Against Empathy

Against Empathy Plot Summary

Introduction

Empathy has been widely celebrated as a virtue essential to morality and social cooperation. Popular wisdom suggests that we need more empathy to create a better world. Yet, contrary to this prevailing belief, empathy may actually be a poor guide for moral decision-making and ethical action. When we feel what others feel—experiencing their pain as if it were our own—we often make decisions that, while seemingly compassionate, produce harmful consequences in the broader context. This counterintuitive perspective challenges us to reconsider what truly motivates moral behavior and whether empathy deserves its exalted status. The argument against empathy does not advocate for cold indifference toward human suffering. Rather, it calls for replacing emotional empathy with rational compassion—a more impartial, reasoned approach to caring about others that isn't limited by the spotlight effect of empathy. By examining psychological research, neuroscience findings, and philosophical analysis, we can understand why empathy's limitations—including its bias toward individuals rather than groups, its innumeracy, and its vulnerability to manipulation—make it an unreliable foundation for moral judgment. This exploration invites us to develop a more nuanced understanding of human moral psychology and to consider alternative frameworks that might better serve our ethical aspirations.

Chapter 1: The Empathy Problem: Limitations of a Celebrated Capacity

Empathy—the capacity to feel what others feel—has long been celebrated as a core moral virtue. It seems intuitive that feeling another's pain would motivate us to help them, thereby making the world better. Indeed, many influential thinkers and leaders have championed empathy as essential to moral progress. Barack Obama famously declared that the biggest deficit in our society is an "empathy deficit," while countless books and programs aim to cultivate greater empathy in individuals. However, this emotional capacity has significant limitations that compromise its reliability as a moral guide. When we empathize, we focus intensely on specific individuals whose suffering becomes salient to us. This spotlight effect means empathy is inherently biased toward identifiable victims rather than statistical lives. A drowning child before our eyes evokes powerful empathic responses, while thousands dying from preventable diseases in distant countries barely register emotionally. This explains why we mobilize enormous resources to rescue a child trapped in a well while remaining relatively unmoved by global catastrophes affecting millions. Furthermore, empathy is innumerate—it doesn't scale proportionally with the magnitude of suffering. As Stalin coldly but accurately observed, "One death is a tragedy; one million is a statistic." Our empathic reactions don't multiply by a factor of a thousand when considering a thousand victims versus one victim. In fact, studies show people often donate more to help a single identified child than to help many anonymous children, even when told explicitly about this numerical discrepancy. Empathy is also highly susceptible to bias and manipulation. We empathize more readily with those who look like us, share our background, or are presented in appealing ways. This parochialism explains why media coverage of a single missing child from a wealthy neighborhood can dominate headlines while ongoing suffering of less relatable populations receives minimal attention. Political and commercial interests routinely exploit this bias to direct public concern toward particular causes while neglecting others that may objectively involve greater harm. Perhaps most problematically, empathy can actively distort moral judgment by overvaluing immediate emotional relief over long-term welfare. A parent who cannot bear to see their child cry might avoid necessary vaccinations or educational discipline. Similarly, policy makers guided by empathic reactions to vivid suffering might implement interventions that feel good but ultimately cause more harm through unintended consequences. These limitations suggest that despite its intuitive appeal, empathy may be a flawed foundation for moral decision-making. The very features that make it emotionally powerful—its specificity, vividness, and emotional resonance—render it unreliable for guiding actions that affect many people over time.

