This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/feb/19/think-empathy-makes-world-better-place-think-again
The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
Previous version
1
Next version
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| Think empathy makes the world a better place? Think again … | |
| (1 day later) | |
| It is often said the rich don’t make enough effort to appreciate what it is like to be poor and if they did we would have more equality and social justice. It’s said that whites don’t have enough empathy for blacks and that men don’t have enough empathy for women. There are many who maintain that if certain politicians had more empathy, they wouldn’t be endorsing such rotten policies. I used to believe this as well. Empathy has its merits. It can be a great source of pleasure, involved in art, fiction and sports. And it can be a valuable aspect of intimate relationships. But it’s a poor moral guide. It grounds foolish judgments and often motivates indifference and cruelty. It can lead to irrational and unfair political decisions. It makes the world worse. | It is often said the rich don’t make enough effort to appreciate what it is like to be poor and if they did we would have more equality and social justice. It’s said that whites don’t have enough empathy for blacks and that men don’t have enough empathy for women. There are many who maintain that if certain politicians had more empathy, they wouldn’t be endorsing such rotten policies. I used to believe this as well. Empathy has its merits. It can be a great source of pleasure, involved in art, fiction and sports. And it can be a valuable aspect of intimate relationships. But it’s a poor moral guide. It grounds foolish judgments and often motivates indifference and cruelty. It can lead to irrational and unfair political decisions. It makes the world worse. |
| The main problem with empathy is that it works like a spotlight, highlighting certain people in the here and now, making their suffering salient to you. This can sometimes be a good thing. Indeed, one of the best arguments in favour of empathy is that it really does make you kinder to the person you are empathising with. This is backed by laboratory research, by everyday experience and by common sense. | The main problem with empathy is that it works like a spotlight, highlighting certain people in the here and now, making their suffering salient to you. This can sometimes be a good thing. Indeed, one of the best arguments in favour of empathy is that it really does make you kinder to the person you are empathising with. This is backed by laboratory research, by everyday experience and by common sense. |
| So if the world were a simple place, where the only difficulties one had to deal with involved a single person in some sort of immediate distress, and where helping that person had positive effects, the case for empathy would be solid. | So if the world were a simple place, where the only difficulties one had to deal with involved a single person in some sort of immediate distress, and where helping that person had positive effects, the case for empathy would be solid. |
| But the world is not a simple place. One problem is that empathy is innumerate, favouring the one over the many. In one classic series of studies, psychologists asked some subjects how much money they would give to help develop a drug that would save the life of one child and asked others how much they would give to save eight children. People would give roughly the same in both cases. But when a third group of subjects was told the child’s name and shown her picture, the donations shot up – now there were greater donations to the one than to the eight. All of these laboratory effects can be seen as manifestations of what has been called “the identifiable victim effect”. | But the world is not a simple place. One problem is that empathy is innumerate, favouring the one over the many. In one classic series of studies, psychologists asked some subjects how much money they would give to help develop a drug that would save the life of one child and asked others how much they would give to save eight children. People would give roughly the same in both cases. But when a third group of subjects was told the child’s name and shown her picture, the donations shot up – now there were greater donations to the one than to the eight. All of these laboratory effects can be seen as manifestations of what has been called “the identifiable victim effect”. |
| This sets up a perverse situation in which the suffering of one can matter more than the suffering of a thousand. To the extent that we can recognise that the numbers are significant when it comes to moral decisions, it’s because of reason, not sentiment. | This sets up a perverse situation in which the suffering of one can matter more than the suffering of a thousand. To the extent that we can recognise that the numbers are significant when it comes to moral decisions, it’s because of reason, not sentiment. |
