Paul Bloom recently wrote a book called Against Empathy, and some of his friends say they are embarrassed to read it in public. Isn’t empathy something only a psychopath would object to? Isn’t empathy a force for good? Are not people are urged to express greater empathy in everyday life, and children are being taught to empathise more in school.
Empathy can be defined to be either synonymous with kindness and altruism, (and hard to object to), or a capacity to share others’ feelings. This latter definition, says the author, as a guide for moral and political decisions, is a train wreck. Empathy makes the world worse.
Firstly, it’s relatively easy to put yourself in the shoes of someone close, who is attractive and friendly, or who looks like you. But empathy for your enemies, for distant strangers is another matter. Secondly, empathy makes us focus on an individual. We can’t put ourselves in the shoes of a million people or even a dozen. And lastly, empathy is malleable, and can be abused to sway people into backing all sorts of positions, including cruel ones. Adam Smith noted that the more we empathise with someone who suffers, the more we wish to retaliate against those causing the suffering. Research finds that more empathic people are the most supportive of violent reprisals.
Some worry that if we don’t empathise with others, don’t feel their pain, we won’t care enough to help. But the drive to improve people’s lives doesn’t require putting ourselves in their shoes. Bloom says that we can and should transcend empathy and look at things rationally. So skin colour doesn’t determine the value of a life, one person is not worth more than a hundred, and important decisions should be based on cost-benefit analyses and appeal to moral principles. When study volunteers are taught to be compassionate without empathy, they become kinder and enjoy helping. In contrast, action motivated by the empathic urge is often exhausting – it’s unpleasant to experience others’ suffering.
Bloom says he wouldn’t want to live in a world without empathy. It’s a source of pleasure – enhancing the joy of literature, for instance – and central to close relationships. But for moral choices, there are better alternatives. (Paul Bloom is the Brooks and Suzanne Ragen Professor of Psychology at Yale University. His book Against Empathy is published by HarperCollins/Bodley Head, adapted from an article in New Scientist).
Personally, I am content with empathy being synonymous with kindness, thoughtfulness and altruism. I believe that we can sympathize with and support those in pain and not want to go to war, as it were, against their opponents. What is omitted in this scenario is imagination – the imaginative can see in their minds eye what it must be like to see a young, unarmed teenage shot in the street by a frightened police officer without wanting wanting to see that officer in the condemned cell. It would be good to know what drove Epicurus to welcome women and slaves to enjoy his Garden and take part in his philosophical discussions. Was it empathy or was it a rational decision that the world would be a better place if all were treated as equals and with respect according to their characters and abilities? Or may be it was a mixture of all of that?
I don’t think I entirely agree with Bloom. Empathy is a necessary way of overcoming rational yet selfish behaviour. For instance, it was perfectly rational for the banks to sell high-risk and unregulated derivatives to their unsuspecting customers, in the run up to the financial crisis. But were the bankers more empathetic with their customers, or with society as a whole, they may not have taken such large risks, despite personally benefiting from them. The banks always knew that if they crashed the economy, the government would bail them out to prevent the country from total ruin.
Empathy is also necessary for understanding how others think, even if we don’t agree with them. As Atticus Finch says in To Kill a Mockingbird, “You never really know a man until you stand in his shoes and walk around in them.” Even if we don’t agree with the actions of others, we are never going to create a more peaceful world unless we understand why people commit actions we find reprehensible.
Where I do agree with Bloom is I think empathy shouldn’t be the only means by which we make moral decisions. Of course a rational cost-benefit analysis is required, as well as an adherence to a consistent moral code. Decisions based purely on empathy would be too ad-hoc to constitute a moral belief system. Having said that, to say that empathy shouldn’t be taken into account at all would be a step too far. The single mother caught stealing to feed her children ought to be treated more kindly than the man caught stealing to fuel a drug addiction, even if both people stole the same amount of money.
Overall, empathy is part of what makes us human. Without it, we would be reduced to moral computers, constantly employing dogmatic and rigid means of making decisions, such as Bentham’s hedonic calculus. But morality is far more than a cost-benefit analysis. The law ought to exercise compassion and give people second chances, while providing a proportionate punishment to those with criminal intent. The alternative is a very bleak society indeed.