Chapter 2: Empathy's Inherent Biases and Narrow Focus

Empathy operates like a spotlight, illuminating the suffering of specific individuals while leaving others in darkness. This inherent selectivity creates systematic biases that compromise moral decision-making. Neuroscientific research has confirmed these biases, showing that empathic neural responses are significantly stronger when we observe pain in members of our own group compared to outgroups. One striking study found that soccer fans' brain activity showed robust empathic responses when watching fans of their own team receive electric shocks, but these responses were dramatically diminished when watching fans of rival teams experience identical pain. This parochial nature of empathy extends beyond group identification to physical proximity and similarity. We naturally empathize more with those who are near us, who look like us, or whose experiences mirror our own. Adam Smith recognized this limitation centuries ago, noting that a European man would be more disturbed by the loss of his little finger than by the deaths of millions in a distant earthquake in China. This gradient of care—strongest for those closest to us and diminishing with social and physical distance—may have served evolutionary purposes in small tribal groups but becomes problematic in a global society facing complex moral challenges. The spotlight of empathy also creates a troubling innumeracy in our moral calculations. Laboratory studies consistently demonstrate that people respond more empathically to individual suffering than to statistical information about mass suffering. Consequently, we allocate resources based on empathic pull rather than objective need. After tragedies that capture public attention, affected communities often receive more donations than they can effectively use, while chronic suffering affecting larger populations remains underfunded. Following the Sandy Hook shooting, Newtown officials had to plead with well-meaning donors to stop sending gifts after receiving an overwhelming volume of teddy bears and toys, while simultaneously, children in chronically underserved communities received minimal support. Empathy's narrow focus also makes it vulnerable to manipulation. Charitable organizations exploit this by featuring images of single suffering children rather than presenting statistics about the scope of problems. Political movements routinely use vivid, emotional stories to generate support, regardless of whether their proposed solutions actually address broader systemic issues. This manipulability means that empathy-driven responses often reflect skillful narrative framing rather than objective assessment of moral priorities. The timing bias of empathy further compromises its reliability. We respond strongly to immediate, vivid suffering but struggle to connect emotionally with future harms or gradual degradations. This temporal bias explains why societies often fail to adequately address slow-moving crises like climate change, despite their potentially catastrophic consequences. The victims of future disasters cannot trigger our empathy in the present, creating a systematic blindness to long-term moral considerations. These inherent limitations suggest that empathy, despite its emotional power, is poorly suited to guide moral decisions in complex modern societies. A morality built primarily on empathic foundations will inevitably reproduce the biases, innumeracy, and short-sightedness inherent in the empathic response itself.

Chapter 3: Distinguishing Empathy from Compassion and Understanding

The critique of empathy requires careful conceptual clarification to avoid misunderstanding. Empathy, as discussed here, refers specifically to the visceral mirroring of another's feelings—experiencing their joy or suffering as if it were your own. This emotional empathy must be distinguished from cognitive empathy (understanding others' mental states without necessarily sharing their emotions) and from compassion (caring about others' welfare without necessarily feeling their emotions). These distinctions are crucial because while emotional empathy proves problematic as a moral guide, cognitive understanding and compassionate concern remain essential to ethical action. Neuroscientific research supports these distinctions, showing that empathy and compassion activate different neural networks. Studies by Tania Singer and Matthieu Ricard demonstrated that when Buddhist monks engaged in empathic resonance with others' suffering, they experienced neural signatures of distress similar to those experiencing pain directly. However, when the same monks practiced compassion meditation—focusing on caring concern without mirroring emotions—they activated different brain regions associated with positive affect and affiliative motivation. This distinction has practical implications: while empathic resonance often leads to emotional exhaustion and burnout, compassion appears sustainable and resilient. The empathy-compassion distinction helps explain an apparent paradox in professional caregiving. Many physicians and therapists report that excessive emotional empathy—feeling their patients' distress—impairs rather than enhances their effectiveness. One emergency physician described how attempting to fully empathize with victims at the World Trade Center site led to emotional flooding that compromised her ability to function. Effective caregiving often requires maintaining emotional boundaries while sustaining genuine concern. As one surgeon observed, "If I were to imagine my own son in place of my patient, I would be incapacitated by grief and unable to perform surgery." This distinction also illuminates why psychopaths can possess high cognitive empathy while lacking emotional empathy. Such individuals may excel at reading others' mental states—a skill that facilitates manipulation—while remaining unmoved by others' suffering. This combination makes them particularly dangerous, not merely deficient. Conversely, some people with autism spectrum conditions may struggle with cognitive empathy while maintaining genuine moral concern for others' welfare, demonstrating that moral motivation doesn't require emotional mirroring. Understanding without emotionally resonating proves crucial in many contexts. Effective negotiators, diplomats, and conflict mediators must comprehend multiple perspectives without being emotionally hijacked by any single viewpoint. Similarly, judges must understand the experiences of diverse parties while maintaining impartiality in their judgments. This cognitive understanding provides information necessary for fair decisions without the distorting influence of emotional contagion. The confusion between empathy and related concepts often leads defenders of empathy to conflate distinct psychological processes. When someone advocates for empathy, they might actually be endorsing cognitive understanding or compassionate concern—capacities that remain valuable even if emotional empathy proves problematic. By maintaining these conceptual distinctions, we can preserve what is valuable in our moral psychology while recognizing the specific limitations of empathy as feeling what others feel.

