- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
"Most miss the clear motive because for most murder, especially of a family member, and especially for someone they don't even know, is not sensible." Exactly, but this is a thought process that comes not out of purely empathy, but simple reasoning and considerable societal influence.
I just had a thought though; sociopaths, you would say, have an easier time figuring the story out. Is this not an altered case of empathy? Doesn't the sociopath recognize the (murderous, plotting) thoughts and feelings and motives of the sister to work it out?
I have a feeling that this may not be the best example. What prevents many people from guessing the intended, inferred killer isn't empathy for the family, it just never occurs to them that (SPOILER!) 'love' for a stranger is enough to bring about murder. You can try to guess the motive all you want, but if the above thought isn't there, you're never going to get it. But, watch a few investigation shows and suddenly you're the best detective in town, sociopath or not.
Other than that, it's a good explanation.
"Any harmful condition, as of the mind or of society." -one of the definitions of disease, so in that regard, you could probably argue for. Do the negatives outweigh the benefits of love though? From an evolutionary standpoint, I wouldn't think so. Love in all its forms helps parents, families, communities stick together which was vital to learn human emotions like empathy, and to provide the support needed to raise babies that required extended nurture. In individual cases however, where love causes severe emotional distress and physical ailment, I can see how you could call it a disease.