au contraire, religion teaches tolerance and to put the infidels to death is mercy because allowing them to continue living will ultimately subject them to an eternity of suffering in the afterlife
here, you are being taught to minimize harm. isn't that exactly what you want
why is it a good thing to do? don't religious zealots think that preaching the one true god and welcoming people into the gates of heaven think they're only doing what benefits you, and to stone the gays is to show them mercy in the eyes of allah?
i think you're forcing your morality onto others no different from those you would consider bad for doing the same with an opposing morality
I don't understand what you mean by binding them to faith tbh
And you aren't teaching empathy outright, you're teaching someone why it's important to consider how others are affected before acting. I guess you could call that indoctrination if you wanted but? It's still a good thing to do
Someone who is incapable of empathy can still be educated on what hurts others, even if it doesn't come naturally to them to understand others feelings. If they are educated and still hurt others, they are bad. If they are never educated in the first place, that's more of a failing on society's part. Whether outcome or intent matters more really depends on the circumstances.
if someone is incapable of empathy and don't think what they're doing is bad, how does that make them a bad person? or are you saying outcome is more important than intent, in which case you can "accidentally" be a bad person even if you're trying to do good?
Someone is only a bad person when they do things that harm others or put others in harms way. Whether someone has the capacity for empathy is irrelevant to their goodness levels I think
