Mind

People who commit a sadistic crime are often said to lack empathy. But don't they have to be able to understand the pain that they are inflicting in order to derive pleasure from that pain and isn't that ability empathy?

Comments

Perhaps the problem lies in our current use of the term 'empathy' --which suggests not just understanding for caring. On that definition, I am not empathetic with you if I understand your suffering but I care nothing for your recovery or health. But if by 'empathy' and 'sympathy' too we just mean 'feeling with' then a sado-masochist might be said to be very empathetic and sympathetic over his victims.

On a related matter, there is some current debate over the ethical status of understanding. If we say we understand why a sadistic crime was committed, have we in some way granted that the crime "made sense" or was in some way excusable under the circumstances? I believe Martha Nuusbaum has addressed this concern recently. One way this might connect with your original question is that we might ask ourselves whether the sadistic criminal really understands (understands fully) what he is doing? Yes, he (or she) must understand that pain is being inflicted, but can the criminal still do the act if he or she fully understood all the implications of the action, how everyone is affected, and so on? This is a question that exercised Plato and Aristotle who, for slightly different reasons, thought that doing evil (or wrong-doing) involved some kind of ignorance or failure to fully understand the nature of one's action. I leave you with that proposal which is still debated today! I am inclined to go with Plato on this one, but the issue remains a live one for me and for many others. Good wishes! CT

Read another response by Charles Taliaferro

Read another response about Mind