Showing no empathy
Some have argued that since the 1960s, baby boomers have destroyed every cultural institution in America they have touched: marriage, family, public education, government, financial markets, healthcare, and more. Many argue that one of the most tragic legacies of the baby boomer generation is its narcissistic offspring who now dominate high schools, college campuses, and the world of 20-somethings. Children of boomers, who tend to have been raised under the delusion that the world revolves around them, have recorded the lowest rates of measured empathy in American history, according to new research.
This is not the typical generational angst over youth coming of age; there is something quantifiable and different about the children of baby boomers. Paul Anderson and Sara Konrath, both professors at the University of Michigan, report “that American college students have been scoring lower and lower on a standardized empathy test over the past three decades.” They add:
“In fact, a research paper published in May in Personality and Social Psychology Review shows that since 1980, scores have dropped 34 percent on ‘perspective taking’ (the ability to imagine others’ points of view) and 48 percent on ‘empathic concern” (the tendency to feel and respond to others’ emotions). The standardized empathy questionnaire included questions like, ‘I often have tender, concerned feelings for people less fortunate than me,’ or ‘I sometimes try to understand my friends better by imagining how things look from their perspective.’”
While researchers are not certain of the causes, Anderson and Konrath point out a combination of factors that may play a role, including delaying adulthood’s traditional markers like marriage and family in order to attend graduate school, popularization of reality TV shows and the narcissistic exhibitionists who appear in them, the focus of primary education on the problem of low self-esteem rather than low empathy, and the relative decline of face-to-face interaction and emotional communication due to increased online socializing.
The lack of empathy for others confirms what psychologists have reported about the implications of baby boomers treating their kids like royalty, raising them to think about themselves and their success above anything else. In The Narcissism Epidemic Jean Twenge and Keith Campbell write:
“A focus on individual achievement that leaves out feelings, love, and caring is a recipe for narcissism. The missing piece of caring for others cascades into many of narcissism’s negative outcomes, such as lack of empathy, incivility, entitlement, and aggression. In raising superachievers, today’s parents may have, perhaps unintentionally, raised super-narcissists.”
Although America’s young narcissists have radically changed college culture, Anderson and Konrath have not given up hope, citing that many young people today do have empathy and suggesting that change is possible as professors teach empathy in the classroom through role playing and doing exercises that develop interpersonal skills.
But change through behavior modification will have limited long-term success because, in my experience, true empathy only comes from the humility resulting from an encounter with the Triune God. In fact, the only way to correct how baby boomers have raised their children is to have a society with a vibrant and healthy church. Nothing destroys narcissism and establishes true empathy better than staring at the cross of Jesus Christ.

















Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top69 Comments to “Showing no empathy”
The Baby Boomers tended to blame all their problems and faults on their parents, which meant that their kids could blame all their faults and problems on them. The solution was to make sure their kids got everything they wanted.
Report comment to moderator
One of the most narcicisstic people I know, a 13- year-old in Southern California, has expressed a desire to go to India and work with orphans.
We’re all shocked.
I asked what I thought was a pertinent question, however. Why doesn’t she start by going to Mexico with a youth group at spring break and trying that first?
Not glamorous enough.
Besides, she doesn’t believe in religion.
I’m going to send her the booklet our youth group made after their summer mission project along with a note commending her for desire to be helpful. She needs that encouragement.
She can think whatever she likes about the fact our youth group went to Los Angeles to minister . . .
Report comment to moderator
TV played a huge part. It feeds on narcissism and visa versa.
Report comment to moderator
Marriage and narcissism don’t mix well. Thus, we have gone from around 5% rates of babies born out of wedlock in the early 60s to over 41% today AND CLIMBING! This is in conceivable to people who knew saner less selfish times. But we are very religious about our selfism and little else is sacred (not even marriage or human life itself).
Report comment to moderator
Ha! Much of current conservatism has to do with having no empathy — towards gays, Muslims, immigrants or the poor especially.
Now Anthony writes this and you’re all lining up to connect a lack of empathy to liberalism?
That is amusing.
Report comment to moderator
While researchers are not certain of the causes, Anderson and Konrath point out a combination of factors that may play a role
And how very telling that the most important factor is never mentioned:
The research he cites is nothing new. Burton White warned forty years ago in The First Three Years of Life — a book hugely unpopular with the daycare establishment, and those with an agenda to suppress the truth. Indeed, Bernard Goldberg calls it “the most important story you never saw on TV.”
