- When asked what I am working on, I often say I am writing a book about empathy. People tend to smile and nod, and then I add, “I’m against it.” This usually gets an uncomfortable laugh.
This reaction surprised me at first, but I’ve come to realize that taking a position against empathy is like announcing that you hate kittens—a statement so outlandish it can only be a joke. And so I’ve learned to clarify, to explain that I am not against morality, compassion, kindness, love, being a good neighbor, doing the right thing, and making the world a better place. My claim is actually the opposite: if you want to be good and do good, empathy is a poor guide.
Oh wow, good catch. humanodon lil Falzar b_b here is the author's reply to responses to his piece http://bostonreview.net/forum/against-empathy/paul-bloom-final-response-against-empathy
I'm sure all those responses and counters have some great points, but I don't have time to read them all right now, unfortunately. David Brooks had a column today that basically says the exact opposite. That is, pragmatists miss the point of life by reducing everything to a calculus of costs and benefits. I think this equally misses the point. We need ideals and empathy to guide decision making, but with an eye toward a big picture. If we abandon either we're left to be fundamentalist zealots (if we forgo pragmatism), or Dick Cheney (if we lose all empathy for Man, and pursue a real politik in policy matters). The middle way is the best. Sometimes we require sacrifice, but if we lose our moral outrage at forced sacrifices, then it's a small step to depraved indifference. Pragmatism vs. idealism is a false dichotomy.
See, the nazis, commies, and eugies, weren't wrong or evil because they didn't follow or listen to empathy. They were wrong and evil because they were wrong. Nazis use of hatred to gain support may have earned them what they needed in the short term, but the world didn't react well to them trying to take over, and the response lead to germany being worse off than it would have been should it have just stayed in it's borders, built up, and avoided genocide. Communists use of murder and fear to stay in power is textbook example of how not to stay in power. Everyone knows that you will fall if you try to stay in power using those techniques. Eugenicists turned out to also be wrong. Diversity in a species is incredibly important and essential for survival and success. Had they been right, they wouldn't be regarded as evil. They would be regarded as heroes, and likely could have won the fights they fought. The world would have followed the system that lead to better results. Turns out that when you treat people well, let them be free, and support those around you, you succeed. Empathy, just like anger or pride, can lead to decisions that are misguided, wrong, or ignorant. Look at vegatarians after all. Look at how many people dedicate so much of their lives to "helping people" to feel good without ever stopping to think of if what they are doing really is helping anything. Moral of the story is, do what is best, not what you feel is best.
I spent the last few days at a polyamorous marxist commune where a friend of mine lives and had to think about this post when I noticed how they solve their problems... This article argues that it is good to be empathetic but to not get influenced so much to the point that I can't help the person that is hurt out. Some people in the commune were discussing how they should deal with a situation where somebody is hurt and the consensus (and what apparently has proved to work better over the years) was that people should become so empathetic that they "go deep" with the other person. As in, let the others pull them down into their hole and then deal with their misery together and find a solution and then come out of it stronger. Sorry for digging this out of the grave, but what do you guys think about this approach?
Although now that I read the actual question again, it was an airport accident killing 200 people on the plane and just a good acquaintance dying from the car accident, not a significant other (And the 40,000 were from Peru, not Chile.) Why do I seem to remember the version of it I posted above, though?