1장
The Counterintuitive Case Against Our Most Cherished Virtue
When Paul Bloom tells people he's writing a book against empathy, they laugh as if he's said something absurd-like being against kittens or sunshine. Yet Against Empathy has become one of the most thought-provoking works on morality in recent years, challenging our deeply held assumptions about what makes us good. The book has garnered attention from figures ranging from psychologist Steven Pinker to philosopher Peter Singer, who called it "important and entertaining." Since its 2016 publication, it has sparked debate across disciplines from psychology to philosophy to politics. Bloom, the Brooks and Suzanne Ragen Professor of Psychology at Yale University, doesn't argue against compassion or kindness-he argues that feeling others' pain is actually a poor foundation for moral action. As he provocatively puts it: "When I think about empathy, I don't think about kindness. I think about war."
2장
Empathy: Not What You Think It Is
When most people hear "empathy," they think of general kindness or understanding others' perspectives. But Bloom specifically targets emotional empathy-feeling what others feel, experiencing their pain as your own. This differs from cognitive empathy (understanding others' minds without sharing their emotions) and compassion (caring about others' wellbeing without mirroring their feelings). For instance, a doctor needs cognitive empathy to understand a patient's concerns, but too much emotional empathy could impair their clinical judgment.
Empathy seems intuitively good-Obama famously claimed our greatest deficit is "an empathy deficit," and thousands of books promote it as the solution to everything from business success to world peace. The argument is simple: empathy expands our selfish concerns to include others, motivating kindness that wouldn't otherwise occur. Popular media, self-help books, and corporate training programs have embraced this narrative, making empathy a buzzword in leadership and personal development.
But this view misunderstands morality's foundations. Consider the drowning child scenario: if you saw a child drowning in a pond, you'd save them without needing to feel their terror. Many moral judgments aren't grounded in empathy at all. We disapprove of victimless wrongs like littering or tax evasion. Our morality can stem from religious worldviews, philosophical principles, or a more diffuse compassion for humanity. For example, environmentalists protect endangered species they've never seen, and human rights activists fight for people they'll never meet.
People who perform extraordinary acts of kindness aren't necessarily super-empaths. Zell Kravinsky, who donated almost his entire fortune and a kidney to strangers, was motivated by cold mathematical reasoning rather than emotional connection. As Peter Singer argues, such rational altruists may actually help more people than those driven by empathic feelings. Similarly, effective altruism movements focus on maximizing impact through logical analysis rather than emotional resonance.
What really matters for everyday kindness isn't empathy but self-control, intelligence, and diffuse compassion. Those high in empathy can be too caught up in others' suffering to help effectively. Any good parent must sometimes cause temporary unhappiness for long-term benefit-making children do homework, eat vegetables, or get vaccinations. This requires love and compassion but can be impeded by empathy. Healthcare workers, social workers, and first responders often need to maintain emotional distance to function effectively. Studies show that excessive empathy can lead to burnout and compassion fatigue, ultimately reducing one's capacity to help others.
Moreover, empathy can be biased and narrow in scope. We naturally empathize more with those who look like us, share our background, or are physically present. This can lead to preferential treatment and neglect of equally deserving but more distant or different others. True moral progress often requires overcoming these empathic biases in favor of more principled, rational approaches to helping others.
3장
The Spotlight Problem: Empathy's Fatal Flaw
Empathy functions like a spotlight, focusing intensely on certain individuals while leaving everything else in darkness. This narrow focus becomes problematic in a complex world where helping one person now might cause greater future suffering.
The spotlight of empathy shines brightest on those we love and dims for those strange or different. Worse, it can sway us toward the one over the many-why governments care more about a little girl stuck in a well than events affecting millions. Empathy is particularly insensitive to statistical consequences. We empathize with Rebecca Smith, an eight-year-old harmed by a faulty vaccine, but not with the dozen random children who might die if the vaccine program stops.