Chapter 4: When Empathy Backfires: Unintended Consequences

Empathy not only has limitations—it can actively produce harmful outcomes in certain contexts. Despite good intentions, empathically motivated actions often generate unintended negative consequences, particularly when complex systems are involved. Foreign aid provides a striking example. Well-meaning donors, moved by images of suffering children, have poured billions into programs that inadvertently undermined local economies, sustained corrupt regimes, or created dependency. Food aid, motivated by empathy for the hungry, has sometimes destroyed local agricultural markets by flooding communities with free imported goods, ultimately increasing long-term food insecurity. The healthcare context reveals similar counterproductive effects. Physicians who respond empathically to patients' immediate distress may prescribe requested pain medications even when long-term risks outweigh short-term benefits. This pattern contributed significantly to the opioid crisis, as doctors empathizing with patients' pain provided prescriptions that ultimately led to addiction and overdose deaths. Similarly, parents who cannot bear their children's temporary discomfort may avoid vaccinations, inadvertently exposing them to far greater health risks from preventable diseases. Empathy's role in fueling conflict and violence deserves particular attention. Contrary to the assumption that empathy always promotes peace, historical evidence suggests that empathy for victims of perceived injustice often motivates retaliatory violence. Studies by Anneke Buffone and Michael Poulin demonstrated experimentally that empathy for someone's distress increases aggression toward third parties perceived as threats to that person—even when those third parties have done nothing wrong. This helps explain why empathically charged narratives about victimized ingroup members frequently appear in war propaganda, ethnic violence, and terrorist recruitment. In the judicial system, empathy-driven responses to crime often produce counterproductive outcomes. Policies enacted after highly publicized cases—named laws like "Megan's Law" or "Jessica's Law"—may satisfy empathic outrage but frequently prove ineffective or create collateral damage. Similarly, empathic responses to specific criminals may produce either excessive leniency or excessive harshness depending on whether empathy focuses on the perpetrator's circumstances or the victim's suffering. Neither approach necessarily serves the broader goals of public safety and rehabilitation. Charitable giving provides another arena where empathy systematically misdirects resources. Research on "effective altruism" reveals that donations motivated by empathic responses typically focus on causes with emotionally compelling narratives rather than those offering the greatest impact per dollar. As a result, relatively minor but emotionally resonant problems receive disproportionate funding while more significant but less viscerally affecting problems remain underaddressed. Donors moved by a single child's story might fund expensive, marginal treatments while ignoring interventions that could save many more lives at lower cost. These patterns reveal that empathy's failures are not merely errors of omission—cases where empathy fails to motivate sufficient concern—but active distortions that redirect resources away from optimal uses and sometimes generate harm. The emotional satisfaction of alleviating the suffering we can see and feel may come at the expense of addressing less visible but more consequential problems, creating a moral opportunity cost that empathy itself makes difficult to recognize.

