Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
A Question of Empathy
Is anyone else shocked at how ignorant well-off white liberals are when it comes to alternative views about abortion. I am hanging out with North Eastern Democrats who seem to be the Michael Shellenberger variety rather than the Bernie Sanders variety.
But during the conversation with these well-educated people, I learned how much of a bubble that they live in. “I can’t understand why women are pro-life.” from one lady. Then her mother said, “Well you know, we forget about how many women are pro-life.”
As an agnostic on this site, I get exposed to people who do not agree with me daily. I can easily imagine, pro-life or pro-choice women. Simultaneously, I can also imagine communists and Islamists. Now perhaps I have an unusually active imagination, but that still doesn’t explain how half of the American population does not understand the basic ideas of the other half.
I noticed the exact same pattern at Boise State University School Newspaper. On the introductory day there, the Professor said, “Why does everyone think that we journalists types are so left-wing. Also, what pronouns should we use as I discussed investigating multiple companies for any emanation of right-wing thought.”
What makes BSU’s journalism even more perverse is that there are several churches within walking distance who will politely explain right-wing thought. Talking to people on the other side is basic journalism. Yet somehow, left-wing people aren’t capable of that basic empathy. Why?
Anybody’s take on my question would be appreciated but do allow me to tender a theory of my own.
In my experiences, religious people and non-religious people can’t understand each other. If one believes in G-d it affects them from their scalp to their pinky toe. Religion not only affects your beliefs and the logic behind those beliefs; it reprograms your basic values and assumptions at the core of your psyche before it even gets to the thought-through beliefs in the front of the conscious brain.
For centuries leftism has championed sexual liberation and the destruction of the nuclear with the fervor of a religious zealot. The ability to enjoy sex free from political and biological consequences is often the most important value to certain kinds of leftists. Equality mercy and compassion can’t withstand the right to autonomy in matters of sex. Without G-d sex becomes the most important thing. Also, the flesh becomes a thing of worship when one denies the spirit. Look at vegetarianism and alternative medicine among atheists.
But what are your thoughts with regard to empathy or the lack thereof?
Published in General
Henry- on a cursory reading, I am sure I agree with you in most if not all key points. However, your post suffers from missing words forcing the reader to insert them to make sense of the syntax. It is just a by-product of our hands not matching the speed of thought every time. Look the text over again and edit it.
I’ve never been able to understand how any woman who has given birth could be pro-choice.
I’m coming to the hard realization that a lot of my fellow conservatives also lack empathy.
The lockdowns broke us apart, and severed what few bonds remained.
There’s an artist I follow that had this to say that I believe helps explain the mindset you’re encountering here:
https://twitter.com/owenbroadcast/status/1522194585681813504
[Continued]
[Continued]
Good point. Those missing words come from editing constantly on the computer. Thanks for pointing it out.
Vis a vis abortion, some of this may have an evolutionary, biological basis. (This is rocky ground here, so please forgive me in advance.) Women have a nine month investment in a newborn, and it is not without significant pain and effort, too often life threatening, that a child develops in vitro and is born. The liklihood of miscarriage, a problematic genetic or developmental defect, or an early newborn death from other causes, is not insignificant, even today; 100 years ago, it was far more significant. So humans, especially mothers, and in fact all animals, can initially seem indifferent to a newborn. Sometimes this manifests itself quite dramatically as post partum depression. The pain of birth, of nursing an infant especially in those first few weeks, is a constant physical reminder of the commitment a child represents. Thus, it takes some time for mothers to develop that deep, protective bond with an infant; in the meantime, this diminishing indifference represents a kind of biological insurance for the psyche should the child fail to thrive and survive, or even, should the father fail to provide the support and commitment required to raise the child.
I think that this almost callous indifference manifests itself in support of abortion. Birth and procreation are so important to the species and yet, women find themselves able to support the destruction of the unborn. It is existentially incongruous.
Men, on the other hand, like other males in nature, can be indifferent to their progeny. It is their attachment to the mother that allows them to accept and develop an enduring bond with their children. Eliminate that attachment and allow them to abandon their children, and they will. It is society’s established norms and morality that enforce the father’s responsibility within the family unit. Children develop slowly and without both parent’s commitment, the process is very difficult. There are no guarantees in any case.
We may believe that we are noble and self-aware, but we are still biological creatures despite our arrogance.
In my experience, religious people generally understand non-religious people, but non-religious people generally do not understand religious people.
