Rules, Incentives, and Group Think
Much of our lives revolve around trying to get things we want. We even talk about setting goals, which is just a methodical plan to get something we desire. And, as I've pointed out before, we must rely on other to attain our desires. What happens when things don't go as planned though?
When we talk about things getting off track, we assume that the issue can be resolved two ways: better rules or better incentives. Do we dig our spurs into people harder, or dangle a tastier carrot in front of them? Harsher punishments, or grander prizes? Heaven or hell? Shame or praise? Maybe a healthier dose of both?
If this sounds manipulative, it's because it is to some degree. Imposing a straight and narrow is something societies do to maintain themselves. Hegemony of thought and action are the prescription. There's no I in TEAM. Don't rock the boat. Inherently, there's little room for the individual in society with this way of thinking. If you want proof, tell your friends you voted for the candidate they hate, that you are on the other side of the pro-life/pro-choice debate, that you have a different stance on climate change, or maybe believe/don't believe in aliens. Then, feel the squeeze this generates.
Whether or not these are the literal points of differentiation one has with their group is irrelevant, because there is inevitably a part of us that will contradict the ideals of our tribe. Something that would only cause us to become an outsider, or an other, ultimately destroying the chance at being part of the inner circle, which is the nexus of power. The place that can grant us the ability to have our wishes. As a result, conformity is a necessity.
It seems, if we want to avoid this manipulation of society though, we must, as individuals, be able to give space to each person we encounter; even if they are detestable. To have the empathy to stand in each person's shoes. To see their world, not as our ourselves looking through their eyes, but as them. There are a couple obvious issues in doing this though. If the person is amoral, it can look as though we are validating reprehensible behavior, because we ask ourselves on what grounds we have a right to judge. Then, if we take a stance of moral relativism, it traps us into seeing that, either no action is wrong, or that there is an inherent fault of the individual’s essence. They can't behave otherwise and are therefore not culpable. This position only begins to undermine even more of our outlook towards life. E.g. the lack of responsibility means that we cannot be free and, without freedom, things like democracy are impossible.
Having empathy then is not simply about having a kumbaya attitude. It's a way to subvert the always encroaching group think. Something that is in all of our best interest to do. A way to avoid simply being herded by the rules and incentives dilemma.