Trying to understand someone else's perspective isn't empathy. That may be where we are getting confused.
Empathy is more like someone's parents just died and you can relate to how awful that would feel and therefore you feel some hurt on behalf of that person which may will you to lend some support.
This is not empathy: my friend thinks its moral to hunt animals and I try to relate to that belief.
Empathy is not something you have to force. In fact, you can have empathy that leads to sadism rather than compassion.
I don't think any part of your topic actually involves empathy, especially since one does not 'empathise with a moral code'. You can empathise with the feelings a person has that leads to having that moral code but you can't empathise with the moral code itself, which is not an emotional thing.
I hope that makes sense.
People were calling it empathy, I just went with it.
That... it doesn't matter what you believe, it doesn't make a magical wall around you to protect you from the criminals.
Why is creation and destruction more meaningful than anything else? Maybe the existence of the universe is not at all meaningful. Or maybe every aspect of the universe, including this world, is meaningful. How do you make that judgement?
I can perceive it as not because killing a fly has never been an issue for me or the rest of the universe. The universe as a whole is separated, it's not like dominoes.
Why does an action have to be meaningful to all things in order to have meaning?
Because objective meaning is the only meaning. Relative meaning isn't meaning for all, it's worthless to the grand scheme of all things.
This is all so relative. Meaning is relative. Even in relation to the universe. My action is meaningful in relation to the things my action affects. Some actions actually do have effect on outer space and are meaningful in relation to the parts of outer space they effect. Some people's actions are more meaningful than others. It's all relative. My action doesn't have to impact on the creation or destruction of the universe in order to have some meaning in the world it actually pertains to.
You don't understand what 'meaning is relative' means, it is relative to the species that it has some sort of meaning to. In some things it doesn't have meaning at all. To have objective meaning it has to effect the whole universe. Objective meaning is the only meaning because a small tribe's opinion is no match for the entire world's opinion. Why 0.00000000000000001% of the universe have a meaningful opinion if the rest of the universe has no interest?
What isn't wrong? You don't think your actions could have negative consequences? You said your aim is to not get caught. But you did get caught, most people do. And there are inevitable consequences. So your actions are negatively impacting on your own life. That has meaning relative to you and your family. It doesn't matter if you are ethically correct about the physical harm something might do to you. The reality is that there are other factors. And now you've gone and made things very hard on your mother. That is on you. You did that.
But why does that matter? She didn't call the police or anything so it didn't really harm me, I didn't get caught in the way I didn't want to, in other words. A big speech doesn't hurt me, being in jail does.
Who says love is all the same? Surely you love multiple things and people in your life in different ways? Why would loving everyone equally then eliminate the complex social relations? It would just mean that your parents and your siblings and your partner and your children and your neighbours would all be very important to you. But they would be important in different ways. No reason why that would not be the case.
No, they wouldn't be important to me because not everyone can be important and still be important. The same way not everyone can be completely unique and still be unique.