This may vary depending on the religion. My principal experience is with Christianity. It is also possible that I am a bit unusual in this regard, as I became a Christian as an adult, at age 36, so I remember what it was like to be non-religious. Those who are religious from a very young age might not have such a perspective.
I don’t think that empathy is the same thing as understanding. I think that it is quite understandable and rational to have a negative attitude toward people with whom you disagree on important issues. Such people are, from the other point of view, on the side of evil. I regularly observe what you might call a “lack of empathy” from the political Right, as well as from the Left. One example is the negative interactions between the pro-Trump and the never-Trump groups, both ostensibly on the Right.
I don’t think that the disagreement usually boils down to a question of empathy. I don’t find empathy very helpful in resolving issues. Consider the disagreement about abortion. One side would characterize itself as having empathy for the unborn child. The other side would characterize itself as having empathy for the woman suffering through an unwanted pregnancy. These feelings don’t seem useful in determining whether or not abortion is a good thing, or even whether it is a necessary evil.
Leftists view themselves as too intelligent to give serious consideration to religion. Therefore, since they know they are right about everything, they don’t have empathy to a religious point of view. That would be like empathizing with a flat-earther.
Also, they are less likely to engage in self criticism and examination. They can abort a fetus but will fight to protect the eggs in a turtle’s nest. They deny the fetus is alive, but if it was discovered on Mars it would be the greatest discovery in history.
European Christians encountering Native American myths and religions for the first time did not see those ideas as another side or another point of view but a silly fossil hangover of primitive ideas that should have been discarded long ago. That is how the modern left sees religion in general.
Part of the secular left theology is that they represent the pinnacle of history and human evolution. It is not possible for them to engage with pro-lifers or other instances of the cultural right without first generating a cognitive pigeon-hole or caricature (racist, reactionary, stupid…) that explains the mindset of such people. A liberal will pretend to respect a Navajo or Australian aboriginal creation myth for its poetic value while showing open contempt for biblical stories but never admit the inconsistency. Religions that dare to persist in modern society are enemies in large part because the left has constructed a religious system (fixed answers to big questions) but refuses to admit having done so.
Pro-life arguments using clever rhetoric, science, and philosophy are vastly less persuasive than a picture of a baby in utero at 14-weeks. The Roe court tried to finesse the issue with the trimester construct but that was itself a tacit acknowledgment that what was going in utero was qualitatively different from an undifferentiated tissue mass. The biological reality is not erased by ideology.
Religious people tend to know and acknowledge it when they are making a value judgment informed by religious beliefs. But the Enlightened pretend that their rather narrow and increasingly prescriptive outlook is simply the byproduct of science and high SAT scores. A shallow abut rigid notion of personal autonomy that requires approval of intervening to kill a baby at full-term is a value judgment that only a zealot can hold–like those Aztec priests who cut out beating hearts with stone knives.
The Lovely Ones (as a wickedly funny friend calls the elite and their new religion) loudly proclaim a simplistic bumper sticker version of a woman’s autonomy and dignity without the slightest inkling that the rightful reverence for a woman’s personhood and extraordinary life-giving power has been debased and tossed aside by their sexual revolution and is only echoed and re-admitted in diminished form when the abuse is tangible and adverse consequences accrue the morning after.
How blinkered by beliefs and ideology does one have to be to see late-term abortions, the destruction of childhood innocence (and destruction of a stable social order) all within a barbarous and weirdly politicized, depersonalized sexual environment as evidence of progress and enhancement of personal worth and happiness for women. Navajo and Aboriginal religions may do a lousy job of explaining the origin of the universe but I doubt they made believers as crazy and dogmatic as our new religion does to its followers.
Empathy is something they feel for animals and people. Conservatives don’t fall into either category.
I just looked at an article about Disinformation! from the WSJ. The writer states that for Obama …”politics is a simple Manichaean struggle in which the righteous and well-intentioned use good data, and the malign and ignorant use bad. ” And thus censorship is justified. It’s the same reasoning.
That was a meme, recently.
However, we shouldn’t overlook that the attitude on the left is not “that isn’t life” but more like “that isn’t a person.”
