Quiet corner about empathy

Post Reply New Topic

This is a problem I have had in my mind for some time: empathy among different species.

There certainly is a great difference of sensibilities here, there are sadists with animals and men (particularly in male children). The amount of empathy for animals (and again for humans) may vary greatly among individuals. Moreover there are people who may feel much empathy for animals and little or none for humans (I have known some of them). Finally we should probably distinguish between an instinctive inhibition to harm and positive empathy, both concerning animals and humans.

These feelings and inhibitions are instinctive. They are genetically wired in our mind, and must have for this reason some survival value. It is easy to understand this survival value existing for empathy and inhibition of cruelty within a species. But why among different species?

One guess might be that empathy and inhibition to harming others are one or nothing (or "on and off") mechanisms, like revulsion to seeing blood spilled. This is a more difficult explanation for empathy. Empathy implies doing things for the other living being, like giving food or protection or care for the wounded animal. Here one might think that empathy and identification are pieces of a common genetic inheritance, like some organs (liver, eyes, ears) and some emotions like fear, lust, need for cleanliness.

Infants and cubs also often attract protection across species.
Moreover, children are generally very sympathetic for animals (especially little animals and cubs). Why?

I may be wrong, but I don't think across-species protection of others' young is common. In fact, I'd hazard a guess that it's extremely uncommon. As for the attraction of humans to animals, I wonder how much that has to do with the anthropomorphic environment in which we are raised in the western world, rather than any innate tendencies. As an example I can recall someone telling me of a vistor from outside Europe expressing utter disgust when she found animals being kept in the house as pets.

Yes, I agree that empathy across species is only one way, that is humans for animals, when it exists. But pets have always existed in all cultures and civilizations and what runs between humans and animals is an empathic feeling. The relationship between humans and animals is often something ambiguous as that of farmers who breed animals to eat them. But even among farmers (I lived for more than one year in a little farm), generally children and kids, who are often cruel towards animals, are also very affectionate to some animals. Affection and empathy are rooted in some natural predisposition and as such it is difficult to explain them. There is also the inclination of some animals to get attached to humans: certainly dogs and cats, but also horses and others who grew up with humans. In some cultures (Korean for example) dogs are bred to be eaten, but even there it’s not such a simple matter. Even in Korean society dogs butchery is considered an abominable profession. The fact is that when the society with animals is instituted, it triggers a two ways communication that may stir very deep feelings. This is what I would like to understand better.

Lisa Belkin on the NYT. 3.13
“In some workplaces, the presence of a dog makes some direct work sense. Dogs rove around and give people needed breaks and otherwise play or sleep in the background,” “They lighten the mood and offer themselves to stressed clients for caressing.” Said the president of a company.

The writer of a column on the NYT says: “ I have to face the fact that I, too, have rearranged my work around my dog being near me at work “I have become quite adept, for instance, at typing with one hand, because the pampered pup whimpers should I stop petting him with the other.”

Call it pet therapy or in other ways, animals living with humans give certainly a huge contribution to humans’ sanity in everyday life. Why?