Final answer:
Reliance on empathy as a moral guide may result in biased decision-making towards those we are more sympathetic towards, often influenced by similarity or social proximity. Ethical frameworks that incorporate empathy must also consider the wider context and universal principles to avoid partiality. Empathy has evolutionary advantages but needs to be balanced with other ethical considerations.
Step-by-step explanation:
One big problem with allowing empathy to be our moral guide is that we may have more empathy for those who are more similar to us or are within our own social circles, leading to a potential bias in moral decision-making. This issue is observed because empathy can sometimes be disproportionate and selective, not extending equally towards all individuals or groups. Other ethical frameworks like virtue ethics emphasize developing personal characteristics like compassion and a moral sense that enhance group survival, while also acknowledging that humans have resource limitations that necessitate trade-offs and moral choices.
The ancient Chinese philosopher Mencius proposed that compassion is essential for benevolent actions and ethical well-being. Moreover, anthropologist Pat Shipman's research suggests our evolutionary empathy with animals was crucial for human survival, demonstrating how empathy has biological roots and consequences. However, the selective nature of empathy can also mean overlooking broader moral principles that apply universally, hence the need to complement empathy with other ethical considerations.
In situations where resources are scarce, people might prioritize those they empathize with most, potentially leading to ethical dilemmas. Thus, it is clear that while empathy can inform our moral judgement, it should not be the sole determinant of our ethical actions, as such reliance could lead to partiality and moral shortcomings.