| Another problem with spotlights is that they only light up what you point them at. They are vulnerable to bias. Neuroscience provides many examples of how empathy picks favourites. Brain areas that correspond to the experience of empathy are sensitive to whether someone is a friend or a foe, part of one’s group or part of an opposing group. They are sensitive to whether the person is pleasing to look at or not and much else. | Another problem with spotlights is that they only light up what you point them at. They are vulnerable to bias. Neuroscience provides many examples of how empathy picks favourites. Brain areas that correspond to the experience of empathy are sensitive to whether someone is a friend or a foe, part of one’s group or part of an opposing group. They are sensitive to whether the person is pleasing to look at or not and much else. |
| These facts about empathy render it a poor guide to moral decision making. A reliance on empathy is part of the reason why people’s desire to help abused dogs or oil-drenched penguins often exceeds their interest in suffering millions in other countries or ethnic minorities in their own. It’s why governments and individuals often care more about a little girl stuck in a well than about crises that affect so many more. | These facts about empathy render it a poor guide to moral decision making. A reliance on empathy is part of the reason why people’s desire to help abused dogs or oil-drenched penguins often exceeds their interest in suffering millions in other countries or ethnic minorities in their own. It’s why governments and individuals often care more about a little girl stuck in a well than about crises that affect so many more. |
| Or consider charity and foreign aid. The philosopher Peter Singer points out that many people are “warm glow” givers. They give small amounts to multiple charities, motivated to spread their money across many causes because each one gives a distinctive little jolt of pleasure, like plucking small treats from a bountiful table of desserts. Their choices are driven not by a rational assessment of what can do the most good, but by the lure of stories and pictures of adorable animals and children. | Or consider charity and foreign aid. The philosopher Peter Singer points out that many people are “warm glow” givers. They give small amounts to multiple charities, motivated to spread their money across many causes because each one gives a distinctive little jolt of pleasure, like plucking small treats from a bountiful table of desserts. Their choices are driven not by a rational assessment of what can do the most good, but by the lure of stories and pictures of adorable animals and children. |
| This doesn’t always lead to positive results. It turns out, for instance, that there is considerable debate over how much western aid to developing nations actually makes a positive difference — and a growing consensus that a lot of it has a negative effect. Many worry that the clearly kindhearted intervention of affluent westerners has made life worse for millions of people. | This doesn’t always lead to positive results. It turns out, for instance, that there is considerable debate over how much western aid to developing nations actually makes a positive difference — and a growing consensus that a lot of it has a negative effect. Many worry that the clearly kindhearted intervention of affluent westerners has made life worse for millions of people. |
| This might seem weird — what could be wrong about sending food to the hungry, giving medical aid to the ill and so on? Part of the problem is that foreign aid decreases the incentives for long-term economic development in the areas that would most benefit from this. Food aid can put local farmers and markets out of business. These are the same sorts of concerns that arise domestically when it comes to corporate bailouts — the money might make things better at the moment, helping people keep their jobs, but it can have negative downstream consequences. Then there is the concern that food aid and medical care for combatants, including those involved in carrying out genocide, can actually end up killing more people than it saves. | This might seem weird — what could be wrong about sending food to the hungry, giving medical aid to the ill and so on? Part of the problem is that foreign aid decreases the incentives for long-term economic development in the areas that would most benefit from this. Food aid can put local farmers and markets out of business. These are the same sorts of concerns that arise domestically when it comes to corporate bailouts — the money might make things better at the moment, helping people keep their jobs, but it can have negative downstream consequences. Then there is the concern that food aid and medical care for combatants, including those involved in carrying out genocide, can actually end up killing more people than it saves. |
| Also, the world contains unscrupulous people who strategically exploit our empathy for bad ends. For instance, the feelings that many have for needy children motivate other individuals to establish a steady supply and so there are orphanages that pay or coerce poor parents to give up their sons and daughters. | Also, the world contains unscrupulous people who strategically exploit our empathy for bad ends. For instance, the feelings that many have for needy children motivate other individuals to establish a steady supply and so there are orphanages that pay or coerce poor parents to give up their sons and daughters. |
