18/07/2018 The case against empathy - Vox

The case against empathy

Why this Yale psychologist thinks you should be compassionate, not empathetic.
By Sean Illing @seanilling sean.illing@vox.com Updated May 21, 2017, 11:05am EDT

Getty Images

Who can be against empathy? If our moral intuitions align on anything, is it not on the
idea that empathy for other human beings is a good thing? What harm could come from
identifying with the thoughts and feelings of our fellow creatures?

According to Paul Bloom, a professor of psychology at Yale, most of us are completely

wrong about empathy. The author of a new book titled Against Empathy, Bloom uses
clinical studies and simple logic to argue that empathy, however well-intentioned, is a
poor guide for moral reasoning. Worse, to the extent that individuals and societies make
ethical judgments on the basis of empathy, they become less sensitive to the suffering
of greater and greater numbers of people.

“I want to make a case for the value of conscious, deliberative reasoning in everyday life,
arguing that we should strive to use our heads rather than our hearts.” Such is the plea
that Bloom makes in the opening pages of the book. What follows is a lucidly argued
tract about the hazards of good intentions.

I sat down with Bloom to talk about his case against empathy. To be perfectly
transparent, I read Bloom’s book — and entered into this conversation — with a fair
https://www.vox.com/conversations/2017/1/19/14266230/empathy-morality-ethics-psychology-science-compassion-paul-bloom 1/9
18/07/2018 The case against empathy - Vox

degree of skepticism. I’ve long believed empathy to be the basis for human solidarity
(for reasons I explain below). So if he’s right, then I’ve been wrong for virtually all of my
life.

After reading his book and engaging him in this conversation, I think he’s (mostly) right.

Sean Illing

How do you define empathy? And how is it distinct from, say, compassion or sympathy?

Paul Bloom

It’s a great question because a lot of people freak out when they see my title. I’ve come
to realize that people mean different things by empathy. Some people take empathy to
mean everything good or moral, or to be kind in some general sense. I’m not against
that. There’s another sense of empathy which is narrower and which has to do with
understanding other people. And that’s not exactly what I’m talking about. I think that
understanding people is important, but it’s not necessarily a force for good. It can be a
force for evil as well.

By empathy I mean feeling the feelings of other people. So if you’re in pain and I feel
your pain — I am feeling empathy toward you. If you’re being anxious, I pick up your
anxiety. If you’re sad and I pick up your sadness, I’m being empathetic. And that’s
different from compassion. Compassion means I give your concern weight, I value it. I
care about you, but I don’t necessarily pick up your feelings.

A lot of people think this is merely a verbal distinction, that it doesn’t matter that much.
But actually there’s a lot of evidence in my book that empathy and compassion activate
different parts of the brain. But more importantly, they have different consequences. If I
have empathy toward you, it will be painful if you’re suffering. It will be exhausting. It will
lead me to avoid you and avoid helping. But if I feel compassion for you, I’ll be
invigorated. I’ll be happy and I’ll try to make your life better.

Sean Illing

I take all the points you just made, but empathy still strikes me as a largely positive — or
useful — emotion. One could argue that having empathy actually opens the door to
more compassion.

Paul Bloom

My beef is with empathy in particular, with its role in decision making. Empathy has
certain design features that do make it positive in certain restricted circumstances. If
you and I are the only people on earth and you’re in pain and I can help you and make
your pain go away, and I feel empathy toward you and so I make your life better,
https://www.vox.com/conversations/2017/1/19/14266230/empathy-morality-ethics-psychology-science-compassion-paul-bloom 2/9
18/07/2018 The case against empathy - Vox

empathy has done something good. But the real world is nowhere near as simple.
Empathy’s design failings have to do with the fact that it acts like a spotlight. It zooms
you in. But spotlights only illuminate where you point them at, and for that reason
empathy is biased.

I’m likely to feel empathy toward you, a handsome white guy, but somebody who is
repulsive or frightening I don’t feel empathy for. I actually feel a lot less empathy for
people who aren’t in my culture, who don’t share my skin color, who don’t share my
language. This is a terrible fact of human nature, and it operates at a subconscious level,
but we know that it happens. There’s dozens, probably hundreds, of laboratory
experiments looking at empathy and they find that empathy is as biased as can be.

The second problem is the innumeracy. Empathy zooms me in on one but it doesn’t
attend to the difference between one and 100 or one and 1,000. It’s because of
empathy we often care more about a single person than 100 people or 1,000 people, or
we care more about an attractive white girl who went missing than we do a 1,000
starving children who don’t look we do or live where we don’t live.