The rioting in London is merely the harbinger of things to come. Researchers Karr-Morse and Wiley, in their book, Ghosts from the Nursery: Tracing the Roots of Violence write that
Yes, we can decry the narcissim that is rampant among these youth, but it might be more fitting to weep before the Lord because of our own ungodly parenting–probably the statistics would show the sixty percent of kids under three in daycare are very likely the same percentage in the church. But such research is very difficult to ascertain–wading through too many articles advising Christian mothers how to get over ‘mommy guilt’ left me weary of this narcissistic focus and empty of solid facts.
We are only reaping what we have sown. The ignored cries of the child left to an indifferent caregiver that are ringing in the streets of London will soon be screaming here too.
Report comment to moderator
According to the Spirit Level, empathy tends to go down as income inequality increases. And according to an article I just read before coming here the upper class is less empathetic than the lower classes. Apparently, empathy decreases as one accumulates more wealth and distances him/her self from people who need help.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/08/09/upper-class-people-less-empathetic-than-lower-class-people-study/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Spirit_Level:_Why_More_Equal_Societies_Almost_Always_Do_Better
The researchers in the study cited by Bradley should rethink their conclusions due to the narrowness of their subject-material. By using university students, typically upper middle class youth, they will get less empathetic results because they fail to consult the youth, working class or lower middle class, who according to other studies are more prone to be empathetic. That is, their study demonstrates the results of class bias.
Report comment to moderator
Belief in a personal god CAN be the ultimate narcissism. That seems to me to be especially true in today’s baptist evangelical tradition, where the practical emphases are on making oneself feel good and on forcing all others to conform to your perception of right and wrong.
Report comment to moderator
Children of boomers, who tend to have been raised under the delusion that the world revolves around them,
vs.
Children of evangelical Christians who think that they alone are to be saved and that some being gives them the duty and right to interfere with everybody else’s life.
Take your pick.
Report comment to moderator
5. I see everyone is lining up to blame their favorite scapegoat.
Report comment to moderator
I will admit to having trouble teaching my son empathy. It is particularly difficult with an only child.
Joel Mark, I think a TV is a big part of it because of constant news from all over the world. Seeing so much suffering all the time can be overwhelming for an adult. Sometimes you have to tell the child “that is happening far away from here, please don’t worry about it.” or the child would worry himself sick. All you can do is try to teach them to do what they can for people close t them.
Report comment to moderator
Note kbells I went straight to the heart of every problem in economics — class. OR you could say my favourite scapegoat.
Donor fatigue is a problem for charities and similar effect could be noted in empathy. If you see the same straving child in Somali/Ethopia over a period two decades, emapthy is hard to maintain. Time is a factor.
Report comment to moderator
Try teaching social prespective to 13 year olds …………
Report comment to moderator
12. We have had to tell the Kid that if the child/puppy/family is in the commercial than they have been taken care of, but there are others we can help. Less personal, but less overwhelming.
Report comment to moderator
DEAR ANTHONY BRADLEY:
If anyone can be accused of “destroying” marriage, it’s the countless couples who got married, only to divorce later on simply because they didn’t have the guts to WORK at the relationship. Too many people rush into marriage because they are blinded by love, without considering that marriage is SUPPOSED to be a lifelong commitment.
Report comment to moderator
#8 “Belief in a personal god CAN be the ultimate narcissism…”
This is a strange conclusion. Belief in a personal God has fueled men to raise up the first universities, launching millions of people to other parts of the world to teach language arts so people will be able to read the Bible in their own language, launched the first hospices and hospitals, started legions of church-organized centers for the poor (soup kitchens, etc.), the list goes on.
“… CAN be …” but tends not to be.
Report comment to moderator
#9
I pick the top choice! LOL
Report comment to moderator
KBELS,
If you think I am scapegoating working mothers, you are very wrong. My sister was left a single Christian mother of an infant son. I myself did daycare, both in a Montessori preschool, and again in my home for an infant of a Christian friend, who was caught in an economic bind, who agonized over having to leave her little son with me every day. I have great sympathy for these situations. But I have greater sympathy for these infants born to mothers who are determined in fulfilling themselves, to the detriment of their offspring.
I have great respect for these mothers who make the most of difficult circumstances. My sister moved home to live with grandma, and took care of her baby herself–her lot was very hard. My friend took care of her obligations as quickly as she could, to come home and to be the parent of her own child–and sadly by then he was a toddler, and her new baby was on the way.
I do not minimize the difficulties in the choices women must make, particularly in this economic climate. But I still feel the grief of this: of that little boy’s first steps in front of me, and not his own mom–how vivid was the difference in emotion I felt watching him: approbation versus the exuberance I felt when my own little girl first walked. Every child should have that wild kind of joy, that kind of unfeigned and really excited response to the good things they do. That is how empathy is learned–at a mother’s kindly look and touch, and no place else.
