Empathy's Limits

Generally speaking empathy is of incredible importance.  It is a sign that one has the habit of thinking of others and being concerned for their emotional wellbeing.  Yet it is not really the end-goal of morality and human relationships, albeit our culture tends to think it is.  When you watch TV shows and Movies, something I’ve noted that is perpetually stressed is that what makes us “human” is our emotions.  This is an odd statement, since one need only look at dogs, cats and the entire animal Kingdom to see that they all experience emotions as well.  What really is unique about human beings is not so much our emotions, but rather our capacity to reason whereby arises our ability to make choices (free-will).  None of this is to degrade the importance of emotions, or to slip into a pejorative form of stoicism.  Rather, it’s to place emotional health in the proper context:  love and justice, goodness and truth.

When seeing that our emotional being is held in common with other animals it’s important for us to recognize the very physical and animalistic nature we do have, and to love and cherish it as such.  We cannot forget this, and St. John Paul II stressed this during his papacy.  Our animal side, if ignored leads to not only physiological problems, psychological issues, but most especially spiritual disaster.  I don’t intend to go into why that is the case, but I believe the Catholic Tradition sufficiently explains all of this.  Nonetheless, I believe this is always worthy of reaffirmation, as not emphasizing this can lead to a type of pejorative stoicism that leads to repression.  True virtue always brings about emotional stability and delight in a wholesome way.

When, however no objectivity is stressed and a purely subjective notion of one’s own narrative and examination of the moral fabric of our culture and world we are at risk of grave errors that lead to grave injustices.  The reason I am thinking about this is tied to my various dialogues and observations of discussions over the subject of abortion.  While I’m sure this “problem of empathy” that I raise could extend to every other issue, its only particularized and manifested itself to me through this issue recently.  What exactly is the problem that I am suggesting exists with a dominant focus on empathy in replacement of a morally objective consciousness?  The problem lies in not actually understanding the nature of our emotions, and not having the ability to do the most human thing with them:  contemplate why we feel the way we do.  Without this type of contemplation we run the risk of losing what in fact makes us human – our ability to not be controlled by our impulses and allowing us to have a heart that is truly dedicated to the good, and abhors evil. 

What if we mourn the loss of evil and cherish the destruction of the good?  Doesn’t even that question send Goosebumps down your spine?  Yet we all know it has happened to us.  Each of us, at some point have laughed at another’s demise (maybe because of envy or wrath), or we have delighted in pleasure that was excessive or perhaps involved lying or exploiting another.  Our heart can “feel” things that reveal to us perhaps our own attitudes that need to change.  But without contemplation, changing our hearts isn’t even open to debate.  We ride on the surface, totally unaware of the attitudes and beliefs, driving them deeper into our subconscious where they indirectly influence us in a way we don’t and won’t realize.

In order to go further, I would like to therefore reflect on emotions, and what they reveal to us.  Why are they there as effects of our own spiritual attitudes, beliefs, and desires.  In discussing these emotions, I’d like to focus on three particular ones that we are most familiar with.  I realize that emotions are well known, and almost seem elementary to reflect upon.  Nonetheless, it has been my experience that these emotions aren’t often given this much critical thought.  The three emotions I’d like to reflect on are Anger, Sadness, and Happiness.
 
       1.  Anger

It’s been my experience that some have conflated the deadly sin of Wrath (anger) with the emotion anger, thereby giving it a pejorative connotation.  This is a dangerous thing for anyone to ascribe to in regard to all of our core emotions.  Although St. Thomas Aquinas believed Hope was a core-emotion, I don’t think what I’m about to say here technically contradicts his position.  The emotion anger should not be looked upon as something evil, but rather a response to something that is perceived as evil.  When we understand it this way, we develop the term “righteous anger.”  But what makes it “righteous” as opposed to sinful (as we see in wrath)?  And this is question illustrates the core problem with never critically examining our emotions and the attitudes and habits that rest below them.  Emotions are a side-effect to our attitudes and habits.  With this understanding, we need to look for a cause for them.  There is a temptation to think that all of our emotional reactions are purely associated with external experiences.  We do not take ownership of our own emotional response.  The reality is, our mind will then interpret an experience, whether a true interpretation or not.  And that process of interpretation belongs to us, and must therefore be done humbly in order to promote a righteous effect. 

So far I am speaking rather abstractly on this issue – but that is actually quite important.  It is important to understand the principles that guide the process of discerning our emotions.  Returning to anger itself, I would like to use St. Thomas Aquinas’ own reflection upon the deadly sin of wrath and the emotion anger.  In differentiating sinful anger from righteous anger St. Thomas begins by defining the emotion anger in a neutral manner.  He begins by suggesting that anger is always connected to two attitudes:  hope and injustice.  He explains that the emotion occurs subjectively (albeit he doesn’t use that term) whereby one’s own definition or understanding of what is righteous (good or just) guides this process.  So this is how urgent this discussion is:  are we going to be angry about the good being done, or are we going to be angry about evil being done?  And how will we know the difference?  In order to establish this, we need to discuss a few concepts first.

