Besides Ed Feser Catholic and non-Catholic Christian theology-philosophy nerds, I don’t think anyone here knows much of anything in which you’re referring to.

For those that aren’t aware, “A-T” stands for Aristotelian-Thomistic.

Brevity and clarity are hard
in writing, even more so for a philosopher.

Are you the hallway monitor now?

If empathy (or is it really sympathy?) is an inherent (i.e., genetically determined) human psychological characteristic (or at least an inclination), it seems to have been an adaptation aiding humanoid survival for at least 50,000 to 800,000 years. I hope that counts for something. However, there may also be a Christendom related cultural overlay, as members of Western civilization, that may be difficult to sift out of our feelings.

read instead, “because we largely agree”

You don’t have to respond to this, om. I feel you deserve some time off from your work of unrelenting vigilance.

DNW:

You have no idea what the grandchildren of today’s liberals will believe, and obviously not all of them will agree on anything in particular. So I believe your callous shrug is quite misplaced.

No idea? I have some reasonable idea. And the grandchildren of today’s liberals would include the grandchildren of today’s liberal baby boomers.

And why shrug at anyone’s suffering? Why not pray for them (and their children and grandchildren) to see the light?

Now you have really stepped into it. You have brought up matters that are important but that cannot be properly discussed here.

The passing answer to the first question is potentially a purely secular one if we wish it to be. And the answer is “It depends.” And if you ask, “Upon what?” the answer to that is “It depends, too”.

As an example, the most comical answer put forth as a “reason” for caring by Atheist plus types, is “Empathy”, which reduces to, “Just because I happen to be ‘wired’ that way, and think that I would approve of the outcome”. The proper response to which is ” So effen what? ”

As for the second question, regarding praying for the good and the moral (and possibly spiritual) redemption of the damnable?

All I have to say at this moment [not asking “Pray to Whom?”, or “Exactly why?”] is : ‘Neo, I’m surprised at you.’ LOL

As an aside, this all reminds me somewhat – in a vague way – of the situation with that cloud of pious Christian fan-boys Ed Feser has attracted – as opposed to those of us who appreciate his work because we largely largely with the implications of his analyses regarding the redounding effects of scientistic reductions on the reducers themselves.

These others though, the sincere ones, who sometimes come off as junior Franciscans in-training or something, continually walk into the line of “his side’s” return fire – with stuff about how the Catholic A-T types and their intellectual allies should “be better than that” and hope for the conversion of the atheist dweeb types, rather than engage in throwing the moral acids of nominalism right back into their infantile androgynous faces in the spirit of joyous no-holds barred secular retaliation.

When I read your comment this line from the movie Overboard popped into my head.
“Edith Mintz: But darling, if you have a baby, you won’t be the baby anymore.”

You are right about the hate of children, I think it is, at least somewhat, based on massive jealousy when they think of no longer being the center of their own universe.

See Ammo Grrrll’s latest post on the same process in a different arena.
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2021/07/thoughts-from-the-ammo-line-384.php
“Ammo Grrrll poses the question WHAT ON EARTH HAPPENED AND HOW DID WE GET HERE?”

It’s all in the Book of Mormon, including the division into tribes.
That did not end well.

2 Nephi 28:21 And others will he pacify, and lull them away into carnal security, that they will say: All is well in Zion; yea, Zion prospereth, all is well—and thus the devil cheateth their souls, and leadeth them away carefully down to hell.