So it might feel good but empathy often leads us to make stupid and unethical
decisions.

Sean Illing

Is empathy necessarily a spotlight? Does it have to be focused on one or two people at

a time? Is that part of the structure of empathy or is that just the most common
manifestation?

Paul Bloom

I think it’s part of what empathy is. Empathy as we’re talking about it is, “I put myself in
your shoes.” So how many people can you do that with? Well maybe I could do that with
you and some other guy at the same time. You’re feeling different things and I kind of
got them both in my head. Can I do it for 10 or 12 or a 100 people? No. Maybe an
almighty god could do that, could empathize with every living being. But typically, we
zoom in on one.

And so it’s different from morality more generally. When I make a moral judgment, I can
take into account, if I do this, 10 people will suffer but a thousand people will benefit.
And with health care, gun control, or something like that, you deal with numbers.

But empathy, by its very nature, is like a spotlight.

Sean Illing

https://www.vox.com/conversations/2017/1/19/14266230/empathy-morality-ethics-psychology-science-compassion-paul-bloom 3/9
18/07/2018 The case against empathy - Vox

So it’s your view that empathy is not only a poor guide for moral reasoning; it actually
makes people — and the world — worse?

Paul Bloom

I think empathy is a great for all sorts of things. It’s a wonderful source of pleasure, for
instance. The joy of fiction would disappear if we couldn’t, on some level, empathize
with the characters. A lot of our intimacy would fade. I think empathy is central to sex.
It’s great for all sorts of things.

In the moral domain, however, empathy leads us astray. We are much better off if we
give up on empathy and become rational deliberators motivating by compassion and
care for others.

Sean Illing

Can you give an example of empathy gone wrong in everyday life?

Paul Bloom

I’ll give a controversial one and then a less controversial one. The controversial one has
to do with the role of empathy in our criminal justice system, specifically victim
statements. In many states, not all, there are victim statements, and these victim
statements allow people talk about what happened to them and what it was like when
their family member died or when they were assaulted; these often determine
sentencing.

I could not imagine a better recipe for bias and unfair sentencing decisions than this. If
the victim is an articulate, attractive, white woman, it’s going to be so much more
powerful than if the victim is a sullen, African-American man who doesn’t like to talk
about his feelings. You suddenly turn the deep questions of how to punish criminals into
a question of how much do I feel for this person in front of me? So the bias would be
incredibly powerful. So that’s case one.

Case two is about Donald Trump. Trump’s rhetoric about immigrants and Muslims was
often framed, particularly early in his campaign, in terms of the suffering of people. He
would actually tell these stories. In his rallies, he would tell stories of victims of rape and
victims of shooting. He would tell stories of people who lost their jobs. And he was
appealing to the empathy of supporters, whose concerns extended mostly to their own
tribe.

Three hundred years ago, Adam Smith noted that when you feel empathy for someone
who’s been abused or assaulted, it translates into anger and hatred toward those
who’ve done the abuse. And I think we see that in the real world all the time. Whenever
https://www.vox.com/conversations/2017/1/19/14266230/empathy-morality-ethics-psychology-science-compassion-paul-bloom 4/9
18/07/2018 The case against empathy - Vox

somebody wants you to kick a bunch of people out of your country or go to war, they’ll
tell you a really sad story of some poor person who looks like you and got victimized in
some way. Sometimes the story is false, sometimes it’s true, but it is a case in which
empathy really goes wrong.

Sean Illing

I find your broad arguments about empathy persuasive, but I think your critique doesn’t
hold as well for interpersonal relationships or parent-child dynamics. On some level,
aren’t we obliged to care more about the people that we love or the people we call
friends? And if that’s true, doesn’t that require something like empathy?

Paul Bloom

This is a great question. I have a whole chapter where I struggle with this. A lot of my
book is like, “this is the way it is, man.” But I have a chapter on intimate relationships
where I struggle exactly with these questions. It goes off in two directions. So one
direction is, “empathy is biased, it plays favorites,” but there are some biases that don’t
seem bad. I love my kids a lot more than I love you and I’m not ashamed of that. I don’t
think I’m making a moral mistake. And I don’t think it’s a mistake to care more about my
friends and my family than about strangers.

I think I’m making a mistake if I care about white people more than dark-skinned people.
But friends and family? That seems right. In that sense, the bias of empathy isn’t such a
problem. But I think the bias that that reflects is just a more general bias. If you took
away empathy from my brain, I’d still love my kids. Because every other emotion is going
to go in that direction. In that case, I think empathy’s bias per se isn’t a problem.

