N※N

The Politics of the War on Empathy

In the article titled "Empathy Is Not Enough," published in The New York Times, the author delves into a critical examination of empathy as a moral and social compass, drawing on the perspectives of several thinkers and authors, including Paul Bloom, Joe Rigney, Hannah Arendt, and Allie Beth Stuckey. The piece challenges the widely held belief that empathy—often celebrated as a cornerstone of human connection and ethical behavior—is an unalloyed good. Instead, it argues that empathy can be a limited, and sometimes even harmful, guide for decision-making and moral action, particularly when it is unmoored from reason, broader ethical principles, or a clear understanding of justice.

The article begins by addressing the cultural reverence for empathy in contemporary society. Empathy, defined as the ability to understand and share the feelings of others, is frequently touted as a solution to social ills, a way to bridge divides, and a fundamental trait of good character. It is often invoked in discussions of social justice, interpersonal relationships, and even political discourse as a means to foster understanding and compassion. However, the author suggests that this near-universal praise for empathy overlooks its inherent flaws and potential downsides. To explore this contrarian view, the piece turns to the work of Paul Bloom, a psychologist and author of the book *Against Empathy: The Case for Rational Compassion*. Bloom argues that empathy, while emotionally powerful, is a poor tool for moral reasoning. He contends that empathy is often biased, narrow, and prone to manipulation. For instance, people tend to empathize more easily with those who are similar to them or with whom they have a personal connection, which can lead to favoritism or neglect of others who are equally deserving of care but less relatable. Bloom illustrates this with examples such as how people might feel intense empathy for a single, identifiable victim of a tragedy—say, a child whose story is widely publicized—while remaining indifferent to the suffering of thousands in a distant crisis, whose pain is presented in abstract statistics. This "empathy gap" can distort moral priorities, leading to decisions that are emotionally driven rather than rationally justified.

Bloom further argues that empathy can be weaponized. Politicians, advertisers, and even con artists often exploit empathetic responses to sway opinions or extract resources, knowing that emotional appeals can override critical thinking. He suggests that a more reliable guide for moral action is rational compassion—a deliberate, reasoned approach to helping others that prioritizes fairness and effectiveness over visceral emotional reactions. Rational compassion, Bloom posits, allows individuals to step back from their immediate feelings and consider the broader consequences of their actions, ensuring that help is directed where it is most needed, not just where it feels most urgent.

The article also introduces the perspective of Joe Rigney, a theologian and author who critiques empathy from a religious and cultural standpoint in his book *Strangely Bright: Can You Love God and Enjoy This World?*. Rigney warns against what he sees as an overemphasis on empathy in modern Christian thought, arguing that it can lead to a form of moral relativism. He believes that empathy, when elevated above biblical principles or doctrinal truths, risks undermining a clear sense of right and wrong. For Rigney, empathy must be subordinated to a higher moral framework rooted in faith and scripture. Without such grounding, he suggests, empathy can become a slippery slope, encouraging individuals to prioritize feelings over objective truth or divine commandments. His critique resonates with conservative religious communities that view the cultural obsession with empathy as a secular intrusion into spiritual life, one that dilutes the authority of traditional moral teachings.

Adding a historical and philosophical dimension to the discussion, the article references Hannah Arendt, the 20th-century political theorist known for her work on totalitarianism and morality. Arendt’s concept of the "banality of evil," developed in her analysis of the Adolf Eichmann trial, is particularly relevant. Arendt argued that evil often arises not from a lack of empathy but from a failure to think critically and independently. Eichmann, a key architect of the Holocaust, did not necessarily lack the capacity to feel for others; rather, he suspended his moral judgment in favor of bureaucratic obedience. Arendt’s work suggests that empathy alone is insufficient to prevent atrocities if individuals do not engage in active, reflective thought about their actions and the systems they participate in. Her insights challenge the notion that fostering empathy is a panacea for societal wrongs, emphasizing instead the importance of moral reasoning and personal responsibility.

The piece also touches on the views of Allie Beth Stuckey, a conservative commentator and author of *You're Not Enough (And That's Okay)*. Stuckey critiques the self-help culture’s focus on empathy as part of a broader narrative of self-affirmation and emotional validation. She argues that an overreliance on empathy—both for oneself and others—can foster a victimhood mentality, where personal accountability is diminished in favor of endless understanding and accommodation. Stuckey believes that tough love and clear boundaries, rather than unchecked empathy, are often more beneficial for personal growth and societal health. Her perspective aligns with a growing skepticism among some conservative thinkers about the progressive emphasis on emotional sensitivity, which they see as weakening resilience and moral clarity.

Throughout the article, the author weaves these diverse perspectives into a cohesive argument that empathy, while valuable in certain contexts, is not a standalone virtue. The piece highlights how empathy can be selective, leading to unfairness; how it can be exploited, leading to manipulation; and how it can overshadow other critical faculties, such as reason and justice. The author does not dismiss empathy outright but calls for a more nuanced understanding of its role in human life. Empathy, the article suggests, should be balanced with rational thought, ethical principles, and a commitment to fairness. Without such balance, it risks becoming a shallow or even destructive force.

In exploring real-world implications, the article points to policy decisions as an area where empathy’s limitations are particularly evident. For example, emotionally charged responses to individual stories of hardship can lead to policies that address visible, sympathetic issues while ignoring larger, systemic problems that lack a human face. Similarly, in personal relationships, an overemphasis on empathy might prevent individuals from making difficult but necessary decisions, such as holding others accountable or prioritizing long-term well-being over short-term comfort.

The article concludes by urging readers to rethink the pedestal on which empathy is often placed. It acknowledges the instinctive appeal of empathy as a human trait but insists that it must be paired with other tools—reason, justice, and moral courage—to truly serve the greater good. By drawing on the insights of Bloom, Rigney, Arendt, and Stuckey, the piece paints a complex picture of empathy as a double-edged sword, capable of both uniting and dividing, healing and harming. Ultimately, it advocates for a more discerning approach to compassion, one that recognizes the heart’s impulses but does not let them rule unchecked. This critical examination of empathy serves as a reminder that even the most cherished human qualities require scrutiny and balance to fulfill their potential for good in a complicated world.

Read the Full The New York Times Article at:
[ https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/18/books/review/empathy-paul-bloom-joe-rigney-hannah-arendt-allie-beth-stuckey.html ]