(April 23, 2016 at 12:01 am)Losty Wrote:

(April 22, 2016 at 11:57 pm)Sterben Wrote:       For a person who thinks who they are not good at expressing feelings into words you did a good job. I get were your coming from though, you feel that the person who assaulted a loved one deserves a second chance to become a better person and put there past to prevent them from hindering their life. That's a good philosophy on the deeper meaning of justice. Although some crimes that one commits on to others does not deserve the kindness presented in your philosophy.

Maybe not. Still in that case if somewhere were maybe sentenced to life in prison without parole, that someone is still a human being. They still get my empathy. I will still advocate for them to receive mental health care, be treated with basic human decency, and be allowed to maintain their dignity as a person.

Also, thank you for saying I did a good job wording my feelings

One of the many reasons turtle and kitten are besties is because we both agree on matters of justice. Justice is not about retribution. Retributive ethics are not just. No one should be punished "because they deserve it" people should only be punished when it's better for everyone. Justice, empathy and above all compassion and humanism is for everyone. Just because the phrase "just deserts" contains the word "just" doesn't mean it is just. It's not about deserving things it's about helping and protecting everyone, mitigating harm, aiding recovery, rehabilitation when possible and detainment when necessary. Maximum quality of life for all. Compassion for all, focus on those who are most needy and victimised but still, compassion for all. Everyone matters, everyone is human. Everyone does what they can do. Empathy is human and empathy is humane

I don't know everything, but I have toured prisons and jails and I was very appalled. In Georgia the jails are fucking disgusting. Several people in our group threw up because of the smell.

We need major change in our system because way too many people end up in prison. No innocent people should be in prison. But even some guilty people shouldn't be in prison.

But even beyond all that. If everyone was guilty and deserving to be there, they still get my empathy.

Even when they are both guilty of the crime and the crime is not victimless, I am sure they often get needless mistreatment rather than just detainment away from other potential victims + a chance at perhaps possible rehabilitation (depending on the seriousness of the crime and the likelihood of genuine rehabilitation.).

Needless mistreatment is needless mistreatment is needless mistreatment is needless mistreatment and I feel like some people can't grasp that

(April 22, 2016 at 10:52 pm)Losty Wrote:

(April 22, 2016 at 10:10 pm)Sterben Wrote:           Would you feel empathy for someone who assaulted a loved one? Would you feel anger or pity when your in the court room, having to watch as a good defense attorney works the room? When the moment finally arrives and that not guilty verdict is announced, what happens to your humanism then?

Yes. Both. My humanism remains in tact. I don't live my life to exact revenge and I have a different idea of justice than my country's legal system. I feel empathy for everyone. It's not a choice I make, I don't think. It feels pretty involuntary.

I call it "Being a wonderful person with a beautifully compassionate mind".

I totally agree Evie.

The "justice system" should be about acting in the interests of society, by removing dangerous people or providing suitable deterrents. It should not be about revenge, or punishment for punishment's sake. I strongly believe that.

Even if someone murdered my wife, I would not wish them to be treated any worse in jail than anyone else. My two hopes for prison are that people are released only when they are safe to be, where the crime was very serious; and that every effort is made to rehabilitate people so they can make the most of their life once they rejoin society. Even if they never will, for whatever reason, mistreating them in prison is nothing but petty revenge.

(April 23, 2016 at 12:13 am)Losty Wrote:

(April 23, 2016 at 12:06 am)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote: Thank you for this, Losty.

I get very emotional about this subject. I think because I look at society as a whole and how they view prisoners and it makes me so sad. And often when I try to speak up about it I am attack for being a rape apologist or a murder apologist or a whatever apologist. It's really hard for me to understand people sometimes. It's like I'm on a different brain wave. In my mind, you shouldn't define a person by the bad things they may have done. In my mind, all people deserve empathy.

I feel exactly the same way.

Same here if anyone hurt anyone I care about, Rob. I feel exactly the same. I would feel anger but I wouldn't be vengeful and only sorrow would be lasting because of the tragedy, resentment wouldn't be permanent and it wouldn't eat me away for a lifetime.

Exactly. I'm not pretending I wouldn't be angry, or have fantasies about revenge. I just wouldn't want them acted upon.

If acted on every fantasy I had... I would be the one in prison after about 5 minutes

(April 22, 2016 at 8:51 pm)Sterben Wrote:

(April 22, 2016 at 4:42 pm)Brian37 Wrote: CL, "love" as your bible tells you is not anything to do with reality. It is a candyland utopia. Now let me give you the realistic way one can "love" having nothing to do with old books and bad claims.

