“The relation between emotion and rationality… is a question [which] has preoccupied philosophers… for many centuries. It is only recently, however, that it has become the subject of scientific inquiry and empirical investigations.” (Michel Tuan Pham, Columbia University)
It is precisely this battle between the emotional and rational self that is explored in Paul Bloom’s Against Empathy. The main crux of the Professor’s argument is the sad truth that empathy is biased and selfish. Paradoxically this truth is the redeeming aspect of his book. Without an understanding of this truth it would be all too easy to join the masses of twitter warriors (let us call them twits) and criticise Bloom for being cruel or sociopathic. This truth is backed up by empirical evidence, Science being the armour of any compelling argument in the 21st century. Bloom describes how “laboratory studies have been done showing we feel more empathy for people who are attractive” and more appallingly, people of the same race as oneself.
Against Empathy in politics and international relations
Professor Bloom raised valid point in relation to this bias which can be applied to the case of Syria. When asked “Does this mean empathy has a double action – not only does it have its own proactive effects; it neutralises statistics and hard information?” the author replies curtly “yes.” In the UK, empathetic arguments were used both for and against the airstrikes in Syria. The “zooming in” affect which Bloom describes was employed by the opposition, who ask the public to put themselves in the shoes of innocent citizens, obliterated by blanket bombing. Conversely, the campaign’s supporters reassured us that the airstrikes would help free the women, homosexuals and non-Muslims who are tortured and killed by ISIS, imploring us to feel the weight of their otherwise unthinkable struggles. The airstrikes were eventually voted for with a 397 majority and it was acknowledged that the latter argument had a great impact on the decision making (all scepticism aside). The question remains; have protestors to the airstrikes been blinded by empathy ignoring “statistics and hard information?” The Ministry of Defence maintains to date that there have been no-known civilian casualties, and whilst the reliability of this source is questionable it is widely claimed that the advanced, low-collateral, precision technology of today’s RAF has mitigated losses beyond expectations. We here find ourselves in the domain of utilitarian politics, “the greater good for the greatest number”, a concept which, Bloom argues, empathy is unable to cope with.
With the rise of populism, that has engulfed the USA and is sweeping across Europe, it is important to recognise when you are being manipulated to use your sense of empathy. Nigel Farage, Geert Wilders and the rest of their ilk call upon us time and time again to put ourselves in the shoes of the working man, of victims of crime and unemployment. Whilst it is important to be wary of such manipulation, it is also important to not sway too far towards the other extreme. Angela Merkel graciously accepted a large portion of the refugees making their way to Europe, out of fear of being assimilated with the Le Pen breed of nationalists. However, her plan lacked rational substance and Germany is struggling to cope with the migrant flux. The fact that she stood “alone against catastrophe”, as stated in the guardian, made the success of her promises even more unlikely. It is precisely such outcomes which strengthen Bloom’s case for more Rational Compassion.
In the second instalment of this three-part mini-series, Georgie Rea analyses two cases in which the battle of perspectives has led to injustice for minorities and deals with the uncomfortable truth that over empathising with one person’s struggle can undermine the struggle of another.