Toehead2000 stated your theory more succinctly: "Poor people have no agency." Suffice it to say that I don't agree - I believe poor people are just as human as I am.
Scroll up for a simple way to test whether lack of education is a correct theory. What's the result?
As for empathy, I believe it's nothing but a feel-good substitute for moral reasoning. I've discussed that in more depth in the past: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8507328
And the way you are attempting to use it, as a substitute for actual facts, is simply anti-intellectualism. So are the ad-hominem fallacies, which have sadly become commonplace here and in modern culture.
"Poor people have no agency." Suffice it to say that I don't agree - I believe poor people are just as human as I am.
Suffice it to say, I think you are radically overestimating how much agency even you have.
As for empathy, I believe it's nothing but a feel-good substitute for moral reasoning.
Empathy is necessary for human communication. Without it, you will forever be grinding your own axe and never change anyone's mind. You need to be able to get inside other people's heads, and see things from their perspective, in order to change their minds and behaviours. And in doing this, you see that most people are not that different to you. Usually, they just have different information.
Principles - and I prefer ethical principles to a system of morality with its baggage-laden language of judgement - are useful tools for judging things. But if you want to actually change the world, and improve things, you need more than that. You need to be able to take action, and predict the results of your action. And here's the paradox: the action that is most principled may not lead to the result that is most good. It may even be harmful to the greater good.
Now, I'm not saying that ends justify means, either, but rather: viewing actions through a simplistic principle-based lens is ultimately not productive.
I don't think there's any god. I don't think anyone is going to pat you on the head for doing the right thing even if it results in despair. All we can do is try and improve the human condition for all of us, collectively, into the future. And in this, ends do matter. Simplistic principles are not enough.
Scroll up for a simple way to test whether lack of education is a correct theory. What's the result?
As for empathy, I believe it's nothing but a feel-good substitute for moral reasoning. I've discussed that in more depth in the past: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8507328
And the way you are attempting to use it, as a substitute for actual facts, is simply anti-intellectualism. So are the ad-hominem fallacies, which have sadly become commonplace here and in modern culture.