Walk a mile in Omar's shoes

[coberst]

Walk a mile in Omar’s shoes

Homicide, the most egregious moral infraction possible, becomes common place in war. It seems to me that we take such homicides in war all too lightly.

When we see a mother weeping over the death of her child, caused by a suicide bomber, we feel immediate sympathy; often we will come to tears. But we do not easily feel sympathy for the mother who may be weeping over the death of her child—the bomber.

To understand the bomber we must use empathy. We attempt, through imagination and reason, to create an analogy that will allow us to understand why another behaves as s/he does. Empathy is a character trait that can be cultivated by habit and will. Sympathy is somewhat of an automatic emotional response.

The lack of understanding between our foe and our self can transform an argument or misunderstanding into a war of mass homicide. Using a quote from “To Kill A Mockingbird”: “You never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view.”

Empathy can prevent war and it can help win a war. Empathy can help us understand our political opponent so that we can reason together. Empathy is a rational means for reaching a solution to our problem.

Questions for discussion

Do we always want to prevent war or to understand our political opponent?

Do we want to win a war badly enough to empathize with our foe?

Do we want to use reason when fighting is so much more fun?

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
But we do not easily feel sympathy for the mother who may be weeping over the death of her child—the bomber.

[/ QUOTE ]
She popped out a monster, and likely helped to develop his attitude with her religion that she's too cowardly to put aside. I have no sympathy, and no empathy for her.

[ QUOTE ]
Empathy can prevent war and it can help win a war.

[/ QUOTE ]
Bombs do an even better job of preventing war. Nuclear weapon scientists have done more for peace than all the Nobel Peace Prize winners in history.

[ QUOTE ]
Do we always want to prevent war or to understand our political opponent?

[/ QUOTE ]
This is a false dichotomy.

[ QUOTE ]
Do we want to win a war badly enough to empathize with our foe?

[/ QUOTE ]
This isn't even a question.

[ QUOTE ]
Do we want to use reason when fighting is so much more fun?

[/ QUOTE ]
Try to reason with a man who believes stoning a teenage girl to death for having sex is a righteous and God given activity.

[coberst]

I empathize with a person not to give approval or to condone the actions of that person, but to create a means whereby their actions have meaning to me. When their actions become meaningful to me I can thus walk in their shoes and perhaps through such empathy I will be able to act in a way that will improve the situation in which both that person and I am involved.

Empathy is the first step to comprehending and thus to solving situations in which I find my self. Ignorance is generally not bliss; ignorance is not the path to peace, harmony, or freedom.

[Phil153]

Empathy and ignorance are not the only options - this is something of a false dichotomy as well.

I think it's possible to understand someone from a strategic or academic viewpoint without seeing the world from their perspective, or caring what they're going through. And it's possible to do positive things based on a general principles, without understanding the other party at all. I'd go as far to argue most of the good in the world is done as a result of principles and not as a result of empathy.

[PairTheBoard]

Counselor Troi seemed to come in pretty handy in Star Trek Next Generation.

PairTheBoard

[coberst]

[ QUOTE ]
Empathy and ignorance are not the only options - this is something of a false dichotomy as well.

I think it's possible to understand someone from a strategic or academic viewpoint without seeing the world from their perspective, or caring what they're going through. And it's possible to do positive things based on a general principles, without understanding the other party at all. I'd go as far to argue most of the good in the world is done as a result of principles and not as a result of empathy.

[/ QUOTE ]


I imagine comprehension to be a hierarchy, resembling a pyramid, with awareness at the base followed by consciousness (awareness plus attention), succeeded by knowing, with understanding at the pinnacle.

I am a retired engineer and my experience in the natural sciences leads me to conclude that these natural sciences are far more concerned with knowing than with understanding.

Understanding is a long step beyond knowing and most often knowing provides the results that technology demands. Technology, I think, does not want understanding because understanding is inefficient and generally not required. The natural scientists, with their paradigms, are puzzle solvers. Puzzles require ingenuity but seldom understanding. However, understanding is essential when dealing with matters of relationships between humans.

I have for some time been interested in trying to understand what ‘understand’ means. I have reached the conclusion that ‘curiosity then caring’ is the first steps toward understanding. Without curiosity we care for nothing. Once curiosity is in place then caring becomes necessary for understanding.

I suspect our first experience with ‘understanding’ may be our first friendship. I think that this first friendship may be an example of what Carl Sagan meant by “Understanding is a kind of ecstasy”.

I also suspect that the boy who falls in love with automobiles and learns everything he can about repairing the junk car he bought has discovered ‘understanding’.

I suspect many people go their complete life and never have an intellectual experience that culminates in the “ecstasy of understanding”. How can this be true? I think that our educational system is designed primarily for filling heads with knowledge and hasn’t time to waste on ‘understanding’.

Understanding an intellectual matter must come in the adult years if it is to ever come to many of us. I think that it is very important for an adult to find something intellectual that will excite his or her curiosity and concern sufficiently so as to motivate the effort necessary to understand.

Understanding does not come easily but it can be “a kind of ecstasy”.

I think of understanding as being a creation of meaning by the thinker. As one attempts to understand something that person will construct through imagination a model--like a papier-mâché--of the meaning. Like an artist painting her understanding of something. As time goes by the model takes on what the person understands about that which is studied. The model is very subjective and you and I may study something for some time and we both have learned to understand it but if it were possible to project an image of our model they would be unidentifiable perhaps by the other. Knowledge has a universal quality but not understanding.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
I suspect many people go their complete life and never have an intellectual experience that culminates in the “ecstasy of understanding”.

[/ QUOTE ]

You had that experience? Could you tell me /us about it?

[arahant]

I was really hoping that this was going to be about The Wire. That might have made a good ethics thread, with all sorts of opportunity for people to vent dogma, too.

[coberst]

Empathy is a character trait that is valuable for our day-to-day life also. It is not just to prevent war or to help win a war; it is about understanding our neighbor or our boss or our kids or our parents. It is about some of the things that humans can do to faciluate harmony in the society. The habit of empathy is vital to our survival.

[jogger08152]

No, yes, yes, yes. And I disagree: I feel sympathy for the mother of the bomber, too.