The Sandy Hook massacre triggered overwhelming empathy because it was a single event rather than steady background noise, and because it's easier for people to empathize with those who seem familiar. The town was flooded with charity that became burdensome-millions of dollars and warehouses of plush toys sent to this affluent community, creating the dark comedy of poorer communities sending money to richer ones due to empathic concern.
Some argue the problem isn't empathy itself but that we need more of it-we should empathize with Chicago's children too, and billions worldwide. But this is impossible. We can intellectually value all lives, but we cannot simultaneously empathize with more than one or two people. As Annie Dillard mocked: "Simply take yourself-in all your singularity, importance, complexity, and love-and multiply by 1,198,500,000. See? Nothing to it."
The Willie Horton case illustrates empathy's statistical blindness. The furlough program that released him (leading to a rape) actually reduced recidivism rates overall, making the world safer. But we empathize with Horton's victims while remaining unmoved by the statistical lives saved by the program.
4장
The Science of Empathy: Weaker Than We Think
The research linking empathy to moral behavior faces several significant methodological challenges that complicate our understanding. Self-report measures are inherently biased, as people tend to rate themselves more empathetic than they actually are in practice. Additionally, other personality traits and social skills frequently correlate with empathy, making it difficult to isolate empathy's unique effects. The measurement scales themselves present problems, often conflating empathy with related but distinct qualities like social intelligence and emotional regulation.
Even when accounting for these factors that should artificially inflate the relationship between empathy and prosocial behavior, the actual correlation remains surprisingly weak. Studies attempting to predict helpful or altruistic actions from empathy scores consistently show modest results, suggesting that feeling others' emotions may not translate directly into moral behavior as commonly assumed.
Perhaps most counterintuitive is the remarkably weak relationship between low empathy and aggressive behavior. A comprehensive meta-analysis titled "The (Non)Relation Between Empathy and Aggression" examined hundreds of studies and found that only about 1% of variation in aggressive behavior could be explained by lack of empathy. This makes empathy one of the least reliable predictors of aggressive conduct, far behind factors like impulse control, anger management, and social environmental influences. Even individuals diagnosed with antisocial personality disorder, often characterized by empathy deficits, show considerable variation in aggressive tendencies.
High empathy scores don't necessarily indicate moral character, and low empathy doesn't automatically predict antisocial behavior. Research suggests that genuine moral behavior may instead arise from more cognitively distanced feelings of compassion and care - the ability to consider others' welfare without becoming emotionally overwhelmed. Conversely, harmful behavior appears to stem more from deficits in compassion, self-regulation, and moral reasoning than from simple lack of empathy.
The widely-used Baron-Cohen Empathy Quotient illustrates the measurement challenges in empathy research. While purporting to measure empathy, it includes numerous questions about social skills, conversation ability, and comfort in social situations - factors that may correlate with but are distinct from pure empathy. Similar scales frequently bundle together empathy, compassion, general concern for others, and even unrelated traits like remaining calm in emergencies. This conflation of different characteristics makes it difficult to determine empathy's specific role in moral behavior and social functioning.
These findings suggest we may need to reconsider empathy's centrality in moral development and prosocial behavior. While empathy likely plays some role, other factors like compassion, self-control, and moral reasoning may be more crucial targets for intervention when trying to promote positive social behavior and reduce aggression.
5장
Empathy in Politics: No Party Owns It
When arguing against empathy, Bloom often faces challenges about his political agenda. Many people associate empathy with liberal, left-wing, and progressive views on issues like gay marriage, gun control, abortion, immigration, and universal healthcare. This assumption has become so deeply ingrained that questioning empathy's value is often interpreted as an attack on progressive values themselves.
Research does support some connection between liberalism and empathy. Self-defined liberals score significantly higher on standard empathy measures than conservatives, though these differences aren't enormous. Studies using the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI) and similar measures consistently show this pattern. This may help explain why women, who tend to be more empathic than men, are statistically more likely to be liberal. The gender gap in political affiliation has been documented across multiple decades and cultures.