The other strand of your question is, the examples we’ve been giving so far have been
about policy issues — going to war and victim statements. What about dealing with your
kids, with your wife, with your friends? Don’t you want to be empathic to them? And I
think the answer to that is mixed. I think the answer is often no.

Suppose you come to me and you’re freaked out, you’re anxious. Do you really want me
to get anxious too? Do you want me to empathize with your anxiety, not just understand
but feel it too? Presumably not. You want me to be calm. If you’re depressed, you don’t
want me to sink into depression. Then you’ve got two problems instead of just one. You
want me to sort of be uplifting, cheer you up, put things in perspective.

I think there’s a case for empathy, particularly with positive emotions. If we’re friends
and something great has happened to you, you may want me to share your joy, not just

https://www.vox.com/conversations/2017/1/19/14266230/empathy-morality-ethics-psychology-science-compassion-paul-bloom 5/9
18/07/2018 The case against empathy - Vox

be happy that things are well with you but actually share your positive feelings. I see
nothing wrong with that.

Sean Illing

You made an interesting distinction there between feeling and understanding, and you
alluded to this earlier as well. I wonder if you could unpack that just a bit. Are you saying
that to be empathetic is to feel what someone is feeling, and not merely to understand
it or relate to it in some way?

Paul Bloom

It’s actually critical to my argument that those are two separate things. Everybody
agrees that to be a good person you have to understand other people. You can’t buy
someone a birthday present unless you understand them on some level. And you can’t
make a kid happy if you don’t understand her. Now as we said in the beginning,
understanding is also necessary if you want to ruin somebody’s life, if you want to
seduce them or con them or torture them. But understanding still seems to be a
necessary condition for doing good. So if it turns out understanding and feeling are
essentially entangled, then I can’t argue against empathy. But they aren’t entangled. You
can easily find dissociations.

One such disassociation is the competent psychopath. So some psychopaths are not
as impressive as you might think. They’re just kind of screwed up people. But some
psychopaths are really good with other people. They’re really good with other people
because they understand them. They know what you want. They know what you like.
They know you better than you know yourself, but they don’t give a shit. They could
cause you a lot of pain and not blink.

Sean Illing

Do you see any social utility at all to empathy?

Paul Bloom

I think it leads us to poor moral decisions, but it’s often what people want. There are a
lot of cases where people want another person to feel what they feel. Some cases are
cases of moral persuasion where I want you to persuade you to help me and to get you
to do that I need to get you to feel what I feel. My kid’s in the hospital. I need money for
an operation. How would you feel? I try to motivate that as part of persuasion.

Sean Illing

I take your point that empathy is often tribalistic, but must it be it that way or is that
what it is for most people most of the time? Consider a Buddhist monk or someone

https://www.vox.com/conversations/2017/1/19/14266230/empathy-morality-ethics-psychology-science-compassion-paul-bloom 6/9
18/07/2018 The case against empathy - Vox

who meditates regularly on compassion. Empathy in these cases is not directed at

particular people. I’d argue that empathy, exercised in this way, is an orientation, not an
emotion directed at someone or something.

Paul Bloom

Those are two different questions. The monk stuff is interesting. I talk about monks and
meditation and Buddhism in my book. They really caution you about empathy. They say
to get what you’re talking about, to get where you are, you have to jettison empathy and
feel love and compassion, loving kindness. But don’t try to crawl into people’s heads.
That will exhaust you. That will cause all sorts of problems.

There’s some evidence that meditative practice and mindfulness meditation makes you
into a sweeter person. There’s no definitive evidence of this, but the argument is that
mediation makes you more compassionate by diminishing your empathy, so you can
help without feeling suffering.

Here’s an analogy I give: Isn’t it unfortunate that people overwhelmingly like delicious
and fatty foods? Why can’t they enjoy eating protein powder or spinach day and night?
Can you say that it’s impossible to have a person who hates hot fudge sundaes and
steaks and enjoys chewing protein powder? Is it impossible to have somebody who isn’t
sexually aroused by attractive young people but is instead sexually aroused by virtuous
people? Is it impossible there are people who are only angry at global warming but if you
chopped off their arm, they wouldn’t mind at all? I don’t know. I don’t think we’re such
creatures.

