How do empirical studies of the development of empathy relate to our understanding of altruism and of morality in general?

Jennifer Baranowski
PHCC-104-SF3

Professor Nachum Turetzky, PhD

January 31, 2012

How do empirical studies of the development of empathy relate to our understanding of altruism and of morality in general?

     Michael Slote defines empathy as "having the feelings of another person involuntarily aroused in ourselves, like how we feel when we see another person in pain" (Slote, Caring Based in Empathy). Scientists have conducted studies that have examined empathy and have attempted to determine why certain mammals are predisposed to it. According to primatologist and author Frans de Waal, empathy, which relies on perspective thinking - the ability to see other sides of a situation - is found in the animal species that have the self/other distinction. De Waal says that the self/other distinction is “activation in a certain part of the brain that makes one distinguish ‘your pain from my pain’ when we witness someone [hurting]” (Clip 5: The neuroscience of compassion (Templeton Foundation)).

     While empathy studies are limited to humans, there is a theory that animals that recognize themselves in a mirror also have the capacity for self/other distinction, and therefore have complex perspective thinking. De Waal maintains that aside from humans, elephants, dolphins, and chimpanzees also recognize themselves in the mirror. Although it is impossible to obtain subjective feedback and responses regarding empathic behavior from the animals, they have been studied objectively. I recently saw a news segment about a family of elephants who mourned the death of a calf. Upon further exploration of the topic, a 2005 article discussed experiments conducted on elephants had “nineteen different family groups presented with an elephant skull, a piece of ivory and a piece of wood. The animals showed a strong preference for the ivory and for the skull over the wood. Preference for ivory was very marked, even though it was the smallest object on offer. Elephants placed their feet, which have a sense of feeling, on the ivory and rocked it gently back and forth” (Lorenzi). Those elephants appeared to mourn and empathize with the dead. Aside from that particular study, most people have heard about evident empathic behavior exhibited by animals; there are the famous tales about dolphins protecting scared humans from sharks and chimpanzees consoling one another after a fight. These animals have no obvious ulterior motive for their behavior and their behaviors are seemingly empathic.

     Many may argue that humans are selfish beings. History has kept track of the many cruel and evil things that we humans are capable of. We couldn’t possibly have many redeeming qualities, could we? The empirical studies of empathy development show that the opposite is true. Humans, like elephants, dolphins, and chimpanzees, are hardwired for empathy. There is innate goodness in us. We, our brains, are made that way.

 

Works cited:
Clip 5: The neuroscience of compassion (Templeton Foundation). 25 January 2010. From www.templeton.com. 27 January 2012. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMEgiIrI5UM

Lorenzi, Rossella. Elephants Mourn Their Dead. 4. November 2005. 27 January 2012. http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2005/11/04/1497634.htm.

Slote, Michael. "Caring Based in Empathy." Slote, Michael. The Ethics of Care and Empathy. New York, NY: Routledge, 2007. Copy obtained from Sacred Heart University Blackboard.

Do you have an obligation to help fight world hunger?

Jennifer Baranowski

PHCC-104-SF3

Professor Nachum Turetzky, PhD

January 24, 2012

 

Do you have an obligation to help fight world hunger?

     Anybody who lives in a developed nation with a television set has seen commercials for aid organizations like UNICEF, Oxfam, and Feed the Children. Their advertisements tug at the heartstrings of average working human being. Children are seen in misery, the hunger pains visible on their faces, with their malnourished, ravaged bodies lying limp like dish rags in the arms of their distraught mothers. Anyone with a soul would feel sadness. Most westerners cannot imagine the pain – after all, what could possibly be worse than watching your child die of malnutrition? Should we have empathy? Yes. Do we have an obligation? No. We do not have an obligation to help fight world hunger. But we SHOULD fight world hunger because of empathy.

     Nations who are plagued with world hunger are often nations that have been impacted by wars, corrupt leaders, and corrupt governments. Resources there have been misappropriated by dishonest officials or through ignorance. The first world, with its resources and its high standards of living for its citizens, are capable of acting in the interests of those impacted by hunger. Peter Singer writes, "the prevention of the starvation of millions of people outside our society must be considered at least as pressing as the upholding of property norms within our society… If it is in our power to prevent something very bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything else morally significant, we ought, morally, to do it" (Singer, Famine, Affluence, and Morality [revised edition]). World hunger is more than a money issue - sure, we can throw money at the problem, but what happens after the money runs out? After we assist with rectifying the immediate crisis, verifying that the assistance is going to the intended recipients and punishing those governments that abuse it, it would be wise to empower those who were directly impacted by famine. In addition to providing food to the hungry, we could provide them with tools to feed themselves, like fishing and farming equipment. We could educate them on how to grow food and how to dig a well. I think the old adage "give a man a fish, he eats for a day; teach him to fish, and he eats for a lifetime" is important – it would give those people pride and self-sufficiency. Most people do not want a hand out, they want a hand up.

 

     In answer to the posed question, we do not have an obligation to fight world hunger. We in the first world are fortunate enough to live in a relatively free world. We are obligated only to not harm or impede the rights of others. Because of the fact that we as a society have been blessed with abundance, we need to look at how we live and "Consider the consequences of our actions on those who are impacted by them and get beyond yourself” (Singer, Singer Solution to World Poverty). We need to look at helping those who suffer from hunger like this: although we were fortunate enough to have been born in a world where we do not experience the plague of hunger, we could have been. We need to treat those who suffer like we would want to be treated. We should help our unfortunate brothers and sisters. We SHOULD fight world hunger.

