Against Empathy - Paul Bloom - Review

The title of the book is definitely intriguing if not provoking, how can someone be against empathy? It’s the ability to feel the pain, happiness or other forms of emotions experienced by another fellow human. The definition itself will provide sufficient defence in it’s favour while an argument against the said trait can at best be weak, which was my initial reaction. Having gone through Paul’s impressive online course on psychology, I was curious to understand his counterpoints. 

When a large section of people have an inclination towards an emotional rather than rational appeal, can empathy prove to be an effective tool towards social equity. Empathy became a topic of discussion after a gun shootout against strangers by a juvenile student in the first decade of the 21st century. A clamorous public outcry with repeated media coverage of the said incident led to the projection of empathy as a critical tool for prevention of crimes thereby creating space for a fair and peaceful community. With the likes of Barack Obama promoting empathy, hundreds of books got published elucidating its merits while the lack of the said trait created a yawning gap in providing an equitable society. 

Paul Bloom argues that empathy leads to emotional contagion, the tendency to automatically mimic and experience the same emotions as another person. Such a state seems alright when addressing a grief due to loss of a noble person or an euphoric event like winning a world cup. However, when emotional contagion gets applied to other contexts like a political event or cross border conflicts, it has the following limitations

• Feelings expressed towards similar creed of people while being numb dissimilar group

• It’s emotional rather than rational, leading to lack of reasoning in judgement

• Excessive outburst to events that are in spotlight

• Focus predominantly drifts to smaller sections of victims while the significant one gets ignored. 

A group of people near the concentration camp in Nazi Germany, certainly felt bad and emotionally upset at the mass brutality committed against the Jews. However, their request to the authorities concerned was to stop the act or atleast move it to a faraway place that’s well beyond their sight. None wanted to counter the authorities against such brutality. I believe it’s a valid argument that empathy won’t really make people act even though they feel the pain of victims and are fully aware of the wrongdoing of perpetrators. So, can we conclude that the cost of repercussions associated with an act in favour of victims, disables an act itself ?

An interesting example, though I wouldn’t consider it valid, traces back to 1894, Passau, a German city in close proximity to the Austrian borders. A 4 year old boy merrily played over aufies, a frozen sheet of ice formed over cold water during winter season. A weak section gave way and he fell right into the freezing water, a potential death trap for a little boy. However, a priest named Johann Kühberger witnessed his fall and pulled him out, thereby saving his life. Being a complete stranger to the boy, the act certainly marks itself high on moral grounds and one would be highly indebted for such a person. However, the boy grows into an adult and turns out to be a monster of the highest order, Adolf Hitler.

Paul highlighted the said event and made an argument against empathy leading to disastrous consequences. In hindsight, we can argue that the world would have been a better place had the infamous save not happen but that can at best be only a wishful thought. When assessed from a practical standpoint, it’s impossible to have foresight of such catastrophic consequences. While the choice of being a spectator and letting a young boy drown will always be viewed inhuman. 

There were many more behavioral aspects that were discussed in Paul's narrative against empathy but sadly I never felt they were compelling enough, especially his narrative that it can prove to be bad or even counterproductive. We can agree that empathy may not be a panacea that can solve all social evils but it does leave a positive impression amongst our fellow beings. Paul's case against empathy, I would say dismissed.