I care for moms. But I care for these babies more. And I remember keenly being left alone to cry in a crib. These infants have no voice, and their needs are overlooked in the feminists’ aggressive social agenda that has affected even the church. It is uncomfortable for everyone to have the mommy wars waged here, but I have a duty to speak up for these helpless little babies, and maybe some uncomfortable truths will provoke some needed repentance.
Report comment to moderator
Prof. Bradley stereotypes boomers. Jolly good, so will I.
The vast majority have lived lives of desperate, conservative reaction against the points of identification and the values of the small, rebellious vanguard of participants in the Summer of Love, the long and bloody protest marches, and other cultural happenings.
Boomers were mainly reactionaries not revolutionaries. The began the culture wars by turning against themselves.
The bulk of the generation of the boomers voted predominantly for Nixon, Reagan, and W. They sacrificed at the altar of our military empire, brought back the death penalty, fled to suburbia and exurbia, and fundamentally and irrevocably seceded from the secular humanist project of our great American civilization.
I’m not surprised if the children of these reactionaries lack empathy. On the other hand, based on my personal experience, liberal boomers have lived admirable and idealistic lives and endowed their children with deep, altruistic motives.
Among my daughter’s cohorts, I’ve seen demonstrations of solidarity, kindness, and tolerance that simply did not exist in older generations.
Report comment to moderator
Karen, kbells referenced comment #5. Your comment is #6.
Report comment to moderator
PS – my daughter was educated in a hippie school system – Waldorf schools. The schools I observed in California and Germany in the successfully eliminated some of the upper-middle class biases that HRW#7 correctly identifies.
Report comment to moderator
“Among my daughter’s cohorts, I’ve seen demonstrations of solidarity, kindness, and tolerance that simply did not exist in older generations. ”
I’m sure your daughter’s friends are fine, caring people. But ridiculous exaggerations like that will incline people not to listen to you. No other generation has shown *any* solidarity, kindness, or tolerance?
Report comment to moderator
Thank you Pentamom, I didn’t see the #5.
But I am glad I did expand my comments, because I realize it could sound very abrasive, and blaming. I totally get how hard these situations are, but wish that churches would get it, and would that we could be different than the world! That we would understand the need to rally around moms of young children with more than just carnations on Mother’s Day… and help them to stay at home. Especially, helping our single moms!
Because most moms want to stay home.
But social policies have been deliberately crafted to make it hard for women to stay home, and the peer pressure is also intense. As Simone de Beauvoir said so interestingly, “women should not have that choice [to stay home], precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one.”
Report comment to moderator
I’m reporting personal experience, not social research, PENTAMOM. Americans have always been a people in conflict with themselves, so every generation exhibits some of everything, good and bad. Yes, I saw a lot of warm sympathy and noble sentiment in my grandparent’s and parent’s generations, along with some brave dissent from prevailing norms of racism, sexism, homophobia, and colonialism. They made famous sacrifices.
The heros of the 60’s and 70’s took up a noble cause of the past, they didn’t invent it. They were only a small part of their generation, but they were numerous and they made a bigger splash. They also provoked a bigger right-wing reaction, including from among their own generation. Boomers as a whole part turned out to be more rigidly conservative than the generations of the Depression , WWII, and the first part of the Cold War, in my view.
Report comment to moderator
CONANTHELIBRARIAN wrote; “Much of current conservatism has to do with having no empathy — towards gays, Muslims, immigrants or the poor especially.”
This comment is nothing but cheap and baseless political bigotry. Honorable disagreement is not possible with some people, so the just ‘demonize’ and ’satanize’ the other side (example: the recent debt deal was called by some a “satan sandwuch”). When you don’t have an argument (as CONAN clearly does not), soe people just traffic in group smears. The reason I respond to it is that such ideological bigotry is so common today and often effective with other people who also have no argument to offer and don’t want to hear any either.
Report comment to moderator
KB — the single family breadwinner of the 50-60s supporting a middle class lifestyle has unforunately disappeared. In order to maintain the same middle class lifestyle, both parents have to work. Wages have stagnated since the 70s only household income has managed to keep pace.
If you wish to return to one income families, then we need to return to the economic policies of the 50s and 60s
Report comment to moderator
If we want more empathy, then the government needs to tax, borrow and spend more money.
How’s that for abstract brilliance at its best? Maybe ton’s of gov’t grant money is available to support careful academic studies of this theory.
Seriously, materialism is a shallow and banckrupt philosophy.
Report comment to moderator
ANTHONY BRADLEY nailed it when he wrote: “Nothing destroys narcissism and establishes true empathy better than staring at the cross of Jesus Christ.”
Well stated (and we all know he means more than just staring with physical eyes–he is including the eyes of faith).
