How can we reason empathetically?

[coberst]

How can we reason empathetically?

Empathy—the imaginative projection of a subjective state into an object so that the object appears to be infused with it. I can be empathetic with my neighbor by using my imagination to “walk a mile in the shoes” of my neighbor.

Most all of my formal education, I suspect your own also, has been didactic in nature. Didactic education is a method of “teaching by telling” and rote memorization.

My engineering education and most all college level education is didactic. Most college education is designed to train an individual to perform a very specific task. The engineer, accountant, doctor, etc is told what is the logic of performance for a particular profession. After years of this indoctrination the graduate is prepared to solve the problems encountered in the particular chosen field.

Such training is an efficient method for utilizing the scientific method to solve problems in a prescribed frame of reference. It is the type of education designed for a productive and efficient technology. Our technological accomplishments are proof of this. It is not, however, the type of education that prepares the individual for most of the problems encountered by society or self.

Most important issues are not simply matters of fact, nor are they essentially matters of faith, taste, or preferences. They are matters that call for reasoned reflection and sound judgments. They are problems that can be considered from differing perspectives, from different frames of reference. Often a values issue requires at least two perspectives: is it good morality and is it good economics.

How does one structure thinking to produce reasoned reflection and sound judgment in those matters that make up most of life’s multifaceted concerns?

Governor Elect Arnold S. must develop a budget for the state of California very quickly. Let us imagine the sessions that he holds with his advisors leading up to the finished budget.

Arnold holds his first meeting with six advisors each with a different expertise; each a strong advocate for a very important aspect of the welfare of the state.

Arnold starts off with the first advisor on his left who strongly suggests budget A is the best for the state. Going clockwise around the table the next advisor recognizing important aspects of the suggestion of the first advisor presents budget B as the better budget. Budget B contains aspects of budget A but also carries strong suggestions in accord with the second advisor’s area of expertise.

Each advisor in turn synthesizes the budget proposed by others, adding his articles of improvement. At the end of the first session there is a first draft of a budget. Each succeeding session synthesizes the previous results with new inputs until finally a budget of compromises is developed.

What we see in this imagined budget planning effort is a dialogical interchange encompassed within a dialectical process to produce a result. The dialogue is each advisor placing their argument before the group. The dialectic is the synthesizing of a particular proposal with another input thus creating a new proposal, which in turn is subjected to a continuing repetition. Proposal A is synthesized with proposal B producing proposal C and C is then synthesized with D to produce E etc.

The dialogical-dialectical process for each of us cannot contain all the participants that Arnold has for the state budget. When each Californian decides what the budget should be that individual must, in most cases, internalize the activities.

One can, by reading the papers, discover various opinions that others might have regarding the matter. However, it is up to the individual, in the solitude of her intellect, to provide the various actors. The enlightened citizen must create the multifaceted argument internally. The individual must empathetically create the dialogue and the dialectic within her own mind.

Imagine the number of “frames of reference” one would bring to bear on the issue of the comatose woman in Florida. If one becomes conscious of this issue and brings his/her intellect to bear on this issue s/he might be surprised by the possible ways to analyze this matter. One frame of reference we might not have thought about. That, of course, is the issue of our politicians injecting themselves, for their personal advantage, into the issue.

Do you have an opinion regarding the statement in bold?

[Atticus]

First, I'd point out that your discussion of "formal education" is a little limited. You concentrate on pre-professional training the applied sciences and applied mathematics (you mention "engineer, accountant, doctor, etc") and there is much more to formal education than this. The pure sciences require lots of imagination because pure research isn't so goal directed. The social sciences require looking at multiple human perspectives, as do the humanities. In my own field (English), we mostly look for the unrevealed implications of texts [e.g., the perspectives of characters whose perspectives is un(der)spoken, the rhetorical implications of a writer's choices]. The purpose of humanities study, in many cases, is the development of empathy.

Also, in literature there is a value that "showing" is better than "telling" (another reference to your ideas about education). An author can show us an authentic and complex set of human relationships much more effectively by showing us the actual situation in a novel or play than by telling us about them in what would end up being a dramatic essay with lots of overt narrative.

I don't know if this kind of response is what you're looking for or is interesting to you, but I'd argue that not all academic fields are so narrowly focused as you've suggested.

[halfamind]

Are you familiar with Kohlberg's work regarding moral reasoning?

[roderic]

The enlightened citizen must create the multifaceted argument internally. The individual must empathetically create the dialogue and the dialectic within her own mind.Well, I don't see how this is a must. I can see the value for weighing different positions in this way, this approach is certainly desirable for decision-makers representing the voters.
But why should an "enlightened citizen" engage in this?

[Atticus]

Well, I don't see how this is a must. I can see the value for weighing different positions in this way, this approach is certainly desirable for decision-makers representing the voters.
But why should an "enlightened citizen" engage in this?In a democracy, the ideal is that citizens put aside (to a certain extent) their narrow self-interest when they vote. As members of the wider "res publica," it's our responsibility to think about the good of the whole. Otherwise, democracy is just bunch of competing interests, each trying to grab something for themselves, which is why democracy sometimes doesn't work.

[roderic]

^
Well, yes, considerations beyond personal interest ideally are paramount for the voter, but the example used in the OP is the elected governor determining the state budget, the enlightened citizen does not take part in the decision making, they're neither consulted nor is it subject to a public vote. Personally, I would not waste my time with the proposed exercise.
Perhaps I didn't fully understand what was aimed at.

[coberst]

First, I'd point out that your discussion of "formal education" is a little limited. You concentrate on pre-professional training the applied sciences and applied mathematics (you mention "engineer, accountant, doctor, etc") and there is much more to formal education than this. The pure sciences require lots of imagination because pure research isn't so goal directed. The social sciences require looking at multiple human perspectives, as do the humanities. In my own field (English), we mostly look for the unrevealed implications of texts [e.g., the perspectives of characters whose perspectives is un(der)spoken, the rhetorical implications of a writer's choices]. The purpose of humanities study, in many cases, is the development of empathy.

Also, in literature there is a value that "showing" is better than "telling" (another reference to your ideas about education). An author can show us an authentic and complex set of human relationships much more effectively by showing us the actual situation in a novel or play than by telling us about them in what would end up being a dramatic essay with lots of overt narrative.

I don't know if this kind of response is what you're looking for or is interesting to you, but I'd argue that not all academic fields are so narrowly focused as you've suggested.


I think you are right. The humanities and the arts have a different perspecive than do the natural sciences. As Kuhn pointed out when he wrote about normal science, that the student learns the paradigms and algorithms of his or her specific science.

[coberst]

Are you familiar with Kohlberg's work regarding moral reasoning?

No, I have read Johnsons book "Moral Imagination".

[coberst]

Well, I don't see how this is a must. I can see the value for weighing different positions in this way, this approach is certainly desirable for decision-makers representing the voters.
But why should an "enlightened citizen" engage in this?


I just assumed that the enlightened citizen was interested in moral problems and their solutions. I suspect we might say that the definition of an enlightened citizen is one who cares about the solution of moral problems.

[coberst]

^
Well, yes, considerations beyond personal interest ideally are paramount for the voter, but the example used in the OP is the elected governor determining the state budget, the enlightened citizen does not take part in the decision making, they're neither consulted nor is it subject to a public vote. Personally, I would not waste my time with the proposed exercise.
Perhaps I didn't fully understand what was aimed at.

I just gave an example of a problem that is like most of life's problems, i.e. they are multifacted and often require skills of empathy for solution.