Problemas no uso de empatia em investigações sobre o comportamento moral

Matheus de Mesquita Silveira
{"title":"Problemas no uso de empatia em investigações sobre o comportamento moral","authors":"Matheus de Mesquita Silveira","doi":"10.5007/1677-2954.2021.E79970","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The past few years have seen a great deal of conceptual and empirical research on empathy, in addition to a growing public interest in the topic. In this context, the academic and public spheres often use empathy and morality interchangeably. In this article, it will be argued that there is a relationship between both, but with different levels of overlap. The problem lies in the contemporary breadth of the concept of empathy and its consequent polysemy. In the presented argument, it will be relevant to distinguish different characteristics of emotional attachment, especially, emotional resonance, empathic concern, and perspective-taking. The conceptual distinction will follow an empirical-materialist line: different embodied phenomena need specific conceptual definitions. After all, each of these psychobiological processes influences normative judgments in a particular way that incurs different forms of social behavior. The plurality of discoveries in cognitive sciences will illustrate the complex and ambiguous relationship regarding the definition of empathy. The central point to understand this relationship will be the defense of greater conceptual precision about the phenomena of emotional attachment associated with morality.","PeriodicalId":143268,"journal":{"name":"Ethic@: an International Journal for Moral Philosophy","volume":"71 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-04-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ethic@: an International Journal for Moral Philosophy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5007/1677-2954.2021.E79970","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The past few years have seen a great deal of conceptual and empirical research on empathy, in addition to a growing public interest in the topic. In this context, the academic and public spheres often use empathy and morality interchangeably. In this article, it will be argued that there is a relationship between both, but with different levels of overlap. The problem lies in the contemporary breadth of the concept of empathy and its consequent polysemy. In the presented argument, it will be relevant to distinguish different characteristics of emotional attachment, especially, emotional resonance, empathic concern, and perspective-taking. The conceptual distinction will follow an empirical-materialist line: different embodied phenomena need specific conceptual definitions. After all, each of these psychobiological processes influences normative judgments in a particular way that incurs different forms of social behavior. The plurality of discoveries in cognitive sciences will illustrate the complex and ambiguous relationship regarding the definition of empathy. The central point to understand this relationship will be the defense of greater conceptual precision about the phenomena of emotional attachment associated with morality.
在道德行为调查中使用共情的问题
在过去的几年里,除了公众对移情的兴趣越来越大之外,还出现了大量关于移情的概念和实证研究。在这种情况下,学术和公共领域经常交替使用同理心和道德。在本文中,将讨论两者之间存在关系,但具有不同程度的重叠。问题在于当代移情概念的广度及其由此产生的多义性。在提出的论点中,区分情感依恋的不同特征,特别是情感共鸣、共情关注和换位思考是相关的。概念上的区别将遵循经验唯物主义的路线:不同的具体化现象需要特定的概念定义。毕竟,这些心理生物学过程中的每一个都以一种特定的方式影响规范性判断,从而导致不同形式的社会行为。认知科学的众多发现将说明关于共情定义的复杂而模糊的关系。理解这种关系的中心点将是捍卫与道德相关的情感依恋现象的更大概念精确性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信