![]() I suppose you don’t think more empathy is the answer in either case. In the end, that wouldn’t persuade you to be pro-racism.ĭuring this past election season, there have been pieces written about whether liberals don’t empathize enough with the white working class, or conservatives with Syrian refugees. Imagine there are two political candidates and one of them is a wonderful person, the other is totally awful, and imagine you use racist sentiments to get people to vote for the good guy. Bloom argues that it’s better to save a thousand people than just one, which no one would disagree with, but he says empathy biases you to focus on just one person. If I wrote a book called Against Racism, people wouldn’t demand that asterisk, even though racist sentiments could be exploited for all sorts of good things. My claim is that, on balance, it’s bad for us. Far from helping us to improve the lives. I don’t doubt for a minute that empathy can do good things. In AGAINST EMPATHY, Bloom reveals empathy to be one of the leading motivators of inequality and immorality in society. So should there be an asterisk next to your provocative title? ![]() You write that empathy is not all bad and can be used to motivate people to do the right thing in certain situations. ![]() My argument is that if you want to be a moral person, empathy is the wrong way to do it. ![]() I explain that I’m against empathy in a very specific sense. People assume if I’m against empathy I must be some kind of psychopath. Tell me about the reactions you get when people hear you’re against empathy. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |