For those who like to party, here's a guest for your list...

[tazzieterror]

https://www.ebay.com.au/itm/283270458880

There's a good chance they'll bring you a gift wrapped in red-dotted wrapping paper!

[digital*ghost]

---

@countessalmirena wrote:

I am not willing to delve into the mindset of serial killers, or people who torture others for pleasure, no matter how admirable a quality empathy is. I suppose that's because empathy, like many a quality, doesn't stand in isolation, and isn't necessarily always an admirable quality. I'm thinking of the sort of person who would say something along the lines of "If a torturer gains pleasure from torturing, isn't that part of who he is? And shouldn't we recognise his right to satisfy that essential need? Isn't it judgemental and selfish to get all hoity-toity about that person's basic human need? Wouldn't that make us concruciophobic and self-righteous?" - yes, I've taken that to ridiculous lengths to illustrate what I mean!

---

Disclaimer, the following is personal opinion only, so apologies if it comes across as an authoritive lecture.  

I think we can isolate that in terms of "normal", relatable human behaviour, though (I was actually going to add in that the vast majority of human behaviour does not include such deviancies, but figured I was already straying well away from the original topic  ). 

I was once very keen on forensic psychology, and had it in mind as a career path for quite a few years, though I'm glad I didn't pursue it because I know I would have burnt out a long (long) time ago, but at the risk of being controversial considering the topic, it's possible to be empathetic without being supportive, and I think that it is probably necessary in order to work with those who have such tendencies. I also think we don't necessarily need to understand what is at the core, what is driving the urges, in order to have empathy for another human being, since it doesn't have to extend to every facet of them. (Without saying too much, because spoilers, Black Mirror - suggest White Bear, or Shut Up and Dance. Uncomfortable viewing, but brilliantly done; standalone stories so you don't need to know anything going in). 

It's probably best I don't walk through the degrees of that to illustrate what I mean with such an extreme example, but for something a little easier to digest, I could be very empathetic with someone who is married, but who is attracted to someone other than their partner, and is tempted to enter in a relationship with the other person, yet not actually support that behaviour in any way, shape or form. 

Good, and / or morality is something a bit different to empathy. They co-exist because morality and ethics tend to be derived from social good, and empathy helps us understand what helps and hurts each other (i.e. objectively, morality tends to be that which preserves and protects, while immorality tends to be that which harms). 

[countessalmirena]

That support, Davewil, undoubtedly came about with changes implemented one step at a time. I agree with you re societal norms and civilisations.

Spoiler

There were a lot of German people who honestly and sincerely did not know about the concentation camps, or did not know what was being done there. (This comes straight from several horses' mouths, from them to me. It's possible that they were fooling themselves; however, I am sure of the probity of at least three who said that the first they knew about the death camps was when they'd come to Australia.)

I also know of one example within a particular district/village in the borough of Marzahn-Hellersdorf (East Berlin), where the local person (a Nazi party member) appointed to report on any "infractions" simply made up the reports to avoid pointing the finger at anyone. Not only did this particular person not report a particular lady (known to be Jewish) in the village, but no one else in the entire village said anything about her, either. She survived, unscathed, at least up to the point where the Russians invaded Germany.

It can't be an isolated example.

The flip side of that is the fact that some people definitely did report Jews and "Roma" (gypsies). When I think of the mass shootings by the Einsatzgruppen, I don't know how to stop myself from feeling sickened to my soul.

My theory is that people who gained emotional satisfaction from despising others - specifically the Jews - were more likely to have picked up whispers about what should be done with them. The idealogical and historical whackjob theories of Rosenberg didn't convince the majority, but they certainly gave Hitler some fodder for his own plans. But how on earth to explain what went on in the minds of the thousands upon thousands upon thousands who were in the Einsatzgruppen and who actually did the shooting of men, women, children, babies?

Re the inbreeding - it does seem to be an issue with most ruling dynasties throughout history. Mind you, I'd not have expected the pharaohs of ancient Egypt to have foreseen the potential genetic problems arising from homozygosity, clever though the Egyptians of those times undoubtedly were.

