I guess I would have to read Bloom's book, in order to get to the rationale behind the title. My eleven-year-old grandson shows empathy for many sorts of living things, including some human beings who may (or may not) deserve it. I won't bore anyone with declarations about his level of maturity. Certainly, there are varying depths of cruelty and most anyone is capable of displaying that sort of attitude and behavior. Denying the humanity of someone or some group is, to emulate Dennett, 'a sky-hook' to oblivion. Recognition of another's humanity can lead to envy or jealousy: cruelty is only a short distance from those deadlys. We are fully able to discount those whose station surpasses our own (whether in reality or vain fantasy). Empathy is that human capacity, most related to love, generosity, magnanimity, and so on. In probability, those of us who lack one also lack the others, on any but the most superficial level. But, admittedly, Professor Bloom is the psychologist in the room. As such, he knows much of the intricacies of the human mind; the interconnections of human neurons and synapses; and roles neurotransmitters play in deciding how we think what we think. Wish I were in Gambier or Marietta or that other Ohio location where your show airs. I'll try to keep up with this subject, online with your blog. Warmest regards, HGN.

M wife is a fan of crime shows. Criminal Minds NCIS, etc. When much younger, she wanted a career in law enforcement. Being a female, small in stature, her opportunities were denied. Cruelty is a particular weakness of human beings. According to popular thinking (as far as I know) it is not manifested in other animal life. One might conclude, therefore, that it is a necessary evil of our species? A countermeasure or defense mechanism? A stretch, I suppose. But, many of us speculate on stretchy things. The psyche is vast and our behaviors varied. I think that although Pinker's notion about a declne in violence has some merit, our penchant for cruelty has increased. Why might that be so? Here, again, there is a totality of circumstances ( when I used that thought in a 2018 comment, it was mostly in fun). In short, though, there are more circumstances than there once were. People alter coping mechanisms, to adapt to changing contingencies: when the going gets tough, the adaptive turn MEAN. Is this psychology? Probably not. I think it is more of a practical matter...

What follows is no critique of Paul Bloom rather a restatement of his czar of compassion answer. He sees no hope. The same is true in his book, as far as I can tell as well. He justifies violence and cruelty as a deterrent and gives no path for a better nature and world.

Alison was a bit more thoughtful, and, in Bloom's defense, he did join in that social justice could bring a less cruel world. I'm not sure how many of these topics boil down to a call for social justice, but it seems most do. The income disparity is reaching a pitch that is unsustainable. It is "the" issue that is driving unrest and cruelty, in my opinion.

Bloom gives multiple other sources of cruelty. The general theme of the show and book was that cruelty happens because of empathy and not despite it. That causal learning is helpful and counter-intuitive. I will be careful talking down others to friends given all the filters Bloom lays down on how we think about cruelty.

I have been cruel to others in my life, and that haunts me still. I've made apologies to many but not enough. Time has left these for me to deal with alone for the most part. The victims have long since forgotten or perhaps never took notice. I noticed.

The sociopathic case is odd. I take heart in the lack of concern about psychopaths and sociopaths by Bloom and the hosts. They are all too often the scapegoat in these conversations, and they represent a small impact.

I learned something here, reading and listening. Always good to consider what is cruel/kind or the nature of empathy. The most significant change for me was to look to the road of compassion, questioning empathic choices, and always minimizing cruelty in my interactions and company.

Nice show.

Sometimes, we are bent toward cruelty when, in our view, people just don't act right. This is doubly painful when they are those for whom we profess love. Respect. Admiration. My brother, in his Mind Poem asked whether life and the Cosmos are adversaries. I don't know the right or wrong of that notion.. Moreover (perhaps), I don't even know if that question has crossed other minds.

If you don't know the right or wrong of an action or notion then we are back to " if I got a notion to jump into the ocean..."

An adversarial notion of life and the cosmos is probably best posted in the Nonduality thread/show next week. Biologists are hard-pressed to define life for their students. I'm not sure if I see enough identity in life to define it apart from its cosmological context. I've not heard this extreme notion expressed there (that life and all other non-life are adversaries.)

Twists on this are the simulation hypothesis and deep ecology. I can see similar ideas there as well as in mystic traditions.

In response to your post...I don't know either.

Cruelty is in both the observer and observed. I'm not sure setting up the cosmos vs. life paradigm helps here in the end.

As a skeptical pragmatist, I am much (not all) about usefulness. The idea floated by my brother is the work of an inquiring mind. A 'what if', if you would. His background is more deeply academic than mine. And, now his focus is on the poet he has become. I have not posted anything here...only commented, as allowed by PT. Acts of cruelty are distinctly human, seems to me. Which gets us back to current arguments about consciousness, dualism, materialism, panpsychism and the rest. Unless you (or anyone else) really wants to argue that cruelty is a feature of all living things, per se, ,I don't think there is an argument....but, then again, great minds can think alike, while fools seldom differ. Was intrigued and amused by your other exchange with the tartar. Saucy
Respects,
Neuman.

Working on a reply. Hope this much is listed, because my reply was in line with what you wrote. If, and only if, my previous response finally reaches this forum, you may understand. If not, I am sorry. I am not a robot. Too bad we are assaulted by them everyday.
Neuman.

I will abbreviate: 1. Cruelty is distinctly, human. 2. Apes are shrewd, because they can. Their capacity for what we call cruelty is questionable. They are about survival and procreation of their species. Just as much as are we, who are more conscious of that goal. 3. Lions and other carnivores make their living by hunting and devouring prey. 4. If, and only if, Lions were mostly vegetarian, as gorillas, we would not think much about their ' cruelty'. It would be 'off the table'. If this account is wrong, sobeit.
This was what I failed to frame before.

I agree as to the checker part. As to your other statements, they are yours alone, fact-checkers, notwithstanding. My thinking stands for me. We will always differ, I suspect. I may recall you under different blog handles. Your approach seems, uh, familiar. The letters evoke another person, who later was mollusc-like . A miracle guy? Ok, then, I'll clam up. I missed you, too.
HGN.

Well-stated. No harm intended from me, either. We may agree;we may disagree. That is always part of the human equation.
Respectfully,
HGN.