I got into a discussion with a British academic over the Israeli and Palestinian conflict.
He says the problem is not enough empathy. I said the problem is too much empathy.
He says, but can’t you imagine a person, an Israeli, who feels as much empathy for the
Palestinians as he does for his own family? I could imagine it. It’s just not how we
typically tend to work.

Sean Illing

I’ve always felt that identification with another’s suffering was the key impetus for
human solidarity, and that empathy is a gateway to recognizing the commonality of
experience. If we want to make the critical shift from solipsism to collective
consciousness, don’t we need something like empathy?

Paul Bloom

I wouldn’t say with confidence that that’s wrong. In some ways, to the extent that
empathy can do it, it’s the effect, not the cause. That is, if you put yourself in

https://www.vox.com/conversations/2017/1/19/14266230/empathy-morality-ethics-psychology-science-compassion-paul-bloom 7/9
18/07/2018 The case against empathy - Vox

somebody’s shoes — a person in Africa, a trans individual, a nonhuman, someone who

you otherwise wouldn’t relate to, you already have to acknowledge them as a person.
It’s not like empathy is this magical thing.

Empathy is a psychological process of imagination. Basically you’re choosing to make

that imaginative leap. But that’s the moral choice. Empathy is just the one way you
enact it. But then the question is, do you need to enact it? I think about rights
revolutions in our times. The dramatic change in attitudes toward gay people and, more
recently, the dramatic change in attitudes towards trans people.

I’m not convinced that everybody’s who’s changed or everybody’s who acknowledges
these rights, these groups who are otherwise included, does so because they imagine
what it’s like. I imagine what it’s like to be a man who wants to have sex with another
man and can’t marry. I imagine what it’s like to be somebody with a penis who identifies
herself as a woman. Maybe I do that. Maybe I don’t. Maybe I just say, I hear your
argument about human rights, and there’s no reason to deprive them.

Sean Illing

Perhaps it’s better to think of empathy as an instrument, not a virtue. It can be used for
good or ill, depending on the person in whom it’s exercised. Con men, as you say, are
exceedingly empathic, which is why they’re so effective. Someone like the Dalai Lama is
similarly empathic, only his empathy is put to much better ends.

Paul Bloom

I think when it comes to moral reasoning, empathy is just a bad idea. It just throws in
bias and innumeracy and confusion. But yes, when it comes to moral motivation,
empathy can be used as a tool. If I want to get you to help the baby, I can say, look at the
baby’s family, I could do that. If I want you to lynch African Americans in the South, I can
say, look at these white women who’ve been raped, feel their pain, let’s go! It is a tool.

My point is that there are better and more reliable tools.

Sean Illing

I’ve argued elsewhere that privilege has a way of blinding the privileged, and that that is
a big reason why people fail to notice the role of luck in their own life and, more
importantly, the role of misfortune in the lives of others. Obviously the political
implications of this are terrible. I’ve always understood this to be an argument in
defense of empathy.

Am I mistaken?

https://www.vox.com/conversations/2017/1/19/14266230/empathy-morality-ethics-psychology-science-compassion-paul-bloom 8/9
18/07/2018 The case against empathy - Vox

Paul Bloom

I’ve never thought of it that way. I actually think attempts at empathy might actually
make things worse. A friend of mine, another white guy born into privilege, once said
very honestly, “I don’t really understand why poor people would do this or do that. If I
were in their shoes, I would do this and that and so on.”

You could argue that he’s just not empathizing strong enough; if he fully appreciated
what it’s like to lack the right education and so on, perhaps then he’d understand. I
wonder if an appreciation of contingency, of blind luck, isn’t something you get through
empathy but through a broader understanding.

I’m not entirely sure, but it’s a great question.

Sean Illing

I don’t share this view, but there some who think that you place too much faith in pure
reason as a guide to morality. At some point, don’t you have to smuggle value or
emotion into this? You can easily reason your way into eugenics or some other
repugnant worldview, after all.

Paul Bloom

I make a distinction. I think reason is how we come to conclusions and, more

specifically, how we achieve certain ends. What ends you seek can be derived from
reason based on some other goals, but they’re ultimately not determined by reason. I
could say, I want to make the world a better place and here’s how we should do it. And
you could challenge me and say, why do you want to make the world a better place. I’m
just going to say, I just do. So reason has to end somewhere.

I’m most interested in cases where rational people share the same goals and then the
question is roughly how to get there. And there I think reason is better than emotions.

https://www.vox.com/conversations/2017/1/19/14266230/empathy-morality-ethics-psychology-science-compassion-paul-bloom 9/9