A: They say, Kindness is the language which the deaf can hear and the blind can see. While Kindness maybe motivated by hopes of reciprocity later and cruelty maybe spurred by revenge/ sense of being wronged (in which case it’s not cruelty?) but at the end of the day what makes some people kind and others cruel?
B: Empathy.
A: Empathy implies hope of reciprocity - what else? Also, what logic for cruelty - that’s the queetion.
B: In my opinion, empathy does not “necessarily ” imply reciprocity. Kind parents can still feel empathy towards their “cruel” children. Cruelty, on the contrary, is absence of empathy. The inability to feel how others feel or might feel. That makes “indifference” the worst form of cruelty.
A: May be, but we empathise because we have suffered ourselves and we know how it feels - I think there’s always a subconscious hope/desire that if I help Sb tomorrow will help me - humans wish to be rewarded. Cruelty maybe absence of empathy but the question then is why do some empathise (if that’s the determinant) & others don’t ?
B: what you are referring to is often termed as “psychological egoism” in philosophy. Meaning humans are always motivated by self interest. By this logic, even the most altruistic of acts (sacrificing one’s life) can be explained by some subconscious motivation rooted in self interest (e.g desire to leave a legacy, praise by others, desire to be loved in return etc) Therefore, its impossible to challenge such a line of thinking.
Regarding your second question that why some people empathise and others don’t. My perspective is that kind people have a much deeper and strong understanding of their own emotions. Therefore, helping them to feel what others might feel. On the contrary, cruel people are generally not truly in touch with their own emotions..therefore, resulting in disregard of other people’s emotions. Quite often we come across cruel people who are capricious, impulsive, extremely hard to predict. This is so because they don’t seem to understand what “exactly” do they want. To sum up, the question is not a matter of choice but a matter of understanding (and lack of it).
A: That’s an interesting perspective except it absolves & exonerates the cruel actor for responsibility for his actions - doesn’t make a lot of sense.
B: Yes. It won’t make sense if one looks at it from the perspective of “justice”. The question was about the difference between cruelty and kindness. And ironically kindness or a “kind” interpretation of other people’s actions may not always be the most just. Similarly, a very “just” interpretation of “cruelty”, may not always be very kind.
B: Empathy.
A: Empathy implies hope of reciprocity - what else? Also, what logic for cruelty - that’s the queetion.
B: In my opinion, empathy does not “necessarily ” imply reciprocity. Kind parents can still feel empathy towards their “cruel” children. Cruelty, on the contrary, is absence of empathy. The inability to feel how others feel or might feel. That makes “indifference” the worst form of cruelty.
A: May be, but we empathise because we have suffered ourselves and we know how it feels - I think there’s always a subconscious hope/desire that if I help Sb tomorrow will help me - humans wish to be rewarded. Cruelty maybe absence of empathy but the question then is why do some empathise (if that’s the determinant) & others don’t ?
B: what you are referring to is often termed as “psychological egoism” in philosophy. Meaning humans are always motivated by self interest. By this logic, even the most altruistic of acts (sacrificing one’s life) can be explained by some subconscious motivation rooted in self interest (e.g desire to leave a legacy, praise by others, desire to be loved in return etc) Therefore, its impossible to challenge such a line of thinking.
Regarding your second question that why some people empathise and others don’t. My perspective is that kind people have a much deeper and strong understanding of their own emotions. Therefore, helping them to feel what others might feel. On the contrary, cruel people are generally not truly in touch with their own emotions..therefore, resulting in disregard of other people’s emotions. Quite often we come across cruel people who are capricious, impulsive, extremely hard to predict. This is so because they don’t seem to understand what “exactly” do they want. To sum up, the question is not a matter of choice but a matter of understanding (and lack of it).
A: That’s an interesting perspective except it absolves & exonerates the cruel actor for responsibility for his actions - doesn’t make a lot of sense.
B: Yes. It won’t make sense if one looks at it from the perspective of “justice”. The question was about the difference between cruelty and kindness. And ironically kindness or a “kind” interpretation of other people’s actions may not always be the most just. Similarly, a very “just” interpretation of “cruelty”, may not always be very kind.
