Paul Bloom: Against Empathy

Summary

In this interview, Paul Bloom, author of *Against Empathy: The Case for Rational Compassion*, argues that empathy, while often viewed as a moral virtue, can lead to biased, irrational, and harmful decisions. Bloom explains that empathy can fuel bias, prioritize individuals over larger groups, and be weaponized in politics. He advocates for rational compassion, which focuses on effective altruism and logical reasoning, rather than emotional appeals. Bloom challenges conventional beliefs on empathy's role in political decision-making and social progress, stressing the importance of rationality and fairness in moral and political judgments.

Takeaways

• 😀 Empathy is often considered a virtue, but Paul Bloom argues in his book that it can be a poor moral guide and sometimes leads to irrational decisions.
• 😀 Empathy can be biased, favoring those who are similar to us in terms of appearance, nationality, or social group, which can lead to unfair moral judgments.
• 😀 Empathy can lead to misguided decisions, such as focusing on the suffering of a single person while neglecting the needs of many others.
• 😀 Empathy can be weaponized, particularly in politics, where unscrupulous leaders use it to stir up aggression and cruelty towards certain groups.
• 😀 The case of the Newtown shooting illustrates how empathy can cause people to act in ways that, despite their good intentions, might make things worse, like sending unnecessary gifts to the grieving town.
• 😀 Rational compassion, rather than emotional empathy, should guide our moral decisions. Effective altruism focuses on making the most positive impact rather than responding emotionally.
• 😀 While it is human nature to feel more empathy for those we encounter personally or who are similar to us, rational thinking is crucial to addressing global challenges like climate change.
• 😀 Empathy tends to drive political decisions by focusing on the suffering of individuals, but this emotional appeal does not always lead to wise policy choices or solutions.
• 😀 Paul Bloom points out that both conservative and liberal sides in politics use empathy to push their agendas, which can lead to flawed moral reasoning.
• 😀 Bloom argues that while empathy has led to some positive social changes (like in the case of slavery), it can also perpetuate negative outcomes, such as racial biases or support for harmful policies.
• 😀 Rationality and the expansion of human rights have driven social progress, rather than empathy, which can sometimes support divisive and harmful ideologies.

Q & A

What is the main argument Paul Bloom makes in his book 'Against Empathy'?

Paul Bloom argues that empathy, while often seen as a moral and emotional guide, can lead to biased, irrational, and even harmful decisions. He advocates for rational compassion instead, suggesting it is a more effective and fair way to make moral decisions.

How does Paul Bloom define empathy in the context of his book?

Bloom defines empathy as the ability to feel what others feel—whether their happiness or pain. He argues that this kind of emotional connection can distort moral judgment and decision-making, as it often leads to biased, disproportionate, and emotional responses.

What are some of the problems with empathy as a moral guide, according to Bloom?

Bloom identifies several issues with empathy as a moral guide: it is biased (we feel more empathy for people who are like us), it is numerically inefficient (we focus on the suffering of one individual over many others), and it can be weaponized (used to incite aggression or cruelty towards certain groups).

What is 'effective altruism' and how does it relate to Bloom's argument?

Effective altruism is a concept Bloom supports, where individuals focus on helping others in ways that have the greatest positive impact. It emphasizes rational decision-making over emotional responses, ensuring that help is directed where it can do the most good rather than being motivated by how it makes the giver feel.

Why does Bloom argue that empathy can be 'weaponized'?

Bloom argues that empathy can be weaponized by unscrupulous leaders or demagogues, who use people’s emotional responses to suffering to justify actions that may lead to violence or cruelty towards other groups. Empathy for one group’s suffering can be manipulated to incite hostility towards others.

Can you explain Bloom's example of the Newtown shooting and how it demonstrates his view on empathy?

After the Newtown shooting, people sent excessive gifts like teddy bears and money to the victims, even though they were requested to stop. Bloom argues that this demonstrates how empathy can lead to misguided actions, where people focus on satisfying their own emotional responses rather than addressing what the victims truly needed.

What does Bloom suggest is a better response to events like the Newtown shooting?

Bloom suggests that a better response would be to focus on practical help that addresses the actual needs of the community, such as sending aid to places where it would have a greater impact, rather than acting based on emotional impulses that might not align with the victims’ needs.

How does Bloom explain the discrepancy in empathy when it comes to helping a single person versus a large group?

Bloom acknowledges that it’s natural for people to feel more empathy for a single individual they can personally relate to, but he argues that when making decisions about helping others, we should prioritize the greatest overall benefit—helping more people, even if we don’t have the same emotional connection to them.

What role does neuroscience play in Bloom’s argument about empathy?

Bloom refers to neuroscience studies to show that empathy is not a neutral or objective force. For example, studies show that people feel empathy more strongly for those they like or those who are similar to them. This supports his argument that empathy can be biased and lead to irrational moral judgments.

How does Bloom explain the relationship between empathy and politics?

Bloom suggests that both conservative and liberal political positions use empathy to garner support. However, he argues that this is an irrational way to guide moral decisions, as empathy can be manipulated by both sides to push particular agendas. He suggests that moral and political decisions should be based on rational thinking rather than emotional appeals.