First off, no, you don't have to "love" all 7 billion humans, we will NOT always like each other or only say nice things about each other. No, that is not a call to force anyone out of existence, just to say "love" is a loaded word when most humans mean "I'll say I love you unconditionally" and that sounds nice but most people mean "as long as you accept your place in the social pecking order".

The way I put it is, I know my species has a dark side, capable of great cruelty, and that part I do not have to "love". I don't put it that way in any case. I use the word "value" and yes, we should ALWAYS value empathy and non violence and human rights. But we do not have to value claims outside the right to make the claim. And especially claims that lead to oppressive laws or violence to others who are not violent.

I VALUE my species empathy yes, we can do very great and compassionate things for each other. But that is not a result of magic or sky heros, that behavior is in us. At the same time unfortunately, we also can be very physically cruel to the point of mob murder, state murder and genocide, and no, I don't love those ideas or value those ideas that lead to those things.

I value, for example the empathy of Martin Luther King Jr, but that does not make his Christian god real. But there are also others who have and still do, use that same bible to be dicks to blacks, and no, I don't "love" or as I say "value" those interpretations that lead to harm to others.

I value Ann Frank's empathy, but that also does not make Yahweh a real god, nor does that justify other Jews even today, who use those same writings to justify holding airline jets hostage because sexist dicks refuse to sit next to women.

I also value the empathy of Malala for standing up for women's education, but I do not value the interpretations of the Quran that lead to other assholes trying to murder her.

Now, my position is all religions have no bases in reality and are nothing but made up excuses humans invent to set up social pecking orders. BUT, that doesn't give me a right to set up a godless utopia myself. My duty is to my species and non violence, but I have no duty to remain silent when bad claims lead to bad acts.

I value non violence. I value even the right to say things that piss me off. But I will never value ideas that lead to oppression. I value my species empathy, I don't however "love" everything an individual may claim, nor do I have to.

         Well said, empathy is something the human race lacks greatly in. A greater question that seems lacking of an answer is, when is empathy deserved?

I think it isn't a good idea to ask it like that. The human language is always  loaded when it comes to points of view and everyone has their own ideas as to how to keep social order and civility. 

Unfortunately because reality is messy, evolution also drives us to not only be social, but like all life, you thrive when you have control over your environment. I think the better question is, "What is the balance to allow for differences but at the same time foster the understanding that we are still the same species".

For me, my understanding of nature, allows me to understand that there is no way to get rid of everything you don't like. Not even outside humans can we do that. We cant end bacteria, only manage it. We cant end volcanos, but only understand them. And we also cannot rid the world of every bad or delusional claim we don't like either.

But we can foster more civility and have done so through the common concepts all humans have. Humans don't like being physically harmed, we don't like our family or friends harmed, we don't like our children harmed, and we all compete for resources. So the balance is common law, not common religion, not common race, not common political party. 

Empathy isn't even about never offending. Empathy is knowing that even in the face of getting offended, we don't have to respond in violence over simply that alone. Empathy is also knowing that victim isn't a matter of label, but context and case by case.

When Muslims, for example say they are victims of the west, that is true, what we did in getting rid of Saddam, still hurt non violent civilian humans. But that does not excuse Isis, or even the oppressive theocracies of Saudi Arabia or Iran. 

When Jews say they live in fear of rockets in Israel, again, I agree, that part is true. But when Palestinians live in fear of carpet bombing that is also true. 

When Kurdish Christians and even minority Muslims are murdered by Isis they are victims. But Kim Davis refusing to do her job is simply a stupid fucking crybaby.

Even with atheists. We do face losing our jobs, or having our property defaced, but in parts of the world atheists get murdered. So empathy to me is always case by case in context of the moment. I think accepting that our species is always capable of both cruelty and compassion is how you allow yourself what you chose to respond with.

(April 23, 2016 at 1:46 am)robvalue Wrote: Exactly. I'm not pretending I wouldn't be angry, or have fantasies about revenge. I just wouldn't want them acted upon.

If acted on every fantasy I had... I would be the one in prison after about 5 minutes

BINGO, 

That is why I hate cliche words like "honor" and "courage" and "patriotism" especially when combined with blind faith. That leads people to group think, be it about religion or nationalism or a combo of religious nationalism, or political worship of the one party state. Then we respond with that mindset, leaning toward's revenge rather than diplomacy.

I totally agree, we all have the right to our emotions, but we don't have the right to always act on them. 

All 7 billion humans can think of things they'd rather not see or hear, and if we all got to murder people we didn't like all of us could become genocidal, fortunately there are enough humans who understand how pointless that is. Unfortunately there are humans all over the world stuck in the mentality "if I just beat the shit out of them, I can solve the world's problems".