Subjective Error

The first thing to know is that our attitudes underlying our emotions are NOT infallible.  That means, while we might subjectively believe an injustice is taking place; it might actually not be the case, but rather our narcissism.  This means that we have to critically examine what justice actually is, and whether a particular act as such is in union with justice or falls short.  It is no wonder why the most popular philosopher in Ancient Greece was Socrates who proposed this question.  Euthyphro wanted to prosecute his father, but was unable to explain what outrageous injustice his father had committed.  Socrates was able to cast reasonable doubt on all his arguments, possibly revealing to Euthyphro that it wasn’t actually injustice that was the problem, it was his personal narrative (sometimes called “my truth”) that might have been rooted in narcissism and personal offense. 

When I first read St. Thomas on the emotion anger, I really questioned his definition which stated that it was always associated with a perceived injustice.  I thought about so many things I get angry about that aren’t actually injustices.  For example, the weather sometimes turns out poorly, and I might get frustrated or agitated with how it interfered with my plans.  Yet, when I thought more deeply on this matter, I realized that the only reason I felt this way about the weather was because I felt as if the weather “owed me something.”  And once I use the term “owe” I begin using a term that has a specific meaning in the category of justice.  What I had to realize is that the weather doesn’t actually owe me anything, and I had to let go of this type of “control” or “entitlement.”  In other words, I was wrong in my attitude toward the weather.  This leads us to the second point:  the objective and subjective.

Objective Truth

All of us have had the experience of being incorrect about something, even ourselves and our own story.  But in order for this to be possible, something called objective truth must exist.  A person can deceive himself or be deceived about himself and life’s events through a process called “rationalization” which is ritualizes a lie to the point that his subjective attitudes align to this falsehood, yet perceive it to be “truth.”  That is to say, we believe a lie to be true.  So emotionally, if this is the case, when we have rationalized an injustice, it means we have convinced our subjective self that something evil is actually good.  Therefore we become enraged when something that is actually evil is destroyed, because we have come to believe that such an evil is actually a good.  The ritualized nature of a lie needn’t always be expressed through words, but can also manifest through behaviour.  Habits or behaviours can shape certain attitudes about the world we live in, and “feed” a lie within our mind.  Think of all the superstitious activities that athletes do prior to a game or after.  Deep down, they likely know these rituals are not actually effective, except maybe in their emotional state prior to the game (having a placebo effect), but that the act themselves actually influences the outcome of the game because of the act itself is foolish.  Yet nonetheless, if they attempt to stop themselves from doing such a habit, their mind is convinced that it will actually affect their game, because of the absence of the act itself.  Therefore, the person has created a superstition that isn’t grounded in reality, yet has an emotional hold on them, and can turn into a compulsion.  Yet the act itself has nothing to do with the game itself.

More severe compulsions can take place, and form into addictive behaviours that denigrate the dignity of others, even if it only exists in the subconscious.  Pornography, sexual addictions, drug addictions, alcohol addictions, gossip addictions, social media addictions, and so on.  While some of these obsessive tendencies can certainly be caused or reinforced by mental illnesses such as depression and anxiety, or personality disorders, it nonetheless is a sign that a person’s affect is not aligned to reality, and therefore a part of their interior attitude towards such actions or behaviour is at odds with reality and sometimes at conflict with one’s own logical reflection.  This can be a great source of pain for many people.

We should be concerned with our moral-character and its development.  Our moral-character involves us being people of justice with our “whole self.”  This is a crucial thing for us to consider.  Faith, for Pope Emeritus Benedict was not merely an ascent of the mind, but an agreement of the whole person.  That is to say, that to have the “virtue of justice” is to actually have ritualized a humble agreement with what is true or good or beautiful in such a manner that our choices (our will), our attitude (our intellect), and our emotions (our affect) all line up with objective truth.  If they do not, but our choices, attitude and emotions are inclined towards injustice, than we are experiencing vice.  And what is most dangerous about this state of mind is that while objectively our moral-character is vicious, we think we are actually righteous. 

In other words, when discussing anger, or any emotion, we have to examine whether our “hope” to overcome the injustice and the injustice itself is in fact real.  Knowing that we’ve been wrong before (if we are humble), we must then critically examine our attitudes, our own subjective narrative.
         2.  Sadness
Generally speaking, the emotions of anger and sadness are both considered negative emotions.  That is not to say they are evil, but they aren’t exactly enjoyable either.  This is due to the definition of each which corresponds with evil.  While anger confronts an evil or an injustice with hope to overcome such an evil, sadness confronts that same evil or injustice without hope.