However, this connection isn't as strong as commonly believed. Some prominent liberal politicians, like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, present themselves as rational technocrats rather than empathic figures, while some conservatives like Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush excel at projecting empathic connection. Reagan's "Great Communicator" persona was built largely on his ability to emotionally connect with voters. Many policies associated with liberalism are also endorsed by libertarians, who consistently measure as the least empathic individuals on psychological scales. This suggests that support for progressive policies can stem from rational calculation rather than emotional resonance.
More importantly, both liberals and conservatives use empathy in political debates-they just focus on different individuals. On gun control, liberals emphasize victims of gun violence while conservatives highlight defenseless homeowners protecting their families. On immigration, liberals share stories of separated families while conservatives focus on victims of crimes committed by illegal immigrants. On torture, Dick Cheney defended harsh techniques by evoking empathy for 9/11 victims, while opponents highlighted the suffering of detainees. Both sides object to offensive speech that targets their valued groups, showing how empathy can be selectively deployed.
There is no "Party of Empathy"-empathy drives concerns about people in the here and now, which sometimes aligns with liberal causes and sometimes with conservative ones. The cost of empathy-driven politics is massive and often counterproductive. It explains why societies can be transfixed by a girl stuck in a well while remaining indifferent to climate change that threatens millions, or why a single tragic story can drive policy more effectively than statistical evidence. This dynamic leads to what psychologists call "scope insensitivity" - our inability to scale our emotional responses proportionally to the magnitude of problems. It's why we enact savage laws or enter terrible wars when feeling for the suffering of a few leads to disastrous consequences for many. Historical examples like the War on Drugs and post-9/11 military interventions demonstrate how empathy-driven responses can create far more suffering than they prevent.
6장
Empathy in Close Relationships: A Mixed Blessing
What qualities do people seek in romantic partners? When psychologists surveyed thousands of people across many cultures, they found that despite some gender differences in preferences for traits like youth or status, men and women agreed on the most important quality: kindness.
For many people, kindness implies empathy. Common sense suggests that more empathic individuals make better partners, friends, doctors, therapists, coaches, and teachers. While Bloom has argued against empathy at the policy level, intimate relationships present a different context where empathy's problems might actually become advantages.
The biased, spotlight nature of empathy that makes it problematic for fair moral decision-making might be perfect for personal relationships, where we want to be special to our loved ones rather than just "one of the multitude." Empathy may have evolved specifically to facilitate one-on-one relationships like those between parents and children, making its failures most apparent when extended beyond its evolved purpose.
However, even in close relationships, extreme empathy can become problematic. Baron-Cohen presents "Hannah," a psychotherapist with an "unstoppable drive to empathize" who immediately tunes into others' emotional states. But this hyperarousal and unstoppable drive to empathize may represent what psychologists call "unmitigated communion"-an excessive concern with others that places their needs before one's own.
Women typically score higher than men on unmitigated communion scales, which measure agreement with statements like "For me to be happy, I need others to be happy" and "I can't say no when someone asks me for help." Research shows this trait correlates with being overprotective, intrusive, and self-sacrificing. Those high in unmitigated communion often have asymmetrical relationships, providing care but uncomfortable receiving it, and suffer from intrusive thoughts about others' problems.
The problem isn't caring about others (communion) but rather when that caring becomes unbalanced (unmitigated communion). Regular communion-being helpful, kind, and understanding of others-correlates with positive outcomes including good health. The key difference is that communion represents concern and compassion, while unmitigated communion relates more to empathic distress-suffering at others' suffering.
7장
Empathy in Medicine: When Emotional Distance Heals
Despite empathy being named an "essential learning objective" by medical associations worldwide, its literal application can be problematic for healthcare providers. Surgeon Christine Montross explains that truly empathizing with patients would be incapacitating-imagining her own son in place of a grieving mother's would render her unable to provide care. This challenge becomes particularly acute in emergency situations or during complex procedures where clear-headed decision-making is crucial. Many surgeons report developing specific psychological strategies to maintain professional distance while still providing compassionate care.
