Mirror neurons and Warm Fuzzies

Actually I don't really know much about mirror neurons, but under my impression, they allow a person to feel a bit of what another person is feeling by watching him do something.

So perhaps, when people help others, while they are feeling what they themselves are feeling, they also "feel for" the person who gets helped. The response of the person who has been helped would affect what the helper would "feel for" the helped. For example, when a person who has been helped scowls at the helper, the helper would "empathise" for his frustration and thus wouldn't feel good about it. Whereas, when a person who has been helped smiles at the helper, the helper feels good too because he feels as though he has been helped.

Sometimes when you see someone smile, you feel good too, perhaps because you empathise when the people who appear to be in a good mood.

My sister once asked me this question: There are 2 rich people. One of them donates large sums to charities, but it's for reputation and networking, and he never visits them. The other does not donate, but he goes to a charity organisation to do voluntary work regularly out of compassion. Who do you think is a better person?

Now of course if you ask me I can't give an answer because good and bad, right and wrong make no sense to me anymore. However, we might want to take note that it is highly likely that the guy who donated made a greater positive difference to the needy. In addition, the philantrophist would not get any happiness from empathy, because he don't see the people whom he have helped and thus cannot feel for them. The volunteer did not contribute as much as the philantrophist, but at the same time, he enjoyed the happiness from empathy.

It is also to be noted that the philantrophist gains from the prospect of gaining reputation and networking. However, do we not instinctively feel that the volunteer is a better person? It is not really beyond the means of the volunteer to donate. So now we care about intentions more than anything?

In my opinion, judging a person's actions inevitably involves empathy. One would try to put himself in the person's shoes and try to sense what his "conscience" tells him. For example, Heinz' dilemma is a dilemma because if we put ourselves into his shoes, we'll find ourselves in a dilemma too. We think that murder is wrong because if we put ourselves in the person's shoes, we wouldn't be able to bring ourselves to kill. Relativistic moral judgements thus arise, as we are unable to accurately put ourselves in the other person's shoes.

The above are merely speculations.