Interview with Paul Bloom

Summary

In this conversation, Paul Bloom challenges the widespread belief that empathy is essential for moral decision-making. In his book *Against Empathy*, he argues that empathy—feeling others' emotions—can lead to biased, irrational, and sometimes harmful choices, especially in politics and large-scale issues. Bloom advocates for 'rational compassion,' which uses reason and broader perspectives to guide actions rather than emotional responses. He highlights how empathy can be weaponized for political gain and misguide efforts, such as in the case of mass tragedies like the Newtown shooting. Bloom urges a more thoughtful, logical approach to moral and political decisions.

Takeaways

• 😀 Empathy, defined as feeling what others feel, can be a poor moral guide because it often leads to biased, irrational, and unfair judgments.
• 😀 Empathy is selective, often favoring those who resemble ourselves in terms of identity, appearance, and background, while neglecting others.
• 😀 The emotional response to suffering, such as after tragedies like Sandy Hook, can lead to misguided actions, like sending unwanted gifts, rather than helping in practical, meaningful ways.
• 😀 Bloom argues for rational compassion, which involves making decisions based on what will help the most people, rather than acting on emotional impulses.
• 😀 Empathy, while it can motivate good deeds in some contexts, can also be weaponized for political manipulation, stoking division and aggression.
• 😀 Both liberal and conservative political movements use empathy, but this leads to poor policy-making since decisions are often based on emotional appeals rather than reasoned thought.
• 😀 Empathy can distort large-scale moral and political decisions, as it tends to focus on individuals rather than broader, more logical solutions to complex issues.
• 😀 Bloom highlights how empathy can sometimes support harmful causes, citing historical examples like *The Birth of a Nation*, which exploited empathy for racial divisions.
• 😀 The neurological basis for empathy shows it is not universally applied but rather influenced by factors like group identity, which can lead to biased behavior.
• 😀 The moral progress humanity has made over time, such as expanding rights to marginalized groups, has not been due to increased empathy, but rather a growing commitment to rationality and justice.
• 😀 Bloom emphasizes that rational thought, not emotional empathy, should be the guiding principle for political leaders and decision-making, as it leads to more effective and fair outcomes.

Q & A

What is the central argument presented in Paul Bloom's book 'Against Empathy'?

Paul Bloom argues that empathy, the ability to feel what others feel, is a poor moral guide and can lead to irrational decisions, bias, and sometimes cruelty. He advocates for rational compassion, focusing on practical and effective ways to help others rather than relying on emotional empathy.

How does Bloom define empathy in his book?

Bloom defines empathy as the act of feeling what others feel—experiencing their happiness or pain. He distinguishes this from other forms of understanding, such as compassion or cognitive empathy, which do not necessarily involve sharing emotions.

What are some of the negative effects of empathy, according to Bloom?

According to Bloom, empathy can be biased, as people tend to feel more empathy for those who resemble them or belong to their group. It can also lead to foolish decisions by focusing on the suffering of a few rather than the needs of many. Furthermore, empathy can be weaponized, used to justify violence or cruelty against others.

Can empathy lead to rational political decisions?

No, Bloom argues that empathy does not lead to rational political decisions. He claims that it is often used by politicians to manipulate emotions, leading to unfair and biased policies. Both liberal and conservative sides use empathy, but it can cloud judgment and hinder fair decision-making.

Why does Bloom believe that empathy is a biased emotion?

Bloom believes empathy is biased because it is naturally directed toward those who are similar to us, such as people from our own country, social group, or those who are physically attractive. Empathy tends to exclude people who are different, and this bias can manifest in racist or unjust decisions.

How does Bloom use the example of the Newtown shooting to illustrate the dangers of empathy?

Bloom discusses how after the Newtown shooting, people sent gifts such as teddy bears to the town, even though the residents asked for them to stop. This empathic urge to act, although well-meaning, led to a situation where the resources were misdirected, which could have been better used elsewhere.

What is 'effective altruism,' and how does it differ from empathy-driven actions?

Effective altruism is a philosophy of helping others in ways that maximize the positive impact, focusing on the most effective solutions rather than acting based on emotional responses. Bloom argues that this approach is more rational than empathy-driven giving, which is often guided by feelings rather than the actual needs of people.

How does empathy contribute to the emotional appeal in political campaigns, as discussed in Bloom's book?

Empathy is frequently used in political campaigns to generate emotional responses from voters. Politicians often share stories of suffering or injustice to stir up empathy, but Bloom argues that this emotional appeal can cloud rational judgment and lead to policy decisions based on feelings rather than logic and practicality.

What does Bloom suggest would be a more rational approach to choosing political leaders?

Bloom suggests that voters should prioritize qualities like intelligence, honesty, discipline, and the ability to make rational decisions when choosing political leaders, rather than focusing on the depth of their emotional empathy. Leaders should be evaluated based on their capacity to enact thoughtful, effective policies.

What role does rationality play in moral progress, according to Bloom?

Bloom argues that rationality, not empathy, has been the driving force behind moral progress. He cites the expansion of human rights and social justice over time as evidence that our morality has become more inclusive and rational, rather than being driven by emotional appeals or empathy.