I just wrote a book called Against Empathy, and some of my friends tell me they are embarrassed to read it in public. Isn’t empathy something only a psychopath would object to?
Many see empathy as an unquestionable force for good; it makes the world a better place. It has been , and there are calls for people to in everyday life, and .
One issue here is that people use the term in different ways; if you view it as synonymous with kindness and altruism, it does seem hard to object to. But what about when we mean the capacity to share the feelings of others? This certainly has its upsides. But as a guide for moral and political decision-making, it is a train wreck. Empathy makes the world worse.
Advertisement
For one thing, . Neuroscience research and everyday experience both reveal that it’s , who is attractive and friendly, or who looks like you. But , for those who disgust you, for distant strangers? That’s a lot less natural.
Also, empathy makes us zoom in on specific individuals. We can’t put ourselves in the shoes of a million people or even a dozen, and there are showing that empathy drives us to care more about one individual than about many.
We see this when people are more moved by the story of an abused dog or oil-drenched penguin than the suffering of millions in other countries. Or when we care more about one person – a little girl stuck in a well, say – than about crises such as climate change that affect huge numbers of people.
Rational approach
Finally, empathy is malleable, and can be used to sway people into endorsing all sorts of political positions, including cruel ones. It was Adam Smith, in 1759, who noted that the more we empathise with someone who suffers, the more we wish to retaliate against those who caused the suffering.
There is no shortage of real-world examples of how this can corrode judgment – like when the empathy triggered by stories of innocent victims is used to stir up hatred for minority groups, or to generate support for unnecessary war.
It’s a good thing, then, that we can transcend empathy. Our rationality can guide us to appreciate that skin colour doesn’t determine the value of a person’s life, that one person is not worth more than a hundred, and that any important decision –including over whether to go to war – should be based on cost-benefit analyses and appeal to moral principles.
Some worry that if we don’t empathise with others, don’t feel their pain, we won’t care enough to help. But
Indeed, when study volunteers are taught to be compassionate without empathy (through training in various meditative practices), . In contrast, action motivated by the empathic urge is often exhausting – it’s unpleasant, after all, to experience the suffering of others.
I wouldn’t want to live in a world without empathy. It’s a great source of pleasure – enhancing the joy of literature and film, for instance – and a central aspect of intimate relationships. But when it comes to moral choices, there are better alternatives.