Chapter 5: The Rational Alternative: Impartial Concern and Reasoned Deliberation

The critique of empathy necessitates offering an alternative approach to moral decision-making. This alternative combines impartial concern for others' welfare with reasoned deliberation about how to promote it effectively. Unlike empathy, which focuses intensely on particular individuals, impartial concern values all persons equally, regardless of their proximity, similarity, or emotional salience. This principle underpins consequentialist ethical frameworks that aim to maximize overall welfare rather than responding to emotionally compelling individual cases. Rational compassion begins with the recognition that all suffering matters morally—not just suffering that happens to trigger our empathic responses. This impartiality doesn't require emotional detachment or coldness; rather, it expands our circle of moral concern beyond empathy's natural limitations. Philosophers like Peter Singer have demonstrated how rational extension of basic moral principles leads to more consistent and defensible positions on issues ranging from global poverty to animal welfare. By asking what principles we would endorse behind a "veil of ignorance" (not knowing which position in society we would occupy), we can arrive at more impartial moral judgments. Reasoned deliberation complements impartial concern by providing tools to translate moral values into effective action. This involves considering evidence about causes and effects, weighing tradeoffs, acknowledging uncertainty, and remaining open to revising beliefs in light of new information. Organizations in the effective altruism movement exemplify this approach by rigorously analyzing which interventions produce the most significant benefits per dollar spent. Their findings often contradict empathy-driven intuitions—revealing, for instance, that deworming programs in developing countries may save more lives than more emotionally compelling disaster relief efforts. Critics often characterize such rational approaches as cold, calculating, or dehumanizing. However, this misconstrues the relationship between reason and emotion in moral psychology. Rational compassion doesn't eliminate emotional concern for others—it redirects and disciplines it. Buddhist traditions have long recognized this distinction, differentiating between "sentimental compassion" (which exhausts the practitioner) and "great compassion" (which can be sustained indefinitely because it isn't dependent on emotional mirroring). The latter represents compassion guided by wisdom rather than immediate emotional reactions. The professional contexts where empathy proves most problematic often reveal the advantages of rational compassion. Effective healthcare providers maintain genuine concern for patients while avoiding emotional immersion that could cloud judgment or lead to burnout. Similarly, emergency responders, judges, and others making high-stakes decisions benefit from combining sincere commitment to others' welfare with cognitive clarity about the most effective courses of action. Importantly, rational compassion doesn't require superhuman cognitive abilities or perfect information. It simply means approaching moral questions with the same critical thinking we apply to other complex domains. Just as we expect policymakers to consider evidence rather than anecdotes when addressing economic challenges, we should expect moral deliberation to incorporate systematic analysis rather than relying primarily on emotional reactions to specific cases. While perfect impartiality remains an aspirational ideal, even modest steps toward more reasoned and impartial consideration can improve moral outcomes. This alternative approach acknowledges human cognitive limitations while recognizing our capacity to transcend immediate emotional reactions through reflective thought. Our evolved moral psychology includes not only empathic reactions but also the ability to reason about principles, weigh consequences, and extend concern beyond our immediate circle—capacities that allow us to develop more consistent and effective moral frameworks than empathy alone could provide.