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark, seething as usual, says: This comment is nothing but cheap and baseless political bigotry. Honorable disagreement is not possible with some people, so the just ‘demonize’ and ’satanize’ the other side (example: the recent debt deal was called by some a “satan sandwuch”). When you don’t have an argument (as CONAN clearly does not), soe people just traffic in group smears. The reason I respond to it is that such ideological bigotry is so common today and often effective with other people who also have no argument to offer and don’t want to hear any either.
Except I’m right and you know it, which is why you respond with seething insinuations about my character and no substantive refutation.
Evangelicals:
* Insist that gays are making choices about lifestyle and can change … rather than using empathy to try to understand what it’s like to have same-sex attractions that are just as strong and natural-feeling as heterosexuals’ opposite-sex attractions.
* Refer to any group of Muslims as “the people who attacked us” and make no effort to understand the differences between types of Muslims or to separate a radical fringe from the mainstream. And some of those here on this board (Xion comes to mind in particular) insist that there can be no such thing as a peaceful Muslim unless he’s also a bad Muslim not following the Koran.
* Support harsh anti-immigration laws that break up families, and are prone to talk about how “they” take our jobs and commit violent crimes — with no empathy to try to identify with the desires of Mexicans and others to create better lives for their families. (The lack of empathy isn’t in the support of deportation or opposition to illegal entry, it’s in the virulent rhetoric that seeks to demonize rather than understand.)
* Insist that America’s poor aren’t really poor (twice in the past couple of weeks, World’s staff bloggers have referred to a report which argues that owning an X-Box or a TV set means you aren’t really poor after all), and implicitly blame the victims by demanding that they work harder, etc., as if they’re just sitting around lazily.
And then when you point that out, you can count on the angry, defensive reaction such as I just got.
Report comment to moderator
“Evangelicals: Refer to any group of Muslims as “the people who attacked us” and make no effort to understand the differences between types of Muslims or to separate a radical fringe from the mainstream.”
Does anyone else see the irony in that statesmen?
Report comment to moderator
In AZ many of our youth have grown up seeing someone on every freeway ramp who had their hand out for money. Many of whom were offered jobs, but that isn’t what they wanted. Some went around the corner to get in their new car paid for by people who had empathy.
Many children have seen their parents let go just because the company wanted to save money. They hired a consultant for millions. (I think that was a scam by the CEO.) The CEO used the “recommendations” to fire people. Then CEOs got million dollar bonuses for “saving” the company money. Children have no empathy for businesses either–you can’t trust the CEO run company.
It has made skeptics out of our children. Trust is hard when the people you are supposed to have respect for are taking money, misusing taxes, etc. for their own gain. They see these people getting away with stuff just because they are politicians.
They don’t trust the “down and out” person.
How can you tell who is truly down and out and needy?
Do you just give money to everyone who asks?
Report comment to moderator
KBELLS, unless Conan has me totally confused, too, maybe he would reread it for the irony by substituting “Christian” for “Muslim.”
Report comment to moderator
28. Kind of reminds me of the Daily Show skit where, while discussing the Juan Williams firing, a Muslim and a black guy go off on how stereotypical white people like to stereotype them.
Report comment to moderator
People were making the rounds to all the churches for handouts here until administration decided to keep a list and share with other churches. They began making them fill out forms.
Our churches kept getting asked for gas money. So our church got a credit card and would follow the person to the station.
Then people found out some churches would give money to people for their rent. One lady brought her sister to our church. Neither attended our church. She was driving a really nice SUV. She wanted our church to pay for her sisters rent, or house payment and/or utilities. Our church began to say it was only for people who attended. It had really gotten out of hand. (This was NOT during the last 4 years.)
We, personally, were accosted after church, on campus, for handouts more than once. They didn’t go to our church. They would show up and wait for people they asked the last time to leave. One guy just needed a room for the night. We took him to a modest motel in a decent neighborhood, but he asked to be taken to another place. We went to the other place. More expensive. Luckily the guy at the desk did not come so we took him back to the previous place. The place we took him back to was a place I would have stayed myself.
A few months later he showed up at our church again and wanted a place to stay. He forgot that we had taken care of him the last time. Which he said was just until he could land that job he was looking at. When we told him no this time and told him we had served him the last time he had come thru, he used our phone to call his Bishop.
Yeah, our daughter was there with her empathy wide open.
Report comment to moderator
Maybe if the mom did stay home there would be more jobs for the fathers. (I’m not talking about single moms giving up their jobs.)
There are so many women who work just because they are BORED.
Many of those BORED women, who don’t NEED a job, should volunteer.
