Great Thinkers: Does Empathy Really Make Us Better People?

Introduction

People tend to view empathy, or the ability to feel and relate to other people’s emotions, as a positive trait. Empathy helps us understand each other’s perspectives so we can communicate better and be more considerate. When it comes to moral decision-making, however, the role of empathy isn’t so clear-cut. Does feeling other people’s emotions help you make kinder, more compassionate decisions? Or does it distract and mislead you? Let’s see what three Great Thinkers have to say about the subject.

Hume: Empathy Is the Core of Morality

We’ll start with the pro-empathy camp—Great Thinkers who believe that empathy makes people moral. Eighteenth-century Scottish philosopher David Hume offers a classic example of this argument. In his essay “Of the Delicacy of Taste and Passion,” Hume argues that empathy determines who we help or hurt, which is an essential component of morality. It encourages us to be kind to the people close to us, since seeing them happy makes us happy. It also discourages us from hurting others, since we’ll experience a version of their pain indirectly. Without empathy, we might not care at all about the people we hurt and might ignore morality altogether.

Hume is not alone in viewing empathy as a fundamental building block of moral human interactions. In The Age of Empathy and Primates and Philosophers, Dutch primatologist Frans de Waal argues that humans evolved to be empathetic because empathy encourages social cohesion—and sticking together was how our ancestors survived in the wild. De Waal suggests that empathy, along with other evolved prosocial traits like fairness, turned into morality in modern humans.

The easiest way to put Hume’s empathy-centric model of morality into practice is with the golden rule—treating others the way you want to be treated. Following the golden rule makes you consider how your actions will impact others by comparing their potential reactions to your own emotional experiences. In other words, it encourages you to empathize with not only how they feel right now but also how they might feel depending on what you do. For example, Mandy frequently interrupts Cindy during work meetings. By seeing how frustrated she gets and connecting that to her own dislike of being interrupted, Mandy uses empathy, applies the golden rule, and makes the moral decision to stop interrupting so much.

Arendt: Empathy Clouds Judgment

Now that we’ve covered some of the pro-empathy arguments, let’s cover some Great Thinkers who believe empathy can make you less moral. We’ll start with 20th-century German philosopher Hannah Arendt. In Lectures on Kant’s Political Philosophy, Arendt critiques empathy as an often negative force. She argues that empathy causes people to assume what others are feeling and experience it personally.

This has two consequences: First, it can mislead you. For example, if you think someone is angry and feel their anger, you’ll be less rational and therefore less likely to accept that you might be wrong. Second, you get too close to others to make unclouded moral decisions. When you’re experiencing someone else’s emotions, your judgments will be biased in favor of whatever they feel. These consequences then lead you to make less informed moral decisions—increasing the chance that you’ll make the wrong choice.

Instead of relying on empathy to make moral decisions, Arendt believes you should take a detached, rational view. You can guess what other people are feeling and make informed decisions based on those guesses, but recognize that they aren’t set in stone and that you may be incorrect. In addition, don’t try to experience those feelings yourself, as this’ll get you too emotionally close to the decision at hand and may skew your perspective.

Bloom: Empathy Is Unnecessary

Psychologist David Bloom (Against Empathy) agrees with Arendt that empathy interferes with rational moral decision-making. He argues that the problem with empathy is that it encourages you to be kind, not to be moral. Because you want to see others happy and avoid seeing others hurt, you’ll try to keep everyone happy. But sometimes, doing the right thing means upsetting some people. In addition, empathy tends to be limited in scope. We’re usually only empathetic toward people close to us, as we can only care for so many people before we burn out emotionally. This means that if your morality relies on empathy, you’ll be less inclined to act morally toward strangers.

Bloom suggests that empathy may not be necessary for morality at all—people don’t just do the right thing because it’ll make others feel good. Instead, Bloom argues that you should help other people out of concern for their well-being and your desire to do the right thing. This avoids many of the moral pitfalls of excessive empathy—you’re internally motivated to do good instead of being motivated by the feelings of those around you, giving you a more rational, controlled decision-making process.

Great Thinkers’ Advice for Using Empathy

• David Hume (“Of the Delicacy of Taste and Passion”): Empathy encourages us to be kind to those around us and avoid harming others, both key parts of morality. To put this wisdom into practice, use the golden rule: Treat others as you want to be treated.
• Hannah Arendt (Lectures on Kant’s Political Philosophy): Empathy can mislead us into thinking we understand others and cloud our judgment with emotion. So instead of using empathy to guide your decision-making, take a detached, rational view of the situation.
• David Bloom (Against Empathy): Empathy encourages kindness over morality, and isn’t even necessary for the former. Make moral decisions based on concern and reason instead.

What Do You Think?

Think about a difficult moral decision you had to make in your life. Did empathy play a role in your decision-making process? If so, did it help guide you toward a good outcome, or do you think it misled you?