Is compassion learned?

Forums: Philosophy
Email this Topic • Print this Page

There are several topics on A2K about how different people state their opinions about a) it's okay or not okay to use airplanes to bomb targets that also kills innocent people, b) the pros and cons of universal health care, and c) why do we donate or don't donate to charities.

Who or what has the most influence on people about compassion?

Is it genes and/or the environment?

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 5,865 • Replies: 89

No top replies

I'd like to introduce another contradiction about people in general.

Many people would join the military at the risk of sacrificing their life, but feels providing univeral health care for our citizens is too much of a sacrifice (medical care isn't free). I see this as a contradiction; but it may be because I'm missing something. I'd like to learn what that is.

0 Replies

I don't think it's a genes vs learning thing, but a both thing.

For instance, we have things we are calling "mirror neurones" which, when we are attuned to another's feelings, even on film, fire in a manner reflective of the neurones that are firing in the other person....however, this capacity actually to "feel" another's experience, does not develop normally in us when we have not experienced empathic, attuned care in our lives...ie we must have experienced sufficient empathy in order to feel it.

I think the ability to be able to hold in our minds, and react emotionally, to the experiences of others is a basic building block of compassion.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

I'd like to introduce another contradiction about people in general.

Many people would join the military at the risk of sacrificing their life, but feels providing univeral health care for our citizens is too much of a sacrifice (medical care isn't free). I see this as a contradiction; but it may be because I'm missing something. I'd like to learn what that is.

What you are "missing" is the ability to objectively evaluate issues from multiple viewpoints.

Why is there a contradiction there? Because both involve someone's health? Is that the only possible iten that the two have in common?

People have freedom of choice as to whether or not they join the military.

Many are against being forced to comply with/participate in a state run healthcare system. - i.e. they are against having freedom of choice to participate (or not) taken from them.

Maybe some people value an absolutely certian loss of the freedom to make a choice more than they value the possible impairment to life/health resulting from decisions that they have a choice in making?

From a "freedom of choice" viewpoint there is no contradiction. There are probably a bunch of other viewpoints that could converge on these two items as well. Some might result in contradictions, others won't.

One can not have compassion for another without having empathy and one can not empathize with another until you are able to see the world through their eyes and filtered through their value system.

0 Replies

fishin, Thank you for your contribution.

Here are some quesitons for consideration:
a) military service is voluntary now, but that can change with government sanctions
b) amongst all of the social services provided by government (currently), how would you prioritize 1) mandate on emergency room care, 2) social security, 3) education, 4) police and fire protection, 5) national security, and 6) health of our children
c) if we are now spending the greatest percentage of our GDP on our health care vs other universal health care countries, how do we justify not having universal health care?
d) is it more important to support a war in Iraq at a cost of 2.7 billion over providing more benefits for US citizens?

Do we have a choice?

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

fishin, Thank you for your contribution.

Here are some quesitons for consideration:
a) military service is voluntary now, but that can change with government sanctions
b) amongst all of the social services provided by government (currently), how would you prioritize 1) mandate on emergency room care, 2) social security, 3) education, 4) police and fire protection, 5) national security, and 6) health of our children
c) if we are now spending the greatest percentage of our GDP on our health care vs other universal health care countries, how do we justify not having universal health care?
d) is it more important to support a war in Iraq at a cost of 2.7 billion over providing more benefits for US citizens?

Do we have a choice?

What does any of that have to do with the philosophical question as to the nature of compassion? Or were you just looking for another place to advance a political agenda? You picked the wrong forum...

0 Replies

I would have thought rather that one learns NOT to be compassionate.

Compassion doesn't require empathy - it simply requires acceptance of the other person for who they are and what they feel.

The reason we don't feel compassion is because we have all these thoughts of ourselves - our wants, our expectations, our morals, our opinions, our ideals etc etc etc, floating through our head and getting in the road of compassion....rather than just accepting the other person as they are and as they feel.