Report comment to moderator
I am not a mother or a daycare worker, but I join Karen Butler. The thing that went wrong was not that women wanted to work, but that they sacrificed their children for what is nothing more than a job. I am not speaking of women who have to work simply to survive, but I see the nannies in town here, and those kids are not getting attention. They get a walk with a woman who is talking on the cellphone. There’s no teaching going on. It’s very sad that a mother finds a career more interesting than teaching her own children, especially when they are little. A career can always be developed once kids can be left on their own, but truly little people need mother. Karen expresses it well.
Report comment to moderator
It does really take a village. It took a hyper-kinetic, marketing driven culture to make us realize that. It took collective millenia of profit driven marketing research, deceptive advertising and slicing and dicing the entire population up into ever smaller segments, playing to each segment’s particular weakness and pouring hundreds of billions into clever, fundamentally dishonest ads to create the entire job corps of child care workers we now have. That has also created latch-key kids, toddlers taking care of babies, and a host of other problems.
At the same time huge numbers of traditionally good paying all male jobs have disappeared and many women really are forced to work just to meet subsistence levels.
Our corporate masters have us right where they want us, balkanized and craving more more more while the means to achieve it are ever receding.
Somthing’s gotta give.
Report comment to moderator
Kbells 29: great catch.
Report comment to moderator
Re irony:
Back when we were discussing the “Ground Zero Mosque” (in quotation marks because it was neither at Ground Zero nor a mosque), the debate got quite heated. The evangelicals on this board were unanimously or nearly so in their opposition, and the opposition largely boiled down to: They’re Muslims, and Muslims attacked us, therefore the proposed cultural center is a “victory monument.” Xion said several times that Muslims MUST engage in terrorism against all non-Muslims, and others expressed similar sentiments.
And it’s not just here. In the decade since 9/11, I’ve seen many evangelicals demonize Muslims and I’ve seen many more remain silent, not joining in the demonization but making no effort to stop it.
I’ve seen a bare handful of evangelicals speak up in defense of Muslims as a group, almost none.
So yeah, there may be some irony in my using a generalization to condemn generalizations, but it is a generalization based on what I’ve observed. If you think I’m wrong, show me some examples of evangelicals denouncing anti-Muslim rhetoric.
Report comment to moderator
#387 Conan “Xion said several times that Muslims MUST engage in terrorism against all non-Muslims, and others expressed similar sentiments.”
I thought I hear my name being used in vain.
You have never understood what I said, which is why you keep misquoting me. I was making a distinction between faith and practice, but explaining it thousands of times seems to have no effect. It has nothing to do with the topic here, so I hesitate to repeat it a thousand more times.
Suffice it to say, that Muhammad and Christ did things and taught things. Those who keep their words are practicing what they preached. A good Muslim will act like Muhammad and do what he said. There are plenty of peaceful Muslims who don’t act like Muhammad, the terrorist and assassin and lopped off heads and robbed others for a living. Christians who act like Christ will do no harm. They will start schools and hospitals and elevate those around them.
I apologize to everyone else for this deviation from an important subject.
Report comment to moderator
Regarding empathy, I agree with the emphasis in the video series Anthony was a part of called Seek Social Justice.
Poverty isn’t a lack of wealth. Rather it is an environment of neglect. It is the culmination of bad decisions which lead to bad conditions.
Empathy for the poor then, was a coming along side and addressing the actual issues which lead to neglect of family and responsibilities. It was non-condemning and gracious, building them up to help them stand on their own. Liberal answers always lead to more dependence.
When I read what Anthony writes in this post I hear something else. It seems like Anthony is saying that if we just taught empathy in the schools then the world would be a better place. That is as wrong headed as the teachings of the self-esteem movement that lead to rampant narcissism.
Being empathetic doesn’t necessarily help someone become more self sufficient. Wisdom is the answer. But where is wisdom to be found?
Report comment to moderator
CONAN wrote; “Evangelicals… insist that gays are making choices about lifestyle and can change.”
Correct. Unlike the secularists and homosexualists, Evangelicals actually regard homosexuals as real human beings and not as programmed machines or mere animals acting on set genetics and instinct. Evangelicals honor their humanity which means we recognize their moral capacity to make choices about who and how they love, desire and behave.
Empathy does not necessarily demand agreement.
Report comment to moderator
but explaining it thousands of times seems to have no effect
Ding Ding Ding- Todays winner.
Report comment to moderator
Since empathy is not an end in itself, what is the goal?
For conservatives the goal is self-reliance and independence. Liberals consider self-reliance selfish and independence greedy. People should put society above the individual. This is a collectivist mentality where people are interdependent. Individualism is evil.