Chapter 6: Responding to Objections: The Real Value of Empathy

Critics of the anti-empathy position raise several important objections that merit serious consideration. The most fundamental objection questions whether we can maintain genuine concern for others without emotional empathy. If empathy connects us to others' experiences, making their welfare matter to us personally, then eliminating empathy might leave only cold calculation in its place. This objection reflects a legitimate concern about preserving the relational quality of moral concern while addressing empathy's limitations. In response, we must distinguish between empathy's motivational role and its role in guiding specific decisions. Empathy may indeed play a valuable role in developing initial concern for others, particularly during moral development. Children who experience empathic connections with others may internalize moral concern that later becomes more principled and impartial. Similarly, empathic engagement with specific cases—reading about a refugee family or meeting someone affected by injustice—can motivate broader moral commitments. The critique targets not this developmental or motivational function but empathy's reliability as a guide to specific moral decisions once concern has been established. Another significant objection concerns intimate relationships. While empathy may distort decisions affecting strangers or large groups, it seems essential to personal connections. How can one be a good friend, parent, or partner without sometimes feeling what the other feels? Here, the response must acknowledge empathy's value in certain interpersonal contexts while noting its limitations even there. Effective parenting, for instance, requires genuine concern for children's welfare but also the ability to override empathic distress when children need experiences that cause temporary discomfort but promote long-term flourishing. Even in intimate relationships, empathy functions best when complemented by other capacities like perspective-taking, emotional regulation, and principled commitment. Some defenders of empathy argue that rational alternatives risk reinforcing existing power structures by favoring abstract principles over lived experiences, particularly those of marginalized groups. This objection highlights how apparently neutral reasoning can reflect hidden biases. However, the rational compassion alternative specifically aims to expand moral concern beyond empathy's natural parochialism. By consciously adopting principles that value all persons equally, regardless of their ability to trigger our empathic responses, we potentially become more responsive to suffering that dominant narratives might obscure. Religious and spiritual traditions offer another perspective on empathy's value, often emphasizing compassionate connection as central to moral life. Yet many of these traditions actually distinguish between different forms of compassionate concern in ways that parallel the empathy-compassion distinction. Buddhist writings differentiate between "sentimental compassion" that exhausts the practitioner and "great compassion" that remains sustainable. Christian theology distinguishes between emotional pity and more principled forms of caritas or agape love. These traditions suggest that mature moral concern transcends immediate emotional reactions while maintaining genuine commitment to others' welfare. The most pragmatic objection notes that empathy, whatever its flaws, effectively motivates prosocial behavior. If people respond more generously to empathic appeals than to statistical information or principled arguments, shouldn't we leverage this motivational power despite its limitations? This pragmatic argument has merit in specific contexts. Charitable organizations may reasonably use empathic appeals to raise funds for worthy causes, and social movements may highlight individual stories to mobilize support for needed reforms. However, this strategic use of empathy should be distinguished from treating empathy itself as the foundation of moral judgment. Ultimately, the case against empathy doesn't deny that empathy can sometimes produce good outcomes or play valuable roles in moral development and intimate relationships. Rather, it suggests that empathy functions best when situated within a broader moral framework that includes impartial concern, reasoned deliberation, and recognition of empathy's systematic biases. Such a framework preserves what is valuable in empathic concern while addressing its limitations as a guide to moral decision-making.

