Why did Psammenitus not cry? And if we take crying to express one's pity, why did Psammenitus not pity his own son and daughter, but pity his friend? Aristotle suggests that the son was too close to him to be pitied. At first sight, it seems odd to say that a father would not pity his son, particularly when he is being led to his death. Why should a seemingly positive attitude, such as pity, not arise in such a relationship?

The attitude of most people toward beggars or the homeless is a typical example of pity. Typical attitudes of compassion address those near and dear who need constant help; for example, a family member who is seriously ill or physically disabled. One of the crucial differences here is that compassion involves far greater commitment to providing substantial help. Compassion involves a willingness to become personally involved, while pity usually does not. Pity is a more spectator emotion than compassion; we can pity people while maintaining a safe emotional distance from them. While pity involves a belief in the inferiority of the object, compassion assumes equality in common humanity.

Psammenitus believed that his son was to suffer from an undeserved misfortune, regarding which Psammenitus was powerless to intervene; presumably, Psammenitus felt sorrow for his son's suffering and desired his son's relief. But unlike typical cases of pity, Psammenitus's attitude did not involve an acceptance and justification of his son's situation. Psammenitus shared the same emotional attitude as his son did; namely, the anger and fear that is typically aroused in unjustified, frightening situations. Psammenitus's dominant attitude could not be typical of pity, which involves an awareness of the inferior position of another person, the desire not to share such a position, and a satisfaction with one's own superior position. Rather, his attitude involved the realization that a very important part of him was being destroyed. The son's inferior position would have been experienced as his own inferior position. Psammenitus's dominant wish must have been to change the current situation, rather than to avoid it in the future. Psammenitus's lack of pity for his son was not due to a lack of sorrow or compassion at seeing him led to his death.

Psammenitus explained his behavior by saying: "My own griefs were too great to cry out about, but the sorrow of this friend is worth tears; he had much, and much happiness, and has lost all and become a beggar when he is upon the threshold of old age." Psammenitus's explanation indicates that he regarded to his children's misfortunes as his own; such identification does not arouse pity, but rather sorrow and pain. In the case of his friend, the distance was sufficient for pity to be generated. Since Psammenitus was very close to his son, if he had cried while the boy was being led to his death his tears could have been interpreted as dishonorable behavior, as if he was begging for his own life. Such an interpretation would be unlikely in the friend's case because of the distance between them.

Psammenitus's behavior is exceptional. Most people would burst into tears in a similar situation. Nevertheless, their emotional attitude would not usually be pity. Their emotional attitude would be a complex of emotions, including sorrow and compassion, but seldom pity. Compassion is aroused in situations of far greater closeness than does pity. There may be other behavioral explanations for Psammenitus's tears in the one case and their absence in the other: thus, it may be argued that the friend's begging was less expected and more humiliating. Pity is more intense when the other's current misfortune follows former good fortune. The son's misfortune might have been more expected in light of the vulnerability of kings and their children during this period. There is a great deal of humiliation involved in the friend's fall from prosperity into destitution and this is generated the sense of the other's current inferiority, which is typical of pity.

In a similar manner, parents usually do not envy their children's success as they typically consider them as part of their own success and not as something separate that threatens their own self-image. When those close to us have succeeded in something that we regard as essential to our own self-image, however, or when our ties with these people are not close, envy may replace pride. Thus a father might wish to be his son's age or to have his son's sexual or economic opportunities, but the father's attitude rarely becomes that of intense or malicious envy. A father will usually not aspire to damage his son's position in order to reduce the inequality between them. If such intense envy does occur, we can assume that the father-son relationship is not very close (see here).

What about romantic relationships? Those are indeed very close relationship, but nevertheless attitudes of envy, and particularly of jealousy, are frequently aroused. Although romantic love involves disinterested care for the beloved, this care is often limited to something that the lover should be bestow-and letting the beloved be happy with other people is often unacceptable (particularly when the happiness is that of a sexual or romantic nature). In this case, the beloved's happiness cannot be regarded as a consequence of one's own proper loving; rather, it might imply that someone else can provide a better level of love, a fact that can be devastating to one's self-image. When the romantic relationship is not close, it is easier to bear the partner being happy with other people since this might justify why one is also seeking happiness elsewhere.

To sum up, the subject-object closeness is an important feature in determining the nature and intensity of emotional attitudes. Typically, close relationships tend not to involve envy and pity, but rather compassion, love, and jealousy. In a close relationship, one of the crucial aspects that determine which emotions are generated are not the moral nature of the situation, but its relevance to one's self-image.

The above considerations can be encapsulated in the following statement that a lover might express: "Darling, can we try not to be so close, as I have heard that in a close relationship, my happiness should be restricted to interaction with you."