The outcome of both of these goals is the opposite of what one would expect. By teaching people to be self-reliant they become productive contributors to society. And conversely, making people dependent makes them unproductive and a burden on society.
Report comment to moderator
For liberals, the goal is community, Xion, a society where people care about each other and take care of each other.
Conservatives favor an every-man-for-himself approach, in which you either succeed on your own or fail on your own with no guarantee anyone else will help you — and if they do, it’s purely out of the goodness of their individual heart, not because the culture overall encourages mutual caring.
Report comment to moderator
#44 Conan, That is substantially true. Now we’re getting somewhere. The key is the word ‘guarantee’ in your statement. You would like to ‘guarantee’ the outcome.
In order to ‘guarantee’ the outcome you cannot allow people to be free, because free people may choose to not contribute to your wonderful heavenly community. Something must be done about those people, because they mess up the plan.
And so begins the long slow march toward tyranny by omnipotent moral busybodies who never recognize that they are creating not heaven, but hell on earth.
Report comment to moderator
In order to allow people to be “free” (by your definition), you have to relegate all the people who need a helping hand to the vagaries of individual compassion … which guarantees (there’s that word aggain) that many of them will never get adequate help and suffer all their lives.
Why do you value this illusory freedom over the well-being of your fellow man?
Report comment to moderator
One thing I have noticed in my nieces and nephews is that they all out grew the selfish, narcissistic stage after they themselves became parents. They almost all went through a very unlikable stage and they have all grow to be wonderful, caring people. I think this generation just matures later.
Report comment to moderator
#46 Huh? You mean forced freedom? What is that?
You are using DoubleThink again. It sounds like the slogans of Orwell’s party: War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, and Ignorance is Strength.
Report comment to moderator
No, I’m asking you a serious question: Why is the freedom to be selfish a greater value to you than to be a society that aids its own even over the objections of some individuals?
That’s the position you’re taking. How do you justify it?
Report comment to moderator
CONAN, your question to XION seems to rise from presumptions in you that he does not share, but he can speak for himself. But speaking for myself, it seems that it would be like me asking you, “Why is increasing government control over the lives of all citizens and creating ever-increasing dependency on the government a greater value to you than to be a society that respects the freedoms and rights of it’s citizens?”
Such questions don’t get us far because they attempt to put words in the nouth of the other person and spin them around unfairly.
Report comment to moderator
Yours is a good question too, Joel Mark. I can answer it.
First, your premise assumes that I advocate increasing government control and ever-increasing dependency on the government. That’s not quite correct. I do advocate some government control and some (ideally temporary) dependence, but I think we can all agree that a self-perpetuating welfare state that never encourages people to become self-sufficient is a mistake.
However, we are not looking at an either/or here. It is not a matter of “ever-increasing dependency” or no dependence at all. What I advocate is a set of social program that provide short-term help for people who need it in order to become self-sufficient (or in some cases, to get over a hurdle) and long-term help available for those who truly are not able to become self-sufficient, such as the severely mentally or physically disabled.
I do advocate taxing people to cover the costs of those programs.
Why?
Because I believe that a good society takes care of its own. And I believe that a good society does it even if some individuals in that society object, because charity is a corporate, communal thing. It’s really not a matter of individual benevolence and generosity, it’s a matter of national pride. We should not be the richest nation on Earth and have people unable to afford medication and food in the same month.
So I believe it is not only morally ok, but actually morally necessary, for a society — government is just the people we as a society choose to represent us and act on our behalf — to tax those who have the means to bear it and use the funds to carry out the business of the community, including some amount of spending on programs to help those who need it.
I do NOT argue that this taxation should be exhorbitant, but I do not shy away from saying that reasonably taxation for the good of others is just. I do not believe that freedom is the highest good if it results in the hungry remaining hungry without a hand to help them.
Now, I do not believe, contrary to your allegation, that I have actually distorted Xion’s position. He places freedom, including the freedom to be selfish, above aid for those who need it.
I’d like to know how he justifies that position.
Report comment to moderator
I would point out that in the Old Testament, when God judges nations it is often for, among other sins, neglecting to care for the poor, the widow, the orphan. And God judges NATIONS, not individuals, for this sin.
One of the mistakes of Christianity is that by placing so much emphasis on salvation of individuals, it has largely lost the Jewish sense of national responsibility. I think that is why so many Christians argue that individual charity is all that matters, even though there’s no way that it could ever meet the needs or be coordinated effectively.
National corporate charity using public funds wouldn’t have been an unwelcome idea in pre-Christian Jewish nations, because they had a strong sense that God paid attention to the nation as a whole.
Report comment to moderator
#49 Conan, “I’m asking you a serious question: Why is the freedom to be selfish a greater value to you than to be a society that aids its own even over the objections of some individuals?”
