Compassion is probably a combination of genetics and cultivated virtue. A problem in the medieval times is that they did not understand the cause of the plague, and it took time to identify effective means to contain and limit the disease. People may have used different strategies to cope with and overcome their fear. Today we know the cause of epidemics and know reasonably well how to protect ourselves against them. This helps overcoming the fear. In the medieval times, people may have had other reasons to believe that they would not be affected by the plague, or they may have have had religious reasons, and put their fate in the hands of God. Another example is the tuberculosis hospitals, where compassionate people were helping out despite having a great risk of becoming infected themselves. Some people survived the disease or were immune, and they could help those who got the disease.

An analogy from our times is how the recent Ebola outbreak in West Africa was handled. Many doctors have volunteered to help out, despite having a risk of being infected themselves.

Compassion is probably a combination of genetics and cultivated virtue. A problem in the medieval times is that they did not understand the cause of the plague, and it took time to identify effective means to contain and limit the disease. People may have used different strategies to cope with and overcome their fear. Today we know the cause of epidemics and know reasonably well how to protect ourselves against them. This helps overcoming the fear. In the medieval times, people may have had other reasons to believe that they would not be affected by the plague, or they may have have had religious reasons, and put their fate in the hands of God. Another example is the tuberculosis hospitals, where compassionate people were helping out despite having a great risk of becoming infected themselves. Some people survived the disease or were immune, and they could help those who got the disease.

An analogy from our times is how the recent Ebola outbreak in West Africa was handled. Many doctors have volunteered to help out, despite having a risk of being infected themselves.

Dear colleague,

It would be interesting to look at this issue from the perspective of Emmanuel Levinas. From a Levinasian perspective, the type of behaviour in extreme circumstances you describe is possible for him but cannot be found in a genetic trait nor in a learned virtue. From a Levinasian perspective, the suffering of another person itself calls for ethical behaviour beyond our own interests and fears.... Hope this helps

IMHO, Compassion is neither a cultivated virtue nor can be pinpointed to a genetic trait.

Compassion is a virtue of the evolved and aware Consciousness. Roughly there are three levels of the evolution of Consciousness.

1. The Beastly Man: The selfish individual has his roots in the previous animal kingdom and exhibits beastly,selfish traits. His consciousness is 'unaware'. He is ruled by instincts and tries to grab things for himself. By trial and error he is alternatively in happiness and grief according to his own choices and actions. After experiencing grief, he finally realizes that others too can be sad and have pain. He thus begins to share things with others for the first time . With this, his Consciousness passes on to the next stage.

2. The Human: The human is half way on the ladder of evolution of Consciousness. He has begun to learn to share and care for others. But he is only good to those who are good to him, i.e, his virtues operate selectively. He still retains some selfish characteristics of the earlier stage. Majority of humanity exists in this stage.

3. The Saintly Man: After experiencing the Human stage, a rare few evolve to the Saintly stage where they view all of humanity as One family. They render help to all irrespective of all outward denominations due to their overflowing compassion for all of existence as an extension of themselves. This is also a rare category and is a minority.

This is just a rough outline of the three stages for purposes of making a distinction. In reality, the three forces which characterize the three stages exist in infinite combinations, making each individual unique with his/her own combination of the three forces. The percentage of the three forces in existence in a person can be used to discern an individual as belonging to any of the three stages. IMHO, this is not observable in genes but only in behavior. Nor is it a learned virtue but rather an attribute of the 'inner nature' of a man which expresses itself in behavior. Consciousness develops compassion as it evolves over time. any amount of learning cannot be attributed to developing compassion. Over time, the 'inner nature' or Consciousness develops virtues as an outcome of interaction with others such as family, friends, neighbors, colleagues and strangers. This is only possible through time and cannot be cultivated.

The concept of Consciousness is still vague in modern science, and has not yet been properly defined.

Regards

Dear Ross, 

I think for compassion there is some genetic trait. However it is still possible to be taught, learned and cultivated with role models.  We have to remember that those who are compassionate pass themselves through moments of stress, fear and anxiety, but the worst thing is when such people find no compassion at all because other people pretend too much from them as to their perceptions they are heroes or super, when after all the compassionate person is a human being who has got feelings as well.

Regards

Carmen Camilleri

Thank you Raveendra Nath Yasarapu:, Your typology of the evolution of consciousness is interesting. I think I understand that these stages occur in combination in the consciousness, and that the “mix” can only be observed by behavior. That is why I would call your approach one of “subjectivity.” The question of the relationship of consciousness to behavior remains. Is it true that this approach really categories behavior and projects the categories of consciousness on behavior. Thus, what one is doing is categorizing action “A” as “Beastly” and action “B” as “Human,” etc. I would like to know more about the origin of this analysis of consciousness.

