Position: Empathy in itself is not something that creates "Good" or "Righteous" acts.


#1

This will be a full philosophical, scientific and religious debate.

My position is that Empathy is a function of emotional sympathy. Things that “pull at someone’s emotional heart strings” can cause them to also commit grave atrocities. Like someone wanting slaves to work for them to fulfil a desired wish. In this case we can break it down further to desires of the emotions. The opening supporting fact being that emotions and desires sway decisions of the individual. This can also lead to a person doing the wrong thing.

Righteous actions or good deeds are often learned from the environment or study of these actions. Naturally, there will be some cases where people naturally do the right thing. My second position is that Empathy or Emotional decisions are not a moral compass. The fact supporting this is that some amount of education is involved in preventing crime or wrongdoing.

If you side for or against, remember to provide “burden of proof” i.e. facts to support your position. Otherwise it will be deemed a genetic fallacy, though unspoken. Genetic fallacy, often botched in explanation is when a position or argument is assumed from the position itself. This is opposite of using supporting facts.
Other common fallacies:
o Ad Hominem - Attacking a person or character assassination in attempt to destroy the opponent’s argument. (Often used, frequently reprehensible.)
o Ad Hoc - e.g. “You just do not believe! That is why my argument does not work!” It is a weak argument that something requires belief to function. It also has a reverse use that I encountered with atheists. Belief is irrelevant to fact when debating. Please remember this.
o Red Herring Fallacy - Changing the subject or adding material that is not very clearly connected to the argument to derail or win the argument.
o Argument from Simplicity - Over simplifying an argument to an unrelated analogy or metaphor that cannot encompass the complex scope of the topic.
o No True Scotsman - No True Scotsman e.g. “would buy a Farrari…”. e.g. “All people are not like that”. It is an argument from an aspect of purity.
One can also research Logical Fallacies online. I merely state these as they are very common fallacies. Everyone can benefit from realizing erroneous thinking.


#2

This is a bit different than originally intended, but since the forum has had no use in its originally intended format, let’s see where this goes.