The problem here has to do with understanding what FREEDOM means. Until we can agree on the definition we will never advance this conversation.
In one case you define freedom of speech as the Federal government deciding what can and cannot be said and imposing penalties for these thought crimes. Here you define freedom as the right to be free from selfishness. This reminds me of the Egyptian protesters who said freedom was a world free of Jews.
For you, freedom means living in a world free from anything which might offend you. But how do you create such a perfect world? You must do it by force. You must take away the freedom to sin at the point of a gun. That is nothing like freedom.
In actuality, freedom is the ability to offend and do what you will, whether good or evil. A free person can be empathetic or selfish, helpful or hurtful. And so the freedom to be selfish is just plain old freedom. That is what freedom is. Freedom to do evil is not the same as condoning evil.
If we can agree on this definition, then we can begin to talk about how people SHOULD behave and the kind of society we want.
The argument from nearly all modern liberals (not just Conan) is that freedom is unsatisfactory because it doesn’t guarantee the outcome they want. And so modern liberalism is about taking away liberties and forcing people to do “good” as defined by the state.
Liberals would force us to be empathetic and charitable and to eat right and to wear seat belts and to share the wealth and to try not to earn too much and so on. Federal agents with guns are given more power over our health and welfare and everything else.
The idea is that this will make society better. But what has always happened throughout history is that this creates a society from hell where people are shot in the back trying to escape.
Report comment to moderator
#49 Conan, I realized I only answered part of your question. Your question is a very good one. I was going to restate it, but you hate it when I do that. So let’s try again:
This question really gets to the heart of the differences between conservatives and liberals. I think it is so deep it takes us back to the Garden of Eden and the meaning of Free Will, but that is too much to get into here.
Selfishness is a sin of the heart. Neither liberals nor conservatives condone it, but government can’t really regulate the thoughts and intents of the heart. The question is what to do about it. Giving people the freedom to be selfish means they probably will. Not good. But the alternative is always worse.
Forcing people to be charitable does spread the wealth around. The problem is that it sets up a whole incentive structure which is out of kilter. Government can’t tax only the greedy. It must tax according to income or other tangible criteria.
All wealthy people aren’t greedy. Taking from a wealthy person may penalize him for a life of hard work and tremendous charity and providing jobs and good things for his community. He may be giving his wealth to a greedy person who has never worked a day in his life and lives off of others.
And so, while we may envision a perfect world where the greedy are forced to not be greedy, what always happens is that government makes things worse. Greedy politicians give to greedy voters in order to purchase votes and the actual needy aren’t actually helped.
Attempts to create utopian societies always fails, causing bankruptcy and bringing onto everyone. That is because it incentivizes failure. If you reward failure that is exactly what you will get.
And so, while free societies may not be perfect, at least they are free. And free societies always have a higher standard of living for everyone and they are far more charitable than totalitarian ones.
Report comment to moderator
Xion again misreads/misstates Anthony Bradley:
Anthony never said that. It is the researchers with their strangely-absent-of-reality- factors leading to narcissism who suggest that “change is possible…through role playing and doing exercises that develop interpersonal skills.” But Anthony actually says,
But change through behavior modification will have limited long-term success because, in my experience, true empathy only comes from the humility resulting from an encounter with the Triune God. In fact, the only way to correct how baby boomers have raised their children is to have a society with a vibrant and healthy church. Nothing destroys narcissism and establishes true empathy better than staring at the cross of Jesus Christ.
And I say a hearty Amen! to this.
Can you please give this man some credit for a real gospel response to a faulty world-view, rather than suggesting that he promotes it?
Report comment to moderator
An other link to suggest class not generations is the breaking point in empathy
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44084236/ns/health-behavior/t/rich-are-different-not-good-way-studies-suggest/#.TkQgDmFvCnR
Report comment to moderator
#55 Good points Karen. Perhaps you are correct. Rereading the post several more times, I don’t see where Anthony is saying that the researchers are wrong. He spends 90% of the article building his case on their words. My sense is that he is saying they are on the right track, but their long term success is limited by not addressing the spiritual side of the issue. What I am saying is that the researchers are in fact wrong.
However, I could be wrong. Your insinuation that this is the usual case is incredibly nasty for a post on empathy, but I will forgive you and overlook it in the interest of peace and good will.
Report comment to moderator
The debate over how, when, where, to whom and why society should take care of its own is not an either/or debate with one side in favor of compassion & morality and the other side against them. When the right advocates limited government, they are not opposing society taking care of its own. They are espousing a means to do it that more effectively lifts all parties higher, in my view. As JFK said, “A rising tide lifts all the boats.”