As stated before, we must examine whether or not that hopelessness and that evil as such are reasonably considered as such.  For instance, when we experience death, we realize that it is impossible for any of us to overcome the finality of the destruction of our loved one.  Albeit with faith, while we suffer a momentary loss of the person’s presence, we hope to be reunited to them once again.  If someone is angry at the death of a friend, the attitude under this needs to be discerned.  Death is a complicated thing for anyone to experience.  For some, the death of a loved one could have been caused by a crime or an innocent tragedy.  Or maybe there were unresolved matters prior to the person’s death, or maybe the person felt as if they were owed more time with that loved one.  All of these factors need to be discussed.  But one fact remains the same, we do not have the power to overcome death by our own natural powers.  And in this sense, death is final and hopeless.  Death is therefore in this category defined as a perceived evil, which by the way is certainly in line with the natural law, and the Creation narrative in the book of Genesis.   When I say evil, I don’t necessarily mean in regard to a person’s personal sanctity, but rather an evil done to them, and the whole community.  To put it traditionally, the absence of some good causes tears, and the good is that person who has died.

Not Going Beyond Good and Evil

There is a connection between good and evil.  The Church’s teaching is not dualistic in this regard.  Good can stand on its own, without needing evil to support its own definition.  However, evil must always cling to the good in order for us to understand it.  Furthermore, good and evil are opposed to each other, even though at times it can be hard to distinguish the two from each other practically.  If I love and cherish a good, I must necessarily hate anything that will destroy or disfigure that good (evil).  If I love or cherish something that is evil, I must necessarily hate the good which remove whatever disorder that is found to be attractive in such an evil.  This is why it seems that Jesus, in principle, is very black and white at times.  He wants us to know that there really is nothing in between evil and good.  We might use the term “neutral” to help us conceptualize certain things, but when manifested in concrete reality they become accountable to such a categorization.  St. Thomas Aquinas taught that somethings can be considered neutral, but only “out of time and space.”  What is out of time and space, that is also natural?  The only thing that is as such would be something conceptualized as such; a thought.  For example, if I say, “eating a sandwich” this is neither good nor bad, because I don’t have any context to discern this.  If I’m over eating it’s a problem, if I’m eating it at lunch that might be okay.  Somethings however could be objectively evil outside of time and space conceptually, and this is what we call objects that are “intrinsically evil.”  These “objects” are not physical things, but actions or choices that might be made, regardless of intention.  Such as murdering the innocent or stealing something that doesn’t intrinsically belong to us and that we do not have a right to possess. 

The key point I want to illustrate here is that once we have established an interior attitude towards what is good and what is evil, our emotional reactions to them as such become certain and determined les we first change our attitudes.  Remember, emotions are a side-effect of our attitudes and beliefs.

We cannot psychologically go beyond the concepts of good and evil, even if we use different terminology to define them.  They are not socially constructed, but they can be subjectively interpreted from our experiences, and are therefore fallible.

Sadness, therefore can be either a cruel manifestation of an attitude or a charitable one.  If I am sad that I am not the centre of everyone’s attention it is due to the fact that my narcissism has been defined as a form of justice in my mind, when in reality the opposite is true.  In our culture today we tend to want to empathize with everyone on an emotional level, but one can see how affirming such an emotional reaction would actually do harm to that person, and merely enable the continuation of the ritualization of their own self-centredness.  This doesn’t mean we chasten them too directly, but it does mean that we do not play into the false attitudes behind such sadness.  Yet sometimes people are so bothered by the emotion of sadness in others they want to tell them anything in order to make them feel better.  This is incredibly harmful, and it only serves the person superficially.  If feeding a person’s ego temporary makes them “fell better” it will only lead them to collapse into the same grievance at a later date, and may actually create an unhealthy relationship of dependence upon you or others for those “good feelings.”

When something evil happens and there is nothing we can do about it, and a person experiences such sadness, it can be incredibly moving.  It demonstrates a love for the good, and can inspire us.  Jesus, in his own ministry experienced such sadness, and this moved people to understand his heart all the more.  Jesus also experienced anger and this shocked others and perhaps awoke within them a deeper awareness of their own indifference towards matters of justice.  Satan is sometimes depicted as bitterly weeping in hell, but don’t feel bad for him – his sadness is totally pathetic and narcissistic.  Had he been willing to allow God’s joy to be His own, he would have been mesmerized with so much joy to be experienced outside of himself.  He would have been in ecstasy, which literally means to “exist yourself.” 

             3.  Happiness

For many the emotion happiness is the effect we are all looking for.  And I don’t think anyone is wrong in seeking that emotion.  However, it is not always the appropriate emotion for every circumstance.  If I go to a funeral where people are deeply upset, bouncing off the walls that their friend is dead would be most cruel.  Happiness might be best defined as the belief that we have obtained something good and the hope or lack of consideration that it will ever be taken away from us.  If we have obtained something good , yet believe it might be stolen away, we would likely become anxious.  However, we must, like all the other emotions, ask ourselves is this actually good, and is it reasonable to believe this is eternal in its nature?

