>>23173464alright fine i'll address your points since you're so confident about them, but then next time use a good format like you did here
>>23173436also, feel free to imagine me as whatever you like, a drug dealer, a weirdo in a latex gimp suit, an anime frog, whatever. my feelings can't be hurt on 4chan anonymously.
let's see
>>23173394>t-to you...no.
this isn't matter of personal taste.
empathy is studied in psychology and neuroscience as a cognitive and affective mechanism. it helps us stimulate others' experiences but it doesn't prescribe what we ought to do.
that's a category error between descriptive psychology and normative ethics.
>ackshuallay it's boththen demonstrate how empathy prescribes moral obligations.
saying "it's both" doesn't make it so. if empathy tells us what we ought to do, then you need to explain why we ought to follow it, epseically when empathy leads to conflicting outcomes.
>t-that's sympathyirrelevant.
emotional resonance doesn't equal moral obligation. understanding someone's pain doesn't tell you whether helping them is morally required, optional or even wrong in some contexts.
>e-empathy m-m-makes you look past your biasesthis is demonstrably false.
empathy is biased by design. again, (i have to repeat myself with you, you don't read) we empathize more with those who resemble us, share our values, or belong to our group. that's why empathy can fuel tribalism just as easily as altruism.
>r-religion is byproduct of evolutionary psychologyeven if true, that doesn't refute the ontological claims of religion.
you're confusing origins with validiity.
just because something has evolutionary utility doesn't mean it lacks evolutionary grounding. that's like saying math is invalid because our brains evolved to count.