The left wants to empower the public sector and the right wants to empower the private sector to seek solutions and lift up society. Both sides advocate a MIXTURE of roles for both sectors but they differ on which one should take a lead.
Empowering the public sector means politicians get to decide who, where and how to lift society and distribute the resources. Empowering the private sector leaves more discretion and more constructive decisions to non-politicians who are not acting to get re-elected. Still, both sectors will always provide checks and balances.
Report comment to moderator
Karen Butler: Xion again misreads/misstates Anthony Bradley:
Xion misreads and misstates me all the time, no matter how many times I correct him. In the two posts above, #54 actually attempts to answer the question I posed and make a case. But he precedes it with #53, which misrepresents my views at every turn.
Report comment to moderator
CONAN, you definitely do not need to rely on anyone else to make your case or play interference for you.
Report comment to moderator
Well, this debate on empathy has certainly unraveled. After complementing my friend on a great question and giving a serious thoughtful answer I get ad hominem.
I don’t think I have misrepresented anyone. I may be wrong and I welcome correction. But I treat each issue as seriously and as honestly as I can. I am not offended by these personal attacks on my character. Rather I take it as a sign that the debate is over and my friends who disagree have run out of substance. Let’s try again some other time…
Report comment to moderator
XION, you are the frank one to stand on your own against any insinuated criticisms from anyone else.
Report comment to moderator
“…Nothing destroys narcissism and establishes true empathy better than staring at the cross of Jesus Christ.”
I agree.
Report comment to moderator
Xion,
I don’t agree with your reading of Bradley here, but then I seldom do. Our first conversation was about Anthony Bradley remember? It was concerning an article he wrote about urban church planters ignoring the rich mines of wisdom already existent in the minority churches around them, while they spread their edgy gospels to all the edgy yuppies who are extremely like them. You blasted him for spouting black victim-hood, and I tried to get you to see then how you had misread him.
I tried to find the thread, but World’s archival search engines are terrible, and I couldn’t access it. What I did find was a treasure I suggest you read again–Olasky’s interview of Bradley, summarizing his book Liberating Black Theology, here:
and here’s more good stuff:
And how about this gem? This sounds like you could have written it:
You’ll benefit by reading it, I think, but only if you read it more carefully! You might even become more empathetic towards Anthony Bradley–who really sounds a lot like you after all.
Report comment to moderator
The term “narcissism” is overused. Self-centeredness is as old as sin.
Report comment to moderator
Xion,
I was checking this for a response, and I realized you could think I was being snarky, in the last quote from Bradley, implying that I thought you were nerdy–I don’t, I included it because I thought that was an endearing little bit of info about Anthony that I found amusing, but given the many misunderstandings we have, it could be misunderstood.
I just read the online poll thread in which you discussed your knee injury. I am so sorry that you are unable to pursue the activities you love so much. My husband is nursing a kind of repetitive injury to his knee that is keeping him from bicycling every day to work–he loves it so, and it keeps his spirits up.
I will be praying for you, as I pray for my husband, to recover quickly, and that you continue to look into Jesus’ glorious face as you journey on in this difficult pilgramage we are making from the temporal to the eternal. May everything grow strangely dim in the light of His glory and grace.
Report comment to moderator
“Belief in a personal god CAN be the ultimate narcissism. That seems to me to be especially true in today’s baptist evangelical tradition, where the practical emphases are on making oneself feel good and on forcing all others to conform to your perception of right and wrong. ”
Funny, Arcadia, I was just today thinking the exact same thing about liberals, specifically militant environmentalists who want to force us all via regulation to adopt their fanaticism about how we live, what we eat, where we build, the light bulbs we use, etc. I could also point out that militant left wing atheists are certainly hostile and condemning of people who don’t share their lack of belief in God, their faith in science, and a number of other beliefs. They also would like to use the law to force us to conform to their perception of right and wrong. Liberals are classic examples of people suffering from the psychological phenomena of projection.
Report comment to moderator
“Totalitarianism is not only hell, but all the dreams of paradise– the age-old dream of a world where everybody would live in harmony, united by a single common will and faith, without secrets from one another. Andre Breton, too, dreamed of this paradise when he talked about the glass house in which he longed to live. If totalitarianism did not exploit these archetypes, which are deep inside us all and rooted deep in all religions, it could never attract so many people, especially during the early phases of its existence. Once the dream of paradise starts to turn into reality, however, here and there people begin to crop up who stand in its way. And so the rulers of paradise must build a little gulag on the side of Eden. In the course of time this gulag grows ever bigger and more perfect, while the adjoining paradise gets even smaller and poorer.”
— Milan Kundera (The Book of Laughter and Forgetting)
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDmag.com's Community section to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!