Thank you Nils: your answer points to two different categories of an answer. The first is the rational-scientific as a way of overcoming fear. We might project compassion on the brave medical professionals who take this way. But their motivation might also be a sense of duty—the duty to treat. Presumably, these professions cultivated this sense of compassion/duty in their medical training. Whatever the behavior of risking oneself for the good of others is the same. Is this evidence that compassion is a learned virtue? I think your answer leans this way.

Thank you Vincent: I appreciate your reference to Levinas. Your answer prompted me to look for some resources. Here are two articles if anyone else is interested.

-White, Richard. "Levinas, the Philosophy of Suffering, and the Ethics of Compassion." Heythrop Journal 53, no. 1: 111-23.

-Smith, Nick. "Adorno Vs. Levinas: Evaluating Points of Contention." Continental Philosophy Review (2006). .

I note that Levinas considers compassion, “the attention to the Other,” the “supreme ethical principle. Levinas, Emmanuel, and tr. Richard Cohen. "Useless Suffering.” ..

It seems to me that this approach to the question presumes (indeed demands individual human agency). I hope I am not jumping around too much but here is a quote of Dennis King Keenan on “Responsibility.” “Responsibly requires that I respond, that I answer for what I do, say, and give as irreplaceable singularity, and it requires that I am exposed to ex-propriation, to anonymity, that I forget or efface myself that I be (in Levinas’s words) nothing but ‘for the Other.’” Keenan. “Death and Responsibility: the “Work” of Levinas."

If I am correct, in Levinas’s view, this ethical singularity is a product of the individual’s encounter with the “Other.” Yet again, one must presume the potential of individual human agency.

Thank you Carmen: See above. Like the answer of Raveendra Nath Yasarapu, your response highlights human subjectivity that you refer to as feelings. It seems to me that in your view, the obstacles to compassion are not found in external circumstances but the conscience (consciousness) of the subject.

If one distinguishes the feeling of compassion from the act of altruism, then there are scientific evidence that simple forms of compassion, in the form of being in emotional synchrony, or emotional contagion with other individuals of the same species, exist for many mammals, for example for rats:

http://news.sciencemag.org/biology/2015/03/rats-see-pain-other-rats-faces

or dogs:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168159114002354

This indicates that many higher mammals to some extent are "hardwired" via genetics for simple forms of compassion.

http://greatergood.berkeley.edu/images/uploads/valdesano_and_destafano_Synchrony_and_the_Social_Tuning_of_Compassion_Emotion_2011.pdf

Thank you Nils. I am glad to know about this kind of research. For those interested, here are the points of the "Emotional Contagion" article on dogs: "1)  Stress has an improving effect on the humans’ and dogs’ memory performance. 2) •Dogs’ memory performance can be affected by their owners’ stress level. 3) •Our results support for the emotional contagion between dogs and their owners."  The other article "Rats see the pain in other rats’ faces," another interesting study.

Thank you Filippo: I appreciate your succinct answer. It leads to my interest in how compassion is cultivated (as part of brain-consciousness development).

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Aden, 

I think that no one doubts an in-born facility for compassion; but on the other hand, it is clearly something that can be learned and practiced and cultivated but also something that can be unlearned. "Compassion" is something like "feeling with," with "com-" a version of the Latin "con-" meaning with, or together with. But the occurrence of "-passion" here also tends to evoke the ancient contrast between "action" or doing, and "passion" or being the object of action --which sometimes also resulting in suffering. So, we typically think of "compassion" as a matter of feeling the suffering of others. A mother, as we tend to suppose has a strong inclination to close attention to her infant, its needs, wants and distress, and this would seem to be something with considerable survival value.  But it would seem doubtful that mothers are alone in this facility and inclination.

The situations in which compassion is unlearned are typically those involving intensive competitions and related stress. We are sometimes told that success requires of people that they have a "killer instinct" --plausibly understood to mean a habit or inclination to "go for the juggler," or finish off the opposition. This lore seems to consistently belong to the ethos of various warrior groups. One must do in the enemy without remorse and without regret, and that is effectively a prohibition of compassion regarding those in conflict with the warrior's objectives. The cult of the warrior is typically reinforced socially by allies and associates.  So that we have to do with a social process of throwing off any sympathy with declared opponents. That is one way in which compassion is unlearned or purposefully channelized in favor of one's own in-group and against the declared opponent.

