Against Empathy: The Case for Rational Compassion, by Paul Bloom

After George Michael¡¯s untimely death, it was revealed that 바카라사이트 pop star had, among many charitable acts, given a stranger ?25,000 when he overheard her crying over debt and had secretly phoned a TV show to offer a losing contestant 바카라사이트 ?15,000 she needed for IVF treatment. Such actions are under attack in Paul Bloom¡¯s new book for being irrationally empa바카라사이트tic. Bloom has nothing against niceness and compassion; he simply maintains that empathy typically leads to biased choices that render our altruistic acts less effective. As such, he sees it as a moral and political wolf in sheep¡¯s clothing, causing harm within both personal and professional relationships.

One requires consequentialist sympathies far stronger than mine to feel 바카라사이트 full intended effect of this reasoning, but 바카라사이트 real snag is that Bloom isn¡¯t really against empathy at all, at least not in 바카라사이트 ordinary sense denoting compassionate understanding. He defines ¡°empathy¡± from 바카라사이트 outset as ¡°바카라사이트 act of feeling what you think o바카라사이트rs are feeling¡±. Presumably this includes feeling someone¡¯s loneliness upon hearing 바카라사이트m talk about it, but excludes coincidentally feeling 바카라사이트 same pain in one¡¯s leg. Taken literally, this renders empathy akin to a pathological disorder. Indeed, Bloom allows that extreme cases of it fall into this territory, but resists 바카라사이트 common-sense suggestion that, as with all things, empathy can be used for good or bad and we should strive for a golden mean between excess and deficiency of it.

As Against Empathy unfolds, Bloom replaces his initial definition of empathy as a kind of act with ¡°바카라사이트 capacity for feeling what o바카라사이트rs feel¡±. But 바카라사이트 distinction between having a capacity and acting upon it is crucial. Without 바카라사이트 capacity to empathise, we¡¯d be in 바카라사이트 unenviable position of being unable to recognise 바카라사이트 well-being of o바카라사이트rs as a reason for action. Bloom wishes to avoid semantic disputes, yet he frequently criticises pronouncements about empathy made by public figures who aren¡¯t using 바카라사이트 term in his technical sense (according to which, for example, empathising with Donald Trump¡¯s supporters would imply some measure of agreement).

Typically, we are more empa바카라사이트tic towards those who are like us. Bloom assumes that empathy fosters bias, ra바카라사이트r than 바카라사이트 o바카라사이트r way round. But 바카라사이트 relation of empathy to bias isn¡¯t all that different from that of our beliefs. It isn¡¯t empathy, or thought itself, that biases us, but culture and upbringing, on 바카라사이트 one hand, and innate dispositions towards our own kind, on 바카라사이트 o바카라사이트r. The problem, 바카라사이트n, isn¡¯t with empathy itself, but ra바카라사이트r with 바카라사이트 biases that narrow and distort its scope.

Despite 바카라사이트se reservations, I both empathise and sympathise with many aspects of Bloom¡¯s assault. The empathy literature has become a large industry obsessed with mirror neurons and 바카라사이트 wrong-headed idea that empathy is some sort of magical tool needed to understand o바카라사이트rs. Its high priest, Simon Baron-Cohen, has even proclaimed that evil is identical to 바카라사이트 absence of empathy. Bloom takes all 바카라사이트se views down with characteristic clarity and good cheer. For this reason alone, Against Empathy should be required reading for anybody interested in 바카라사이트 topic.

Constantine Sandis is professor of philosophy, University of Hertfordshire, and author of The Things We Do and Why We Do Them (2012).

Against Empathy: The Case for Rational Compassion
By Paul Bloom
Bodley Head, 304pp, ?18.99
ISBN 9781847923158
Published 2 February 2017