For natural goods, all of them will technically pass away – but insofar as they are good towards our nature, we can experience happiness in this regard.  But more deeply, we believe that such good things are of themselves only signs of something even greater in God.  In other words, those things which we perceive to be good, only delight us insofar as we believe we will consume them or be consummated to them.  But if they might depart prior to such consummation, then we are not actually happy. 
When we experience happiness because something good has taken place, this is a sign of a righteous heart, and yet when we become happy about something evil, it is a sign of a vicious heart.  And although subjectively one tends to always perceive himself as righteous and not vicious, the truth tends to be otherwise and a mix of both.  So again, “what makes me happy” is not a good slogan for anyone to stand by, because what makes us happy might be perceived as good, but actually evil.  Hitler was “happy” at the death of the Jews, murderers at the demise of their victims, thieves at the possession of things they feel owed to them, despite the fact they are not actually.

These distinctions helped me understand how Ireland could march the streets and be over the moon about the decriminalization and legalization of abortion.  As a person who knows this to be murder, it is baffling to witness such a show of jubilation on the streets.  For them, however, ritualized in their own subjective truth, it happens to be the case that they perceive this to be a victory of justice, and rights of equality for women.  So who is right?  And by what process do we have to discern who is right and who is wrong?  The process must go beyond mere emotion, but extend specifically to the attitudes that guide the process of discerning what is actually “owed” to us, and when that owing or sense of justice takes place.

The Limits of Empathy exemplified in the area of abortion

As stated before, empathy has its own limits in what it can tell us about the difference between right or wrong.  For instance, it is impossible for us to empathize with something like a rock – we do not feel bad for that rock when it is destroyed.  Perhaps we do not like the destruction of its beauty, but we would be foolish to say, “You poor rock!”  This is partly why people have a difficult time understanding why abortion is wrong in the early stages of pregnancy.  At early stages of development a child might not experience pain or emotions during an abortion, and therefore we cannot really empathize with that child.  Pro-choice people depend upon this argument to validate their position.  They will claim that the act of abortion doesn’t physically hurt the child or cause them pain.  Their intellectual development and potential to experience negative motions may not have developed yet either.  And so they cling to these arguments in order to suggest that the child is not actually fully human, and therefore has less dignity than a more fully developed fetus or born child.  In a culture which emphasizes the importance of empathy, and it seemingly to be the only method of moral discernment, we see clearly how it falls short here.  For instance, if we find a way to kill someone in their sleep, and they experience no pain, or experience no emotional distress, we intuitively know that this is still immoral.  They won’t know what hit them!  They won’t grieve it.  But perhaps someone will say, they have already developed the nature to feel and to think, and to choose.  I dare say they would be right – except for one thing:  the embryo has that nature too.

An embryo, save a medical disorder, has already developed its nature, which is human.  And within itself, even though it hasn’t actualized this dimension of itself, nonetheless is still present within the very nature of the embryo.  You see, a mere clump of skin cells will not turn into a fully grown adult woman or man if placed into the womb.  So calling it that disregards the actual biological nature and process of meiosis that objectively exists within the embryo.  In other words, the embryo has within itself the nature of itself totally.  This is to say, it is human and it is fully human.  A child, an infant is not part-human, because it hasn’t developed the ability to tap into its nature to have free-will.  The child is fully human, but at a stage of development.  A grape for instance isn’t less of a grape because it is ripe – it is still a grape. 

Within the embryo it currently cannot actualize its potential to think, breath, have a beating heart, to feel, and make choices – it is nonetheless intrinsically a part of what it is.  But if empathy is the only manner by which one has sympathy for others, than compartmentalizing this fact and only associating with the child’s state of development becomes underplayed, dehumanized, and treated like a mere clump of skin cells or a parasite if you are really cruel.

Here the objective truth is concerned with what the embryo actually is, regardless of how one subjectively perceives it or prefers to see it.  That child has a right to the body of its mother, simply because that is the very purpose and nature of her womb, a sanctuary of life, and the child’s only hope.  Perhaps the act of conception occurred as a result of rape, but now that a third person is involved, the more dillemna has changed by a rather significant dimension.  It is no longer a matter of personal autonomy and sperm and egg, now it is about something much more sophisticated than a clump of meaningless cells that will never develop into a full grown man or woman.  It is in fact a highly sophisticated grouping of cells that has a destiny left unto itself, to fully grow and develop into a grown man or woman.  At conception it has a future that depends upon the love of the mother and doctors, and it has a future, just as a man who isn’t actualizing his ability to think and choose while sleeping has a future for tomorrow that could be deprived of.