and how would people avoid suffering with perfect empathy?A world with perfect empathy, or a world with perfect justice? Obviously, I'd take a world with perfect empathy, because nobody would avoid suffering in a world that was completely just.
Yes, but the likelihood of being the cause of someone else's suffering will be much, much less if you're already empathizing with them to a point where you can understand and feel their emotions almost automatically. The drive there will be to better each other's experience, and with time, things would even out at the greatest possible level of happiness.and how would people avoid suffering with perfect empathy?
Empathy- the ability to understand and share the feelings of another.
Understanding and sharing feelings doesnt mean suffering would end, in fact, it could mean that suffering could spread like a wildfire, if everyone is perfectly sharing the same feelings.
I do not like your avatar.If you could only have one, would you prefer perfect Empathy or perfect Justice in the world?
By the word 'perfect', I mean people's skill of that trait in general. ie. a person who is perfectly skilled in Empathy/Justice
Justice in this sense is not a court action but rather what every individual practices. So your conclusions wouldn't be correct because we're not talking about a reactive force like a court.I do not like your avatar.
In your scenario every person has the maximum "ability" with justice/empathy.
Both justice and empathy can be ignored but you "feel bad" if you ignore empathy. This moral sanction would prevent lots of "evil".
Maximum justice hability for everyone would make courts of law also perfect. Making "evil" always punished "correctly" when it is "caught".
Your question comes down to:
Prevent most crimes or 100% correct punishment for the crimes that are known.
The logical answer is "empathy".
If we can prevent crimes we do not need perfect justice.
Am I making any sense?
Your thought experiment is now fundamentally flawed with the conditions you've stipulated, but ignoring that, neither: The imperfect world is what makes it so perfect. /pseudo-philosophical-statement.Justice in this sense is not a court action but rather what every individual practices. So your conclusions wouldn't be correct because we're not talking about a reactive force like a court.
We would become a hive mind? Might not be as bad as it sounds.sense is being made, but empathy entails much more than just preventing crime, it would turn emotions into a rampant disease, every emotion spreading like wildfire, stub your toe? Everyone around you feels it, fail a test? Everyone is disappointed. Watch a horror movie? Everyone is scared.
And we haven't even gotten started on the rampant drug use perfect empathy would encourage.
I don't understand.Justice in this sense is not a court action but rather what every individual practices. So your conclusions wouldn't be correct because we're not talking about a reactive force like a court.
I agree with you.This subject is flawed because you are leaving it to human minds to define and accept it.
What ever the definitions are, they do not consider cultural minds and views.
Lets not forget those stupid books that so many people follow.
Either way, no matter what you come up with some one will disagree and then will get followers.
Bringing us back to where we are now.