Chapter 7: Applications: Policy, Charity, and Interpersonal Relations

The tension between empathy and rational compassion manifests concretely across multiple domains, from public policy to personal relationships. In the policy arena, empathy-driven responses to vivid suffering often produce interventions that feel satisfying but deliver poor results. Criminal justice provides a striking example: policies enacted after highly publicized crimes typically emphasize punishment and control rather than evidence-based approaches to reducing recidivism. Similarly, empathic responses to specific victims of medical conditions can divert research funding toward relatively rare diseases with compelling narratives while underfunding conditions that create greater overall suffering but lack identifiable poster children. Effective policymaking requires systematic analysis that considers both immediate and long-term effects across entire populations. Climate change exemplifies the challenge: rational analysis clearly indicates the need for immediate action to prevent future catastrophe, but the inability to empathize with statistical future victims undermines political will. Similarly, preventive public health measures struggle for funding compared to treatments for identified patients, despite often delivering greater benefits per dollar spent. In these contexts, relying on empathic reactions systematically biases decisions toward addressing immediate, visible suffering at the expense of preventing greater future harm. Charitable giving represents another domain where the empathy-rationality tension produces concrete consequences. Organizations like GiveWell apply rigorous analysis to identify interventions that save or improve the most lives per dollar donated. Their recommendations—often focusing on unglamorous interventions like malaria prevention or deworming programs—rarely align with causes that generate the strongest empathic responses. While rational donors might direct resources toward these highly effective interventions, empathically motivated giving flows disproportionately toward causes with compelling narratives regardless of their comparative impact. This divergence between empathic appeal and actual effectiveness appears even in disaster response. After natural disasters, donations typically surge for immediate relief efforts, which are visually compelling but often less impactful than less visible recovery and mitigation work. The resulting pattern—overfunding immediate relief while underfunding preparation and rebuilding—reflects empathy's temporal bias toward present suffering over future prevention. Rationally directed compassion would distribute resources more effectively across the disaster cycle. In professional contexts like healthcare, education, and law, empathy similarly produces mixed results. Healthcare providers who become emotionally immersed in patients' suffering risk compassion fatigue, compromised judgment, and ultimately diminished effectiveness. Studies suggest that sustainable compassionate care requires maintaining emotional boundaries while preserving genuine concern. Similarly, teachers and mentors serve students better through balanced concern that combines support with appropriate challenges, rather than empathic distress that might lead to counterproductive leniency. Even in personal relationships, where empathy seems most valuable, its limitations become apparent. Parents who cannot bear their children's temporary distress may avoid necessary developmental challenges. Friends who mirror each other's negative emotions may amplify distress rather than providing balanced perspective. Partners who lose boundaries between self and other may develop unhealthy codependence rather than sustainable support. These patterns suggest that even intimate relationships benefit from combining genuine concern with reflective distance that allows for wise rather than merely reactive responses. Across all these domains, the alternative to empathy-driven decision-making isn't cold indifference but rather a more balanced approach combining genuine concern with thoughtful analysis. This approach acknowledges empathy's motivational power while recognizing its limitations as a guide to specific actions. By developing institutional structures and personal practices that complement empathic reactions with systematic consideration of consequences, we can make decisions that more reliably promote human flourishing across time and social distance.

Summary

The critique of empathy presented throughout this analysis offers a profound challenge to conventional moral wisdom. Rather than seeing empathy as an unmitigated good that we should cultivate and extend, we might better understand it as a limited and biased capacity that requires supplementation and sometimes correction. Empathy's spotlight nature—illuminating specific suffering while leaving other suffering in darkness—makes it an unreliable foundation for moral decision-making in a complex world. The alternative isn't cold indifference but rather rational compassion: combining genuine concern for others' welfare with reasoned deliberation about how to promote it effectively. This perspective invites us to develop a more nuanced moral psychology that recognizes both the value and limitations of our natural empathic responses. While empathy may sometimes motivate initial concern for others and enrich close relationships, it functions best when situated within a broader framework that includes impartial principles and systematic analysis of consequences. By understanding empathy's systematic biases—its parochialism, innumeracy, and vulnerability to manipulation—we can work to counteract these limitations rather than simply amplifying empathic responses. This approach offers hope for addressing moral challenges that empathy alone leaves us ill-equipped to handle: preventing future suffering, extending concern beyond our immediate circle, and allocating limited resources to help the most people possible. The rational alternative doesn't abandon compassionate concern but rather disciplines and extends it, allowing us to develop moral frameworks more capable of addressing the complex challenges of modern life.

About Author

Loading...

Paul Bloom

Paul Bloom is the Brooks and Suzanne Ragen Professor of Psychology and Cognitive Science at Yale University. His research explores how children and adults understand the physical and social world, with special focus on morality, religion, fiction, and art. He has published more than a hundred scientific articles in journals such as Science and Nature, and his popular writing has appeared in the New York Times, the New Yorker, the Atlantic Monthly, Slate, Natural History, and many other publications. He has won numerous awards for his research and teaching. His newest book--Just Babies: The Origins of Good and Evil--is coming out in November. Paul Bloom lives in New Haven with his wife and two sons.

Read more

Related Books by Paul Bloom

Loading...

The Sweet Spot

Paul Bloom

The Pleasures of Suffering and the Search For Meaning

★★★★½4.5

Loading...

Psych

Paul Bloom

The Story of the Human Mind

★★★★☆4.2