The costs of empathy appear throughout medical professions, manifesting in various ways across different specialties. Nursing students prone to deep empathy spend less time with patients and more time seeking support from colleagues, potentially compromising patient care. Studies show these students experience higher rates of burnout and compassion fatigue. For therapists dealing constantly with emotional pain, empathic responses would make their work impossible. Good therapists maintain engagement with clients' problems without mirroring their emotional states-they employ understanding and caring, not empathy. This approach, sometimes called "detached concern" or "professional empathy," allows them to remain effective while protecting their own mental health.
Patients value cognitive empathy (being listened to and understood) and compassion, but not necessarily emotional mirroring. Research indicates they often benefit most from doctors who remain calm when they're anxious and confident when they're uncertain. In surgical settings, patients consistently rate technical competence and clear communication higher than emotional warmth. Qualities like competence, honesty, professionalism and respect matter more than emotional empathy. Studies of patient satisfaction show that trust in a physician's expertise and their ability to explain complex medical information clearly outweigh their capacity for emotional connection.
Leslie Jamison illustrates this through her own experience with doctors, noting that while cold doctors caused her pain, she appreciated one who maintained reassuring distance: "I wanted to look at him and see the opposite of my fear, not its echo." This perspective is echoed in numerous patient testimonials where clinical competence combined with professional detachment provided the most comfort. Medical educators now increasingly focus on teaching "balanced empathy" - an approach that combines understanding and compassion with appropriate professional boundaries and emotional regulation.
The medical profession continues to evolve in its understanding of empathy's role, with many institutions developing specific training programs that help healthcare providers strike the right balance between connection and distance. This includes techniques for maintaining professional boundaries while still demonstrating care and understanding, and strategies for preventing emotional exhaustion while serving patients effectively.
8장
Empathy and Violence: The Surprising Connection
In April 1945, American liberators at Dachau concentration camp tortured and executed captured German soldiers in a stark demonstration of how moral outrage can fuel violence. Captain David Wilsey's chilling account described watching SS officers being tortured with ice water before being shot "without a single disturbed emotion BECAUSE THEY SO HAD-IT-COMING." The soldiers felt morally justified - even compelled - to exact revenge after witnessing the horrific evidence of Nazi atrocities. These weren't inherently violent men or psychopaths, but ordinary soldiers driven by profound moral indignation and empathetic response to the victims' suffering.
While moral convictions often drive violence and cruelty, human aggression can also emerge from more basic motivations: the pursuit of wealth, sexual dominance, or social status. However, not everyone readily inflicts suffering on others for personal gain. This variation in human behavior suggests internal mechanisms that constrain our capacity for cruelty, with empathy potentially serving as a crucial brake system-restraining our baser impulses of greed, anger, and revenge.
Jonathan Glover's account of George Orwell during the Spanish Civil War provides a powerful illustration of empathy's restraining force. Orwell found himself unable to shoot an enemy soldier scrambling to hold up his falling trousers because "a man who is holding up his trousers isn't a 'fascist'; he is visibly a fellow creature." This moment of recognition - seeing the fundamental humanity in an enemy - demonstrates how empathy can short-circuit violence by forcing us to acknowledge our shared human experience.
However, Bloom presents a compelling counterargument: empathy frequently acts as an accelerator of conflict rather than its brake. When people think of empathy, they typically associate it with compassion and kindness. But Bloom provocatively suggests we should think of war instead. This isn't mere rhetoric - historical evidence shows how empathetic identification with one's own group can intensify hostilities.
Modern conflicts repeatedly demonstrate this pattern. Countries rarely mobilize for war through rational analysis of costs and benefits. Instead, they gain popular support through emotional appeals about past injuries to their people. The Israeli public's reaction to three murdered teenagers or Hamas's strategic use of Palestinian civilian casualties to generate international support exemplify how empathy for one's own group can escalate violence rather than prevent it.
Scientific research has begun to confirm this counter-intuitive connection between empathy and aggression. Laboratory studies reveal that subjects who felt stronger empathy toward victims were significantly more likely to seek confrontation with perpetrators. In a particularly telling experiment, participants administered more painful doses of hot sauce to an innocent competitor when they felt empathy for someone describing financial distress - even though the competitor had no connection to the situation. The finding that people carrying genes associated with greater sensitivity to empathy-related hormones showed stronger correlations between empathy and aggressive behavior provides compelling biological evidence for this relationship.