I think there is a pretty good argument that it isn’t a person after fourteen days of conception. At that point, all the cells or almost all the cells are stem cells that aren’t specified and it’s pretty similar to an animal pre-embryo. But after fourteen days the first that starts to form are a nervous system which I find defines humanity. Our organs are pretty much standard mammalian stuff but our brains are pretty weird I thought.* As a moderate pro-abortion rights guy I feel kinda weird how quickly a clump of cells starts to look like a baby.
*Actually, human digestion and endocrinology are significantly different than other mammals.
The larger point would seem to be, even if it doesn’t “look like” a human being at first, there’s zero chance that it will develop into something other than a human being.
But is it a human at that point? Sperm and eggs aren’t considered human though they have potential. Obviously a fertilized egg has a radically different potential but is a fertilized egg a person is the big question.
Sperm, or eggs, left alone in a uterus or whatever, don’t develop into anything.
Duh. I forgot to include the link – it’s a good article.
I like this commentary on Roe vs. Wade.
Empathy: You cannot engage in effective persuasion without empathy, in the sense of having some mental model of how the other person or group of people thinks. Far too much political communication today has totally abandoned persuasion in favor of approaches which are believed to rally ‘the base’ while insulting opponents, including opponents who might have been subject to persuasion.
Very interesting post at Quillette today: Confessions of a Social-Justice Meme Maker.
My personal experience is that religious people understand atheists way better than atheists understand religious people. My experience is that atheists have stock, cartoonish understanding of religious people. Religious people in today’s age pretty much understand why atheists believe the way they do. I was once an atheist many years ago myself. It took deeper learning to achieve a soft agnosticism but a religious experience to become religious. I’ve been there. Atheists are wrong. ;)
Sperm and egg by themselves do not develop into anything. A fertilized egg is a human. That’s what makes a human. The DNA has been put together. It is at a particular stage in the life of a human, one of many subsequent stages. Unlike plain egg and sperm, a fertilized egg develops, continues to develop to a point where it can sustain itself outside the womb, and developing under most circumstances to his or her death. From conception to a person’s death, they are an individual human being.
Or, as the simple formula goes:
Period. End of issue.
The question is, is it morally permissible to kill it because it’s unplanned or unwanted? Every human person involved in this discussion (and everywhere throughout time) was once a recently conceived “clump of cells.” There’s no question that without some accident of nature or some forced intervention, that embryo will continue to develop into a recognizable, unique, and irreplaceable human person.
Now, under what conditions is it morally permissible to set out to kill it? I say there are none. [ectopic pregnancies really do threaten the life of the mother and even Catholic hospitals permit the surgery required to save her. The surgeons do not set out to kill the child, though, and they’d save it, too, if it was possible. Therefore, it is not an “abortion” as such, since the intent behind every abortion is to kill the child.]
You said it first, Jerry. I believe there are even “studies” that show conservatives (assuming most “religious” land there) understand and can explain progressives better than the reverse. Even Henry’s “theory” goes on to explain leftists — mostly accurately, I believe.
Interesting. My wife and I had a discussion Tuesday with some of this mindset mentioned. Our twins are doing their First Holy Communion this weekend. We were at their rehearsal and observing the behavior of the kids. It wasn’t very good. We had also observed their parents. Judging by it, there didn’t seem to us to be any real reason the kids should have been taking things more seriously and reverently. By the way, here in Poland, First Holy Communion is connected with their public school so our kids have been going to school together for three years and we know these kids and their parents well. All the parents are on a FB group for the class and we know almost everyone’s stance on abortion because they proudly display the red lighting on their profile picture, which is the pro-abortion sign here. I don’t say all that to be “Holier-than-thou.” Quite the opposite. I understand completely how people grow up being pro-abortion and anti-religious… or anti-conservative. I see it all the time how rare it is a young person has someone in their life modelling Christian and/or conservative ways, and even if they do, how difficult it is to not give in to the societal pressure to be “progressive.” Our twins just turned 10 and the discussions with friends are already starting. If they follow my wife’s and my example they will definitely be mocked by their friends. I pray God gives them strength and courage. I pray God gives me empathy when interacting with others who have different beliefs and that it’s taken genuinely, not as being patronizing or condescending.
Forgive me but while I assume that this is a Catholic First Holy Communion with it being Poland. So why are Catholics posting pro-abortion signs on FB and going to Fir Communion.
Because the godless culture is winning.
Would it be appropriate to dis-invite people and their children who you have reason to believe won’t behave respectfully?
Hmm. That was me that said that attributed to Jerry. Somehow the quoting scheme got crossed up.