We continued our discussion about morality by looking at compassion and empathy. 

We defined empathy as being able to "walk in another's shoes."  Charities are more persuasive if they appeal on behalf of one child with a cleft lip than on behalf of an entire country.  In early tribes, empathy would have been a survival mechanism but why do we help those we will never meet e.g. leaving a tip in a hotel room?  Although humans possess selfish, competitive tendencies naturally, we have a capacity for cooperation that has been selected for during human evolution.  We recognised that compassion may be a luxury of civilisation and rapidly disappears when under threat e.g. toilet paper at the start of Covid. 

Peter Singer talked about Moral Circles, so you and your family, you and your tribe, you and the town you live in, your country etc.  He argued that altruism began as a genetically based drive to protect one's kin and community members but has developed into an expanding circle of moral concern. 

Feminist ethics and the ethics of care (section 3.6) challenges the traditional moral theories, on the basis that these are written from a masculine perspective of abstract principles of justice and rights and does not recognise the reality of caring and emotions.  We do have special obligations to our close family and friends.  However, we recognised that there are limits to empathy as we want to be treated by dispassionate doctors.  Juries are biased in favour of attractive or baby-faced defendants so empathy could drive us towards making poor decisions.  Rory Stewart described a woman who refused food to help save others and predictably died.  Which emotions guide us towards morality?  Sympathy, empathy and righteous anger, but all need to be based on a rational morality.  There needs to be a balance between reason and emotion.