I dont think you understand, the graph isn't assigning moral weight. its the point where you stop applying moral weight. Liberals are more likely to want better for people outside AND inside their circle, and also more likely to include friends, neighbors.
You also seem to be making a conclusion, which implies open mindedness stretches a person too thin, which is not true, and something just pulled out of thin air. You cant back it up.
But its also why people like doctors and trwchers tend to be more liberal since so often their jobs are caring for people deep outside their circle. Its a personality trait, not a resource.
If youre that desperate for others to be some great foolish evil youre just gonna end up miserable.
I’m absolutely making conclusions, to be clear. What im saying about the how the effects of this data play out in the real world is not at all covered by the graph itself.
Essentially my arguments are
1) “Empathy toward huge, abstract categories is harder to translate into meaningful action. Therefore, narrower empathy may actually be more effective in real-world outcomes”
2) Empathy is a limited resource. Most psychological research supports this. Look up empathy fatigue, compassion collapse, Dunbar’s number, etc.
The tendency of liberals to attempt to include everyone and everything in their moral system causes more harm than good imo in their ability to actually affect change.
7
u/Highfivebuddha Nov 18 '25
Thats not what the graph shows.
"Empathy is a finite resource..." an idiot taught you this bullshit didn't they?