Does empathy help or hinder us as we make ethical decisions? This is the question Year 12 Theory of Knowledge (TOK) students have tried to answer in a recent debate. They prepared a speech in which one person took former US president Barack Obama’s view, and the other that of American Psychologist Paul Bloom. Here are some thought-provoking extracts from their dialogues:
Paul Bloom: Hello, Barack, I hear we disagree on the subject of empathy in ethics. It would be my pleasure to debate you on the topic. (They shake hands).
Barack Obama: Empathy is a cornerstone of making ethical decisions. Understanding human mindsets is key to being able to decide on the basis of right and wrong.
Bloom: That’s where you’re wrong, Mr Former President. Empathy clouds realistic judgement of a situation, leading to emotional interference. The empathetic decision to make in any situation often contradicts the moral, ethical or logical decision to make.
Obama: That’s a good point, Mr Bloom. However, you’re forgetting that a lack of empathy and consideration of emotion in ethical decisions leads to a utilitarian state of affairs that oftentimes goes against our fundamentals as human beings. Just look at George Osborn and his group’s encouragement of welfare cuts. That decision holds potent negative impacts for disadvantaged and lower-income citizens, with Osborn’s rationale lacking empathy and consideration for these groups.
Bloom: I won’t deny that in certain situations we do look for empathy in other people, especially those who are close to us. However, there are many cases in which that’s not what we want. For example, during moments of anxiety, we look for people who can calm us down, and do not share our anxiety. A lot of the time what we look for in people is the opposite of empathy.
Obama: Don’t you think however that empathy is a vital first step in resolving conflicts? Think for example about the Israel-Palestine conflict, which lately is gaining a lot of attention. Empathy allows us to understand and appreciate the perspectives and emotions of both sides, which is crucial in such a situation.
Bloom: I actually think the opposite. In situation like wars or internationals conflicts we should avoid being empathic and try to look at what’s happening in the most objective and unbiased way possible. Being empathetic could result in people dehumanising one of the sides. For example, it is common that people who rely on empathy take sides because of emotional or unsettling pictures they see on social media, sometimes without even properly being informed on the situation. This does more harm than good, and I think empathy should not have such an influence on public opinion when it comes to events like wars, during which lots of people die.
Obama: I agree that a lot of people right now are taking extreme sides without being properly informed about the situation, and this represents a problem. However, misinformation is mainly the result of the information people read about in political biased newspapers and websites, which they find reliable and therefore trust.
Bloom: Humanity in many senses is flawed in its judgement and irrational decisions using emotions, and the role of governments and global authority is specifically to make the best possible decision in a rational way. Rationality is the key here, and always relying on empathy is not reliably rational.
Obama: Okay, could you agree that rational decisions about other humans should still take into account their humanity? I think rationality may on paper provide better decisions, but is it not vital to avoid turning people into statistics?
Bloom: I agree, and that is the role of public opinion and advisory figures that are equally crucial as the decision making process itself. People should never become statistics, yes, and limiting the role of empathy in government will certainly be seen as a positive development in history.
Obama: Well then, that’s settled.