Since we can in principle adopt or avoid similar roles and positions, it seems clear that compassion can be learned and cultivated or unlearned and effectively prohibited. Knowingly or not, people adopt the one attitude or the other as part of related social practices. Similarly, we know in some sense that it is within human powers to avoid war, though few believe that it is about to be abolished any time soon. That seems to be because human beings are unwilling to give up on the extremes and excesses of competition--as a means to their personal and social goals. The "golden mean" and "the golden rule" have too little appeal to date.

H.G. Callaway

Interesting, Callaway. This is the discussion of nature vs. nurture. There is typically a natural variation in the amount of "hardwired" compassion a person has. Neuroscientist James Fallon has done research on this based on investigating the MRI patterns of young criminal psycopaths:

http://www.antoniocasella.eu/dnlaw/Fallon2006.pdf

Interestingly, James found a person in the control group with a response matching a psycopath, and discovered that this indeed was himself. This is described in the book:

Fallon, James "A Neuroscientist's Personal Journey into the Dark Side of the Brain" ISBN 978-1-59184-600-0.

Fallon distinguishes between what he calls emotional and cognitive empathy. A psycopath typically lacks the emotional empathy, but can still developed cognitive empathy, given the right environment. If you look at harsh environments, such as criminal organisations, war or the plague, then people with tendencies towards psycopathy may have a survival advantage by being able to disconnect from their feeling of compassion.

People with a large amount of emotional empathy or compassion will have a better built-in "moral compass". This virtue is useful for keeping the society together, help people during hard times as well as for maintaining and developing a culture of compassion. Fallon uses Ghandi as an example of a person with well developed emotional empathy.

http://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/can_a_psychopath_learn_feel_pain

To conclude - both nature (genes) and nurture influences compassion, but nurturing compassion is the only way we can influence it. This is why learning good examples such as the "golden mean" and "the golden rule" is so important.

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Ulltveit-Moe,

you wrote:

To conclude - both nature (genes) and nurture influences compassion, but nurturing compassion is the only way we can influence it. This is why learning good examples such as the "golden mean" and "the golden rule" is so important.

---end quotation

Very well said!

H.G. Callaway

It is a genetic trait. Darwin wrote in The Descent of Man:

 When two tribes of primeval man, living in the same country, came into competition, if (other circumstances being equal) the one tribe included a great number of courageous, sympathetic and faithful members, who were always ready to warn each other of danger, to aid and defend each other, this tribe would succeed better and conquer the other (Darwin 1874, Chapter V),

DARWIN  ALSO TELLS US WHY WE WAR WITH EACH OTHER .It is a competition for resources - to control territory , to gain power 

Both. Natural selection favours genetic codes that promote compassion towards others with similar genetics - i.e. even if you die in the act, others with the same genetic predisposition will survive and be more likely to spread that genetic pattern in their offspring. Compassion shown towards those with differing genetics, even other species, goes beyond the immediate genetic prerogative. This can theoretically be a result of a genetic predisposition to reciprocity - i.e. I help you, even though you are not my kin, because you help me. However, compassion is normally taken far beyond both the direct kin-based expression and the indirect reciprocity-based expression, such that it could be argued, from a purely genetic perspective, to be detrimental. This extension beyond genetic logic is necessarily promulgated by social learning and ethical thinking, and is what is generally called 'humanity', although I would question its exclusivity to our species. The field is of course complicated by the fact that social learning is also a means by which the genetically based responses are encouraged. In your example, fear (a genetically based mechanism) plays a major role in people's behaviour and may well be a stronger factor than compassion, unless the latter is backed up by strong social learning. Or indeed courage - which is a whole different nature-versus-nurture minefield!

Genetic selection that promotes compassion and reciprocity may happen across species as well. Domesticated animals (e.g. dogs) is a prime example of that. Such selection did probably not happen naturally before humans entered the arena and started domestication, however.

Reverting to the original context of your question -- I wonder whether you have come across Martin Luther's practical experience and recorded thoughts on 'the plague' and how one should respond to neighbours suffering from it.  (I have set this in its wider context in a full text open online article, from which these two paragraphs are excerpted).

 The Plague

Rapid death from the bubonic plague (later called the Black Death) had been a recurrent threat since it first scythed through the European population in 1347, with subsequent widespread socio-economic disruption. The Roman Church was also shaken and weakened during the 14th & 15th centuries by manifest corruption among senior clergy, and by many external factors such as the work of Reformation forerunners John Wycliffe (c. 1329-1384) and John Hus (c. 1369-1415). In Germany people noticed the clergy becoming bubonic no less than the ordinary 'sinful masses', a fact contributing to some further slackening of the Church's grip (Ziegler, 1982, pp. 85-87). The plague returned periodically into the 16th century, hitting Germany in 1527, 1535 and 1539 during Luther's ministry. When it arrived in 1527, Luther composed an open letter encouraging fellow-believers to stand fast and tend the sick as he himself did in Wittenberg city and in his own extended household, rather than heading for the hills (LW 43: 113-138). Luther gave his opinion that all such epidemics were "spread among the people by evil spirits who poison the air or exhale a pestilential breath". Yet this was also "God's decree and punishment to which we must patiently submit and serve our neighbor, risking our lives" as Christ had done (LW 43: 127).