 Works Cited:
Singer, Peter. "Famine, Affluence, and Morality [revised edition]." Philosophy and Public Affairs 1.1 (1972): 229-243. www.utilitarian.net.

Singer, Peter. Singer Solution to World Poverty Dan Rather. n.d. uploaded Jan 18, 2010. 22 January 2012. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lu7XHUXvEKU.

What are human rights? What is their source?

Jennifer Baranowski

PHCC-104-SF3

Professor N. Turetzky, PhD
January 17, 2012

 

What are Human Rights? What is their source?

 

     If you ask an average person to define human rights, they are likely to list the three pillars of the term: freedom, justice, and equality. Human rights are defined as "entitlements pertaining to those needs and desires that other people are obligated to fulfill or to allow you to fulfill" (Amesbury and Newlands 24) and are "the common birthright of humanity in their possession and cannot depend on one's membership in any particular community" (Amesbury and Newlands 27-28) - in other words, rights could be described as entitlements that one is entitled to because he or she is human. Pretty simple, right? Unfortunately, because of human nature, we tend to want to complicate human rights. It could be argued that some religious groups and governments worldwide feel that they are the key holders and the authority on human rights; that their beliefs on how to live trumps their constituent’s human rights. Regrettably, that is not necessarily the case, and in forcing their agendas, freedoms, justice, and equality are impeded.

     Human rights are often the basis for our laws; the United Nations (UN) devised an objective, neutral, and unreligious list of thirty human rights that serves "as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society… shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms" (The United Nations). Everyone can recall a time when they've witnessed human rights violations. The obvious example would be the Holocaust - Jewish people were murdered because of their ethnicity and religious faith. We've witnessed ethnic cleansing in Kosovo and Rwanda (just to name two) - massacres based on differences in ethnicity and culture. In just the past decade, we've seen ignorance and intolerance between Christians and Muslims grow into acts of terror and injustice. Daily we see news programs that tell us about hate crimes, rapes, and murders in our own cities and towns. If we humans have a list to guide us, why do some people continue to violate the rights of others? A theory could be that we lose a touch of our humanity we hold on to our own egocentricity.

     Human rights violations are undoubtedly brought on by intolerance. Instead of embracing others' distinctions, there are some in society that want to destroy them for it. Some people fear difference. A homogenous world is bland - difference gives our world color and variety. "Christian humanism is a powerful antidote to the fear that seems to dominate the human encounter with ‘difference’; that humanity remains capable, under grace, of building a civilization worthy of those made in the image and likeness of God" (Weigel). In ideal conditions, humans attempting to act in the likeness of God, no matter the religion, would bolster human rights. The one problem with that is deciding to act in the likeness of God is open to misinterpretation. The Judeo – Christian – Islamic foundations are arguably peace, love, and coexistence, but unfortunately, the extremists in each of these sects make it appear otherwise.

     The basis and source of human rights is arguably the equality of every human being. In acknowledging the equality of all, that no one is better or worse than the other, human rights will be assured. If equality is the brick in human rights, then empathy should be the mortar. It is easy to want to protect the rights of someone when you see yourself in his or her eyes. Only through a foundation of equality and empathy can human rights be valued and honored.

Works Cited:
Amesbury, Richard and George M. Newlands. Faith and Human Rights: Christianity and the Global Struggle for Human Dignity. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2008. Kindle Edition.

The United Nations. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. © 2012. 13 January 2012. http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/.

Weigel, George. "The Catholic Human Rights Revolution." n.d. www.ewtn.com. Document. 12 January 2012. www.ewtn.com/library/CHISTORY/HRREVOLU.TXT.

What is the basis of political authority?

Jennifer Baranowski

PHCC-104-SF3

Professor Nachum Turetzky, PhD

January 10, 2012

 

What is the basis of political authority?

 

     To live in a civilized world, citizens require rules that will ideally guide them in living amongst society. These guidelines will provide a structure and social order. Political authority would be what provides these guidelines; political authority would ideally be based on what is morally right and what is in the best interest of its people and society as a whole.

     Living in the Western world, our political authority is based on democracy. We either vote for what we deem is necessary to provide a fair and comfortable life for ourselves or we vote for representatives who will in turn vote for what they feel is the best decision for society. When we vote for those who represent us, we are allowing others to decide for us – we are consenting to political authority. Without our consent and without our willingness to follow the laws that the "authority" provides, there can be no political authority. According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "the state's imposition of duties on the individual may occur only if the individual has consented to the states authority" (Christiano).

 

     Throughout history there have been examples of citizens who have not consented to political authority and in turn have facilitated change. There once was a time in American history when African-American citizens were treated unequally in the eyes of the law; this unequal treatment was permitted by the elected political authorities. One day, an African-American lady named Rosa Parks sat on a bus and refused to give up her seat to a Caucasian man. This caused a political and societal uproar because for years, laws (authority) had stated that black people were inferior to white. Only when people like Ms. Parks did not consent to what had always been the rule, did the voters and the political authority reevaluate. Authority is only effective when people agree to follow it.

 

     The basis of political authority is consent. There must be people who agree to follow it, otherwise, it is useless. In the Western world, we agree to the political authority that is formed when citizens have voted democratically. We vote for what we feel is morally right and what we believe will benefit us. It could also be said then, that aside from tacit consent, the basis of political authority comes from what a particular society deems is morally just and beneficial for its world.

Work Cited:
Christiano, Tom. "Authority." 2 July 2004. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/authority/. 5 January 2012.