This complex dynamic suggests that empathy is neither inherently peaceful nor violent, but rather a powerful emotional force that can be channeled in either direction depending on context and target.
9장
The Case for Rational Morality
Aristotle defined humans as rational animals, but the failure of A&W's Third Pounder burger challenges this notion. Despite having more beef at a lower price than McDonald's Quarter Pounder and performing better in taste tests, customers rejected it because they mistakenly believed 1/3 was smaller than 1/4. This mathematical confusion aligns with Bloom's theme that humans often rely on gut feelings and emotional responses rather than rational thought, leading to needless suffering.
While we're influenced by gut feelings like empathy, we're not slaves to them. We can do better through rational deliberation. This dual nature of emotion versus reason is psychology's oldest theory, from Plato to modern "System 1" and "System 2" thinking. Yet many now dismiss deliberative reasoning as impotent or politically suspect.
Many see social psychology findings as devastating to human rationality, with Jonathan Haidt suggesting conscious reasoning is merely post-hoc justification for decisions already made. But Bloom finds this view problematic. Many of these findings are fragile, failing to replicate in subsequent studies. Even robust findings often lack real-world significance-statistically significant doesn't mean actually significant. Most importantly, even the most powerful demonstrations of irrationality actually reveal our capacity for reason-we can recognize these biases as mistakes!
Our everyday functioning demonstrates remarkable rationality. Mundane activities require complex planning beyond any computer's capability. Intelligence remains critically important at any level-IQ correlates with job performance, staying out of prison, mental health, stable relationships, and even longevity. High intelligence also correlates with better behavior, with intelligent people committing fewer violent crimes and showing greater cooperation.
While intelligence is necessary but not sufficient for goodness, self-control may be even more important-children who demonstrated patience in marshmallow tests had better life outcomes, and exceptional altruists show unusually high self-control. Adam Smith identified these same qualities-"superior reason and understanding" and "self-command"-as most useful to a person.
The expansion of our moral circle throughout history reflects not increased empathy but rational recognition of others' equal value, as Pinker notes: "What really has expanded is not so much a circle of empathy as a circle of rights."
10장
A Better Path to Goodness
Bloom doesn't argue against compassion or morality-he argues against the specific act of feeling what others feel. The worry that without empathy we'd only care about ourselves reflects an impoverished moral imagination. Everyday examples show good acts-from saving drowning children to donating kidneys-often aren't motivated by empathy. Many people act from a general sense of duty toward those less fortunate.
The Effective Altruism movement embodies this balanced approach, combining "both the heart and the head"-using emotional motivation to do good while applying rational assessment to maximize impact. Despite Zell Kravinsky's claim that people don't understand math, the real problem is they often don't care about it. Yet many people do want to do what's right, not just what feels good.
Instead of trying to make others more "weighty" by raising them to the level of those we love, Elaine Scarry suggests making ourselves less weighty-bringing everyone to the same level by diminishing ourselves. This depersonalization approach removes bias more efficiently than trying to empathize equally with everyone.
This depersonalization already underpins fair decision-making processes like blind reviewing and auditions. When faced with potential bias (like evaluating your own daughter for an award), we don't try to love all candidates equally-we recuse ourselves so impartial judges can decide.
Contrary to Simon Baron-Cohen's concern that removing empathy leads to Nazi-like rational systems of extermination, Bloom clarifies that his alternative to empathy still includes compassion. Any proper cost-benefit analysis would consider happiness, thriving, and suffering as crucial factors, making mass murder an intolerable cost.
In the end, Bloom's argument isn't that empathy is always bad or that we should eliminate it entirely. Rather, he suggests that both empathy and anger should be treated similarly-not eliminated entirely, but moderated by intelligence, concern for others, and self-control, serving as "reliable and useful servants-but never masters."