       Luther as an earnest young cleric has been characterised piquantly as "humble but forthright, always willing to give annoying advice" (Marius, 1999, p. 148).  He also had plenty of counsel to offer to city officers or individuals on public and private measures for reducing plague dangers.  His proposals followed shortly after De Subventione Pauperum, the detailed recommendations of 1526 to the city officers of Bruges by Juan Luis Vivés, for relief of poor and infirm people (in: Salter, transl. 1926, pp. 4-31), a landmark in the embryonic movement for civic responsibility to which Luther made energetic contributions (Geremek, 1994, pp. 180-191).  Luther considered that a failure to take sensible health precautions would also be a dereliction of religious duty (LW 43: 131-133). The precise roles and responsibilities of God, angels and devils, and the recommended state of mind of the believer in standing fast and submitting to punishment while taking steps to mitigate its effects, were not entirely coherent or logical (cf. LW 54: 157 & 172; No.s 1559 & 2829), but displayed some of Luther's pragmatism. He was less concerned to work out a systematic universal theology than to offer practical advice on Christian conduct in society and in private. Luther was also realistic in recognising that one might easily be "overcome by horror and repugnance" when confronted by a person dying of the plague. He assured his readers that it was the devil "who stirs up such abhorrence, fear, and loathing"; thus they should care for their sick neighbour not only to please God, but also for the pleasure of spitting in the devil's eye! (LW 43: 127-128).

 Full article, on Luther’s responses to disability, with all references etc at, open online:      www.independentliving.org/docs7/miles2005b.html

regards, miles

I myself share Adam Smith's views (TMS) where it seems to be a natural propensity, which however, might be cultivated to perform much better. However, I still leave open the qwuestion hether compassion is a stronger form of sympathy or whether is is another category.

I tend to believe that compassion - as many other virtues - is a combination of a genetic propensity and cultural enviorment.

Good day to all, this question is really intresting and omplex; by my side, thinking at my studies about evolutionism and the various theories, I can remember my professor words “I have never see the genes of goodness or evilness, nor genes of any other feelings or virtues or sin”. Compassion is not genetically transmitted and to sustain it I want to propose the following reasons:

1)      William David Ross and his studies about the relationship between situation and personal and group behaviour,

2)      Studies of neuroscience about aspergers, autism and similar children development disturbs and neuro-psychiatric problems; people affected by those prolems can not understand others and, as a consequence, feel compassion (and a lot of other state of feelings related to the interaction with others). Their genes are not different in a significant way, their brain shape yes.

3)      Compassion is the consequence of a victorious behaviour that we can call cooperation, compassionate people are more used and ready to cooperate. But is a consequence, a lot of non-human animals are ready to cooperate behaving in a compassionate way but are not able to feel or develop the emotion we are enquiring (for example bees, ants, etcetera).

To me seems more appropriate to talk aout compassion as as a feeling associate to a way to behave and not as a behaiour.

 Compassion is primarily genetic, I cannot prove it however, but rely on one of Charles Darwin's statements:

When two tribes of primeval man, living in the same country, came into competition, if (other circumstances being equal) the one tribe included a great number of courageous, sympathetic and faithful members, who were always ready to warn each other of danger, to aid and defend each other, this tribe would succeed better and conquer the other.

p.130. The Descent of Man, Gibson Square Books,  London.1871 

This statement seems almost indisputable . Compassion is incorporated in the words 'sympathetic', and 'aid... each other'.

This passage also tells us why war is an endemic feature of the human race.. Competition ,,For resources, power, territory  

I tend to take the middle stance. We are partly hardwired for compassion via genetics. One example of a genetic component, is the "love" hormone oxytocin, which enables pup retrieval behaviour in many mammals:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature14402.html

Oxytocin also induces trust in humans:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v435/n7042/abs/nature03701.html

and it is the reason behind the mutual, positive bonding/compassion loop, which has driven domestication of dogs:

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/348/6232/333.full

However, there is also a significant nongenetic component of compassion, especially in humans with our great cognitive capabilities. We are able to compensate for lack of the genetic component by learnt compassion.