Balancing Empathy and Justice

On Ethnocentrism: A Reply to Clifford Geertz p.528 Richard Rorty http://hdl.handle.net/2027/spo.act2080.0025.003:06

I’m rereading the parts of Rorty’s paper I didn’t understand in the original.

• There’s nothing dark about doctors not being able to put themselves in the patient’s shoes, there’s enough light to help them do their job right.

What is in the dark?

• Is it the case that person X acted in the absence of empathic connection, as in “we are all alone” when “we are all alone” is described as “X acted in the dark”?

• Yes, that interpretation is correct.

  • The word “darkness” here does not literally mean darkness, but figuratively describes the absence of understanding and empathy in human relationships. The metaphor implies that when human beings act without deep understanding and love for one another, their actions take place in a kind of “darkness,” that is, without the light of human connection and understanding shining on them.
  • For example, the expression “we are all alone” indicates that although we are social creatures, we have a fundamental sense of loneliness and lack of understanding. Similarly, the expression “acted in the dark” indicates that actions were taken without being illuminated by the “light” of empathy or understanding. In this context, it could be said to indicate the philosophical view that all human relationships are in some kind of “darkness” unless they are touched by love.

• Balance between empathy and [right

• Empathy is not necessarily a good thing, but it is beneficial to society because it allows us to execute social justice without being caught in a dilemma by not being empathetic to the other side’s position when we shoot a psychopath?

• Yes, that understanding reflects some of the claims in this context.

  • This text suggests the idea that empathy does not always produce the desired results. Especially in cases such as shooting a psychopath or hanging a war criminal, where the actor acts without empathy for the victim’s position, it may actually be beneficial in implementing social justice.
  • He states that too much empathy for one person’s position with another can make it difficult to carry out justice. For example, if we have a deep understanding of a war criminal’s life and are fully aware of the path he or she has taken, we may be conflicted between the demands of love and justice. But if we do not know the background in such detail, we are less likely to face such a dilemma in carrying out justice.
  • It suggests that this type of ignorance is often beneficial to society. In other words, it underscores the point that a lack of empathy in human relationships can sometimes be helpful in achieving larger social and ethical goals. This perspective offers deep insights into the difficulty of balancing empathy and justice and how society functions under certain circumstances.

⿻👎👎😐: Lack of empathy in relationships can sometimes help in achieving greater social and ethical goals https://magi-nishio.vercel.app/t/kYX7y8f6S10nTYTpERBd Consensus: Weak No

---

This page is auto-translated from /nishio/共感と正義のバランス using DeepL. If you looks something interesting but the auto-translated English is not good enough to understand it, feel free to let me know at @nishio_en. I’m very happy to spread my thought to non-Japanese readers.