The case against empathy

Wow, the New Yorker is blitzing against empathy. Paul Bloom's The Baby in the Well, is a very interesting article on empathy, the research around it, and - ultimately, the supposed dangers of relying too much on empathy.

And it is a crappy article.

Why do we use a word as strong as "crappy'?

First, because Mr. Bloom is a smart man who knows how to write well, with an easy, flowing and eventually misdirecting prose.

The article hinges on an opposition of empathy on one side and reason on the other. Without empathy vs. reason, it is hardly worth writing it. Empathy is fundamentally an emotional, pretty general phenomenon. Reason depends on the cultural framework of society to a far greater extent than empathy does. Reason has undergone tremendous changes in the Western world in the last few hundred years. Empathy has not.
The sensationalized public display of what may be empathy is also a very culturally typed behavior.
"This enthusiasm may be misplaced, however. Empathy has some unfortunate features—it is parochial, narrow-minded, and innumerate."
These are claims out of the air -- at least not supported by quotes like some of the arguments in the article.
Another claim that appears out of thin air: "Our best hope for the future is not to get people to think of all humanity as family—that’s impossible. It lies, instead, in an appreciation of the fact that, even if we don’t empathize with distant strangers, their lives have the same value as the lives of those we love."

Why exactly is it impossible to think of all humans as a family?  How can you arrive at that "same value" through reason when you are basing that reason on the emotional state of love, "those we love"?

Second, because empathy and retribution are being strongly linked. We won't dispute that you may find a bit of that but here is the example: "On many issues, empathy can pull us in the wrong direction. The outrage that comes from adopting the perspective of a victim can drive an appetite for retribution. (Think of those statutes named for dead children: Megan’s Law, Jessica’s Law, Caylee’s Law.)"
Note that he does not say "the empathy that comes from" but "the outrage". Outrage is not equal to empathy nor necessarily caused by it. The laws mentioned have a lot more to do with politicians' fears and the willingness of people to aggressively attack others under the guise of "show some empathy".

The article quotes this study: "In one study, conducted by Jonathan Baron and Ilana Ritov, people were asked how best to punish a company for producing a vaccine that caused the death of a child. Some were told that a higher fine would make the company work harder to manufacture a safer product; others were told that a higher fine would discourage the company from making the vaccine, and since there were no acceptable alternatives on the market the punishment would lead to more deaths. Most people didn’t care; they wanted the company fined heavily, whatever the consequence."

The problem there is the fundamental problem of such a what if scenario. We find them highly questionable and of very little value compared to actual observed behavior.

The K-Landnews team has serious doubts about many of the examples from the article, for instance, the "identifiable victim" thing, where the sick child gets lots of donations and this is put in opposition to the sales tax increase required to stave off problems for hospitals in Massachusetts. For some donors, sure, there is an identifiable victim effect, but for many more - we would say - the sums needed to fix the issue are so vastly different that the whole example is really  comparing apples to oranges.

As a logical conclusion of an article based on the artificial opposition of reason vs. empathy and the linking of empathy to outrage and retribution, Mr. Bloom concludes: "But empathy will have to yield to reason if humanity is to have a future."

As a "case against empathy", we proclaim the article a well written failure.

Please try again.