| Or consider child beggars. The sight of an emaciated child is shocking to a well-fed westerner and it’s hard for a good person to resist helping out. And yet the act of doing so may end up supporting criminal organisations that enslave and often maim tens of thousands of children and put them out on the streets. By giving, you make the world worse. Actions that appear to help individuals in the short term can have terrible consequences for many more. | Or consider child beggars. The sight of an emaciated child is shocking to a well-fed westerner and it’s hard for a good person to resist helping out. And yet the act of doing so may end up supporting criminal organisations that enslave and often maim tens of thousands of children and put them out on the streets. By giving, you make the world worse. Actions that appear to help individuals in the short term can have terrible consequences for many more. |
| When we see one man oppressed or injured by another, the sympathy which we feel with the distress of the sufferer seems to serve only to animate our fellow-feeling with his resentment against the offender | When we see one man oppressed or injured by another, the sympathy which we feel with the distress of the sufferer seems to serve only to animate our fellow-feeling with his resentment against the offender |
| Many charities do wonderful work; kindness and charitable donations often make the world a better place in precisely the ways they are intended to. But doing actual good, instead of doing what feels good, requires coping with the problems of unintended consequences and being mindful of exploitation from competing, sometimes malicious and greedy interests. To do so, you need to be careful to avoid empathy traps. | Many charities do wonderful work; kindness and charitable donations often make the world a better place in precisely the ways they are intended to. But doing actual good, instead of doing what feels good, requires coping with the problems of unintended consequences and being mindful of exploitation from competing, sometimes malicious and greedy interests. To do so, you need to be careful to avoid empathy traps. |
| Finally, empathy can spark violence; our feelings for the sufferer can motivate anger towards whoever caused the suffering. This ideas was summarised by Adam Smith in 1759: “When we see one man oppressed or injured by another, the sympathy which we feel with the distress of the sufferer seems to serve only to animate our fellow-feeling with his resentment against the offender. We are rejoiced to see him attack his adversary in his turn and are eager and ready to assist him.” | Finally, empathy can spark violence; our feelings for the sufferer can motivate anger towards whoever caused the suffering. This ideas was summarised by Adam Smith in 1759: “When we see one man oppressed or injured by another, the sympathy which we feel with the distress of the sufferer seems to serve only to animate our fellow-feeling with his resentment against the offender. We are rejoiced to see him attack his adversary in his turn and are eager and ready to assist him.” |
| There is now laboratory evidence for such a relationship – people who are highly empathetic tend to be more violent and punitive when they see someone who is suffering. There are many examples of this. Anti-immigrant rhetoric in the US and Europe is often motivated by vivid stories of the suffering of citizens, of rape and assault. When Hitler invaded Poland, the Germans who supported him were incensed by stories of the murder and abuse of fellow Germans by Poles. As the United States and the United Kingdom prepared to invade Iraq over a decade ago, the media presented lurid tales of the abuses committed by Saddam Hussein and his sons. And should we move to an all-out war in Syria, we will see more and more images of atrocities, particularly having to do with children. | There is now laboratory evidence for such a relationship – people who are highly empathetic tend to be more violent and punitive when they see someone who is suffering. There are many examples of this. Anti-immigrant rhetoric in the US and Europe is often motivated by vivid stories of the suffering of citizens, of rape and assault. When Hitler invaded Poland, the Germans who supported him were incensed by stories of the murder and abuse of fellow Germans by Poles. As the United States and the United Kingdom prepared to invade Iraq over a decade ago, the media presented lurid tales of the abuses committed by Saddam Hussein and his sons. And should we move to an all-out war in Syria, we will see more and more images of atrocities, particularly having to do with children. |
| I’m not a pacifist. I believe that the suffering of innocents can sometimes warrant military intervention. But empathy tilts the scale too much in favour of violent action. It directs us to think about the benefits of war, of avenging those who have suffered, rescuing those who are at further risk. In contrast, the costs of war are abstract and statistical and a lot of these costs fall upon those we don’t care about and hence don’t empathise with. Once the war is under way, one can try to elicit empathy for those who have suffered, particularly those on one’s own side, because now the costs have become tangible and specific. But by then, it’s often too late. | I’m not a pacifist. I believe that the suffering of innocents can sometimes warrant military intervention. But empathy tilts the scale too much in favour of violent action. It directs us to think about the benefits of war, of avenging those who have suffered, rescuing those who are at further risk. In contrast, the costs of war are abstract and statistical and a lot of these costs fall upon those we don’t care about and hence don’t empathise with. Once the war is under way, one can try to elicit empathy for those who have suffered, particularly those on one’s own side, because now the costs have become tangible and specific. But by then, it’s often too late. |
