Haiti. I accept that different people are moved by different things, but if you read about children in Haiti who have lost their relatives, homes and are starving and yet you remain unmoved and are happy to admit that you don't care, personally I do think you're seriously lacking in empathy. If I had to choose between saving a family member and saving someone in Haiti I've never met, of course I'd choose the family member, but no one's forcing us to make that choice. It's not about choosing one over the other (family member over Haitian, England over Haiti).

That's what empathy is though, identifying with, and by extension, caring about the feelings and misfortunes of others, whether or not you know them. So while it doesn't make you necessary incapable of empathy, I would say that it shows a remarkable lack of empathy.

It was a hypothetical situation. What I was trying to illustrate (badly, I admit) was that your opinion that someone claiming not to care about a far-off disaster renders them devoid of empathy is pretty unfounded. This idea that someone has a duty to help people beyond their inner circle is a relatively recent notion; it's simply not part of human nature to be unselfish, nor is it to think that this is "depressing" (I'm speaking from a biological perspective, here). In the past, empathy has been restricted to caring within a small unit, essentially to prolong survival, so someone who, for instance, chooses not to donate to Haiti because they "don't care" is not any less empathetic than you, they are simply not prescribing to the modern idea of "empathy".



See above.

It was a hypothetical situation. What I was trying to illustrate (badly, I admit) was that your opinion that someone claiming not to care about a far-off disaster renders them devoid of empathy is pretty unfounded. This idea that someone has a duty to help people beyond their inner circle is a relatively recent notion; it's simply not part of human nature to be unselfish, nor is it to think that this is "depressing" (I'm speaking from a biological perspective, here). In the past, empathy has been restricted to caring within a small unit, essentially to prolong survival, so someone who, for instance, chooses not to donate to Haiti because they "don't care" is not any less empathetic than you, they are simply not prescribing to the modern idea of "empathy".

I disagree. The only reason that in the past empathy may have 'been restricted to caring within a small unit' is that before world media, people wouldn't have known about things like this. It's due to the media that we hear about things like this. I'm sure that in the past if people had heard about disasters they would have felt empathy, it's only due to the inability to spread such news that this may not have happened

but if empathising with people on the other side of the world is just a modern thing, then may be we are moving in a more sophisticated, less selfish direction, even if that's not the impression I get reading this thread....

I disagree. The only reason that in the past empathy may have 'been restricted to caring within a small unit' is that before world media, people wouldn't have known about things like this. It's due to the media that we hear about things like this. I'm sure that in the past if people had heard about disasters they would have felt empathy, it's only due to the inability to spread such news that this may not have happened

Really? Then why are all these friendly, educated and well-informed TSRians saying they couldn't care less? Like I said, the fact that they believe this despite knowing the facts proves that this expectation of empathy is not integral to human nature.

They are just showing a lack of empathy, like I said. I was responding to you saying that empathy has nothing to do with Haiti.

I didn't say empathy had nothing to do with Haiti I was just making the case for the concept of empathy not actually corresponding to human nature and therefore judging others as "incapable" or even "lacking" in empathy because they don't care about Haiti being mistaken as you're expecting humans to correspond to an unnatural idea.

Fine, you implied it then.

I completely disagree with you anyway, I think it is human nature to feel empathy for people; if not, then why are so many people donating?

I'm genuinely shocked at how a lot of people on this thread think it's completely normal and justified not to give a crap about anyone but themselves. That it's normal not to feel any compassion whatsoever about terrible suffering.

There's a difference between empathising with their problems and actually donating.