A community member from Wildmind recently brought up an interesting article titled “The Surprising Downsides of Empathy,” posted on the BBC website about two-and-a-half years ago. This article discusses how misplaced empathy can be detrimental, leading to exhaustion, apathy, and even preventing effective aid to those who need it. It can also be exploited to manipulate people into harmful behaviors.
Empathy is generally well-regarded, with many advocating for more of it in the world. However, some individuals, often proponents of “tough love,” argue against it, suggesting that it coddles people, especially the young. I believe these individuals often misunderstand empathy, although I will focus on different misconceptions about empathy here.
Researcher Paul Bloom, who authored “Against Empathy,” is quoted in the article. He differentiates empathy from compassion, which many empathy advocates confuse as the sole motivator for kindness. For instance, feeling a friend’s sorrow when their child drowns is empathy, while compassion involves loving concern and a motivation to help without necessarily sharing in their anguish.
Bloom rightly distinguishes between empathy, which is feeling in response to another’s emotions, and compassion, which is the desire to alleviate suffering. Empathy doesn’t always require imagination—it’s natural to feel touched by someone’s tragedy if they share it with you. Compassion, rooted in the word “karuna” from Pāli and Sanskrit, means “to do” and focuses on action.
The BBC article implies that empathy might be unnecessary and even harmful. Bloom gives an example of an adult comforting a terrified child without sharing in their fear but simply wanting to ease their distress—demonstrating compassion rather than empathy.
However, imagining an adult with no empathy shows a different outcome; they may shout at the crying child, making the situation worse. Empathy helps the adult understand the child’s fear and needs, thus fostering compassion.
Empathy doesn’t require experiencing another’s terror; rather, it aids in understanding the need for support, enabling compassionate responses. When someone becomes paralyzed by another’s suffering, it’s not about being “too empathetic” but lacking other balancing virtues like wisdom and prudence. For example, while generosity is positive, without prudence, it can lead to harmful outcomes like financial instability.
Similarly, so-called “empathic distress” arises from excessive and unbalanced empathy, leading to paralysis rather than helpful action. Buddha described this as indulging in “grief, sorrow, and lamentation,” which causes suffering. Compassion, tempered with wisdom, prevents this.
Balancing empathy with wisdom and ethical awareness is crucial. For instance, prioritizing a single girl for surgery due to empathy can neglect others’ urgent needs. Ethical violations like inflicting pain on someone due to biased empathy also demand a balance of virtues.
Self-compassion is equally important. It helps manage emotional support for oneself while dealing with others’ distress without becoming overwhelmed.
The perceived “downsides” of empathy described in the article are actually deficiencies in balancing virtues. Empathic distress is unhelpful, but balanced empathy, accompanied by wisdom, ethics, and self-compassion, leads to compassionate action.
Bloom and others highlight the need to address “empathic distress” by developing complementary virtues, ensuring empathy remains a positive force.
End of rephrased content.