Against empathy
"We often think of our capacity to experience the suffering of others as the ultimate source of goodness. Many of our wisest policy-makers, activists, scientists, and philosophers agree that the only problem with empathy is that we don't have enough of it. Nothing could be farther from the truth, argues Yale researcher Paul Bloom. In Against Empathy, Bloom reveals empathy to be one of the leading motivators of inequality and immorality in society. Far from helping us to improve the lives of others, empathy is a capricious and irrational emotion that appeals to our narrow prejudices. It muddles our judgment and, ironically, often leads to cruelty. We are at our best when we are smart enough not to rely on it, but to draw instead upon a more distanced compassion. Basing his argument on groundbreaking scientific findings, Bloom makes the case that some of the worst decisions made by individuals and nations--whom to give money to, when to go to war, how to respond to climate change, and whom to imprison--are too often motivated by honest, yet misplaced, emotions. With precision and wit, he demonstrates how empathy distorts our judgment in every aspect of our lives, from philanthropy and charity to the justice system and from medical care and education to parenting and marriage. Without empathy, Bloom insists, our decisions would be clearer, fairer, and--yes--ultimately more moral."--Dust jacket flap.
Stats for nerds
9recommend
22mentions
21people
2017–2025years
41% recommend59% neutral
Mentions per year
What Hacker News says
- to reference/recommend this book, I swiped a blurb from a ddg search:
Against Empathy: The Case for Rational Compassion is a 2016 book written by psychologist Paul Bloom. The book draws on the distinctions between empathy, compassion, and moral decision making. Bloom argues that empathy is not the solution to problems that divide people and is a poor guide for decision making.
- >I've been accused of having "pathological empathy" before [1], and to this day I refuse to accept that empathy is a weakness.
To put it in a different context, the psychologist Paul Bloom wrote an interesting book titled "Against Empathy." He makes a distinction between "emotional empathy" and "cognitive empathy". He is an advocate of the latter, while acknowledging that the former can lead to many sub-optimal outcomes.
- Yes, nobody (including utilitarians!) thinks you're actually able to calculate the exact number of utilons without omniscience. There aren't probes in your brain to determine what fraction of a utilon you get from looking at a cute puppy. Lots of utilitarians try to determine aggregate effects on utility given the data we have available, and then use that as input to make best-guess shorthand rules for maximizing utility. And generally, efficient charities > inefficient charities, and donating [from well-employed people] > fuzzy-maximizing hours. YMMV and it doesn't apply to every possible lawyer or situation, only the majority of them. (Critical thinking still required.)
Hence why so many utilitarians use contractualism/virtue ethics/etc for day-to-day decisions; utility is the "reason" that informs big-picture decisions, but it's too impractical to start crunching numbers at every possible crossroads. See also: the many, many warnings against "naive act utilitarianism" even from within big utilitarian groups (LW, EA, 80k, etc.).
Pretty sure we've veered off from the actual problem the original post is getting at, but if you want to talk more about the practicalities of utilitarianism, I'd be very happy to (or to link to SEP/LW/EA essays that dig more into this issue). :-)
One great book that addresses this issue specifically is Against Empathy, on the limits of reasoning by what "feels" best (while still respecting that it's impossible to perfectly calculate utility irl); would highly recommend if you're interested.
- There's a great book discussion this problem https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Against_Empathy
- I'm wondering why empathy is such a hot topic... , I don't think our goal is to empathize more with other people. Really liked the point Paul Bloom made with his book about Rational Compasion: https://www.amazon.com/Against-Empathy-Case-Rational-Compass...
We should be able to understand how smb feels, not feel the same.
Personally, I'm quite interested in why/when people are synchronizing their movements. Shameless self plug: http://kaikunze.de/papers/pdf/gupta2019blink.pdf Don't know why it happens yet our eye blinks and head nods are synchronizing when we talk face-to-face (versus back to back).
- > Most people were more interested in how it made them feel to do something nice for sick kids. I didn't understand that, I thought the goal was to perform the maximum amount of good for the kids.
I recommend two books:
1. Against Empathy: The Case for Rational Compassion by Paul Bloom https://www.harpercollins.com/9780062339355/against-empathy/ Summary: people should be more compassionate, not more empathetic.
2. The Elephant in the Brain: Hidden Motives in Everyday Life http://elephantinthebrain.com/ Summary: 80% of what people do is signalling for others and themselves.
You were not wrong. It's just that these company exercises are all about social signalling. Instead of sitting in a circle and everyone telling everyone else about their values and empathy and personal development they did some task that achieved the same.