| These are some examples of how empathy leads us astray. But, still, you might worry that if we gave up on empathy, we wouldn’t do anything. We wouldn’t care about anyone or anything besides ourselves and the world would go to hell.I think this view reflects an impoverished moral imagination, a failure to recognise the other forces that can give us empathy’s benefits without all of its costs. There are all sorts of motivations for good action. There are concerns about reputation, feelings of anger, pride and guilt and a commitment to religious and secular belief systems. Most of all, there’s compassion, what the Buddhists call “loving kindness”, in which you care for others, but don’t feel their pain, don’t put yourself in their shoes. | These are some examples of how empathy leads us astray. But, still, you might worry that if we gave up on empathy, we wouldn’t do anything. We wouldn’t care about anyone or anything besides ourselves and the world would go to hell.I think this view reflects an impoverished moral imagination, a failure to recognise the other forces that can give us empathy’s benefits without all of its costs. There are all sorts of motivations for good action. There are concerns about reputation, feelings of anger, pride and guilt and a commitment to religious and secular belief systems. Most of all, there’s compassion, what the Buddhists call “loving kindness”, in which you care for others, but don’t feel their pain, don’t put yourself in their shoes. |
| Still, I don’t deny the lure of empathy. It often just seems right to try to feel the world as others feel it, to experience their suffering vicariously, to listen to our hearts. The alternative – careful reasoning mixed with a more distant compassion – seems cold and unfeeling. | Still, I don’t deny the lure of empathy. It often just seems right to try to feel the world as others feel it, to experience their suffering vicariously, to listen to our hearts. The alternative – careful reasoning mixed with a more distant compassion – seems cold and unfeeling. |
| A few years ago, I was on a radio programme talking about the last book I wrote — on the origins of morality in children — and got into a discussion with a pastor about how we deal with strangers, using the example of child beggars in the developing world. I tentatively raised the concern mentioned above, which I had recently read about, that giving to these beggars makes things worse, causing more suffering, and suggested we should stop doing it; we should use our money in better ways. | A few years ago, I was on a radio programme talking about the last book I wrote — on the origins of morality in children — and got into a discussion with a pastor about how we deal with strangers, using the example of child beggars in the developing world. I tentatively raised the concern mentioned above, which I had recently read about, that giving to these beggars makes things worse, causing more suffering, and suggested we should stop doing it; we should use our money in better ways. |
| Her response surprised me. She didn’t challenge me on the facts; what she said was that she liked giving to beggars. She said that handing over food or money to a child, seeing the child’s satisfaction, made her feel good. It’s an important human contact, she told me, not the sort of thing you can ever get by typing your credit card number into the website of a charitable organisation. She spoke in defence of empathy, of the intimacy of good acts. | Her response surprised me. She didn’t challenge me on the facts; what she said was that she liked giving to beggars. She said that handing over food or money to a child, seeing the child’s satisfaction, made her feel good. It’s an important human contact, she told me, not the sort of thing you can ever get by typing your credit card number into the website of a charitable organisation. She spoke in defence of empathy, of the intimacy of good acts. |
| I said nothing at the time; her response made sense to me. But if I could answer now, I would say that it depends on what you want. If you want the pleasure of personal contact, go ahead and give something to the child, perhaps feeling a little buzz when your hands touch, a warmness that sits with you as you walk back to your hotel. If you actually want to make people’s lives better, do something different. | I said nothing at the time; her response made sense to me. But if I could answer now, I would say that it depends on what you want. If you want the pleasure of personal contact, go ahead and give something to the child, perhaps feeling a little buzz when your hands touch, a warmness that sits with you as you walk back to your hotel. If you actually want to make people’s lives better, do something different. |
| Paul Bloom is the Brooks and Suzanne Regan professor of psychology at Yale. His new book is Against Empathy: The Case for Rational Compassion | Paul Bloom is the Brooks and Suzanne Regan professor of psychology at Yale. His new book is Against Empathy: The Case for Rational Compassion |
Previous version
1
Next version