Scan barcode
A review by meg_sm
Against Empathy: The Case for Rational Compassion by Paul Bloom
2.0
The basic argument here is one that I can certainly get behind: We should strive for more cognitive empathy, but less emotional empathy. Our decisions and policies should be driven primarily by rational evaluation of how we can do the most good with our resources, rather than exhausting our resources through the avenues that tug most on our heartstrings.
I had a few major problems, though, too. In the end, Paul Bloom and I fundamentally disagree in our worldviews. This manifested in three particular ways throughout the book:
1) As a white, straight, male, affluent, American Yale professor, Bloom writes from a place of EXTREME privilege...and he makes virtually no effort to even acknowledge this, let alone compensate for it. Many of his points were weakened for me by the fact that they wouldn't hold up if the privilege was removed.
2) Bloom is, by his own admission, not a sincere advocate of making personal sacrifices for the common good. He writes, "I could never take seriously people who refuse to take long flights to see those they love because of worries about contributing to climate change. Or even those who put their children into a public school that they know to be terrible even though they can easily afford a private school, just out of a broader principle of common good. Even when it comes to charity, I am not a good utilitarian." As a Gryffindor and a 1 on the Enneagram, this is not just foreign to me, it's repulsive.
3) I couldn't get past the feeling that a lot of this book was written out of semantic quibbling between the scholarly elite. The sensationalist title soon gave way to a core position that, while it made sense, was less revolutionary than one might expect.
All in all, I'm still grateful to this book. The fact that I disagreed with certain points and favored others was a helpful exercise in critical reading. I was motivated to think deeply while reading and came out with a much more nuanced understanding of empathy and my associated beliefs. I'm not at all suggesting that others shouldn't read this book -- but if you do read it, just make sure you do so through a critical lens.
I had a few major problems, though, too. In the end, Paul Bloom and I fundamentally disagree in our worldviews. This manifested in three particular ways throughout the book:
1) As a white, straight, male, affluent, American Yale professor, Bloom writes from a place of EXTREME privilege...and he makes virtually no effort to even acknowledge this, let alone compensate for it. Many of his points were weakened for me by the fact that they wouldn't hold up if the privilege was removed.
2) Bloom is, by his own admission, not a sincere advocate of making personal sacrifices for the common good. He writes, "I could never take seriously people who refuse to take long flights to see those they love because of worries about contributing to climate change. Or even those who put their children into a public school that they know to be terrible even though they can easily afford a private school, just out of a broader principle of common good. Even when it comes to charity, I am not a good utilitarian." As a Gryffindor and a 1 on the Enneagram, this is not just foreign to me, it's repulsive.
3) I couldn't get past the feeling that a lot of this book was written out of semantic quibbling between the scholarly elite. The sensationalist title soon gave way to a core position that, while it made sense, was less revolutionary than one might expect.
All in all, I'm still grateful to this book. The fact that I disagreed with certain points and favored others was a helpful exercise in critical reading. I was motivated to think deeply while reading and came out with a much more nuanced understanding of empathy and my associated beliefs. I'm not at all suggesting that others shouldn't read this book -- but if you do read it, just make sure you do so through a critical lens.