If eBay's feedback system were in place, Tutankhamun might say:

I ended up with a disease of the feet-bone, cleft-palate,   Seller: Member id akhenaten+his_sister ()  More than 3,000 years ago  

      other serious diseases. Packaging awful - mummy

      wrappings failed to make me perfect. Disappointed.

                  Reply by akhenaten+his_sister  (Shomu Hnsw, roughly 1320 BC):

                       

[countessalmirena]

The core of what I wanted to express is that it's when empathy drives a moral standard (without reference to any other element) that an issue may arise. (I mean that in terms of empathy overruling any notion of a social good, when an argument is made in despite of the moral conviction one held before that conviction was affected by the understanding of the inside workings of someone's position in opposition to that moral conviction. But almost the same thing arises if a moral conviction is made without regard to empathy at all; that is surely as bad. Shades of Equilibium!) Agreed - empathy doesn't need to mean agreement with something, but even limiting it to understanding the worst of human darkness (in the sense of being being aware of the engine without necessarily being able to disassemble and reassemble it) is (I think) extremely stressful and draining.

When you talk about the burnout factor, that's definitely there to consider.

 I have enormous respect for and deep sympathy with anyone who goes further into matters darker than those with which I've had to deal. (My involvement is at least somewhat removed from the centre of human darkness.) The path you nearly took (forensic psychology) would have been incredibly testing.

I wanted to pop this quotation in, not only because it's relevant in a way (and scarily true), but also because Douglas Adams was extraordinarily clever in being able to say prescient things in such a humorous way:

Spoiler

❝'Well, Gordon's great insight was to design a program which allowed you to specify in advance what decision you wished it to reach, and only then to give it all the facts. The program's task, which it was able to accomplish with consummate ease, was simply to construct a plausible series of logical-sounding steps to connect the premises with the conclusion.

'And I have to say that it worked brilliantly. Gordon was able to buy himself a Porsche almost immediately despite being completely broke and a hopeless driver. Even his bank manager was unable to find fault with his reasoning. Even when Gordon wrote it off three weeks later.'

'Heavens. And did the program sell very well?'

'No. We never sold a single copy.'

'You astonish me. It sounds like a real winner to me.'

'It was,' said Richard hesitantly. 'The entire project was bought up, lock, stock and barrel, by the Pentagon. The deal put WayForward on a very sound financial foundation. Its moral foundation, on the other hand, is not something I would want to trust my weight to. I've recently been analysing a lot of the arguments put forward in favour of the Star Wars project, and if you know what you're looking for, the pattern of the algorithms is very clear.

'So much so, in fact, that looking at Pentagon policies over the last couple of years I think I can be fairly sure that the US Navy is using version 2.00 of the program, while the Air Force for some reason only has the beta-test version of 1.5. Odd, that.'❞

[digital*ghost]

---

@countessalmirena wrote:

The core of what I wanted to express is that it's when empathy drives a moral standard (without reference to any other element) that an issue may arise. (I mean that in terms of empathy overruling any notion of a social good, when an argument is made in despite of the moral conviction one held before that conviction was affected by the understanding of the inside workings of someone's position in opposition to that moral conviction. But almost the same thing arises if a moral conviction is made without regard to empathy at all; that is surely as bad. Shades of Equilibium!) Agreed - empathy doesn't need to mean agreement with something, but even limiting it to understanding the worst of human darkness (in the sense of being being aware of the engine without necessarily being able to disassemble and reassemble it) is (I think) extremely stressful and draining.

---

I understand what you're saying, and agree, but perhaps it was just the example, as I struggle to reconcile the premise (of someone suggesting deviant and harmful urges ought to be allowed or indulged) as coming from a place of genuine empathy, or at the very least it's certainly highly selective and not a rational form of empathy*, because there is overwhelming, undeniable evidence that harm is still being done, and I would include the perpetrator in that as well as the victims, in a lot of cases, though the harm done takes two very different forms. eg One would ask such a person who seemingly empathises with the perpetrator, why their empathy isn't extended toward the victims, their families and friends. 

*Though, granted that's pretty common anyway, as it is also an emotive response.