Bad-Mouthing Empathy and Altruism
Today’s subject is how complicated it is to be a good person in today’s world.
David Brooks offers deep-think about the “empathy craze,” citing research that “Empathy makes you more aware of other people’s suffering, but it’s not clear it actually motivates you to take moral action or prevents you from taking immoral action.”
Half a century ago, Mike Nichols and Elaine May made that point by satirizing an elitist couple’s detachment (“It’s basically a moral problem.” “Yes, and moral problems are so much more interesting than real problems.”)
Brooks, as usual, hammers it too hard: “(T)eaching empathy is a safe way for schools and other institutions to seem virtuous without risking controversy or hurting anybody’s feelings.
“People who actually perform pro-social action don’t only feel for those who are suffering, they feel compelled to act by a sense of duty. Their lives are structured by sacred codes…
“It’s a source of identity. It’s pursued with joy. It arouses the strongest emotions and attachments. Empathy is a sideshow.”
It may be, but empathy is also a start toward identifying cruelty to others and raising awareness. Two years ago, in Supreme Court confirmation hearings, Republican senators opposed Justice Sonia Sotomayor, accusing her of having too much empathy for the disadvantaged.
The deeper problem surfaces in moving from empathy to altruism, a concern for others that even animals exhibit but is fast disappearing from American public life.
Tea Party lawmakers have their own “sacred codes,” but they are fixed on money, not people, as they now propose to cut education grants, job training for the unemployed and heating subsidies for the poor.
For Paul Ryan, Ron and Rand Paul and other Ayn Rand acolytes in Congress, the basic sacred principle is her dictum: “If any civilization is to survive, it is the morality of altruism that men have to reject.”
14 Responses to “Bad-Mouthing Empathy and Altruism”
Without empathy we would be parodies of humans, not actual humans.
Brooks is not bad-mouthing empathy, he is saying that empathy alone and without action has little value. He then goes on to offer other reasons besides empathy that people help others.
Brook’s reach exceeds his grasp… imo. In any case, we as a nation are harldy suffering from an excess of empathy..
There is a quote, and I forget the source, but it’s good argument.
“To mean well means nothing, if you do not do well.”
Actions are the thing that matters. We see it over and over and over and over again-people who sit there, and wring their hands, and do nothing, but they ‘FEEL’ good because they ‘FEEL’ for the unfortunates,or ‘feel’ like putting a bumper sticker, ribbon, or somesuch is enough to make them morally superior to the folks who don’t.
You think a runaway shivering in a shelter gives a (censored) how you ‘feel’ about their situation? You think a guy who’s lost his job CARES that you ‘care’, that his family will be fed because you ‘empathize’ with them?
No. They won’t. Condescending ‘empathy’ exercises mean nothing. It’s actions that matter. Fifty pounds of beans each paycheque to the food bank, maybe some rice, taking a box of apples out of your yard down there doesn’t hurt either.
Coats and blankets matter, giving a man (or woman) whose dignity’s in the shitter a job for a day-that pays and affirms their worth, matters-it’s not just money, it’s dignity.
‘talking about your feelings’ and ‘feeling’ itself, is empty gestures, alone they mean NOTHING.
Brooks is not bad-mouthing empathy, he is saying that empathy alone and without action has little value. He then goes on to offer other reasons besides empathy that people help others.
Yup, DG.
I tried to write a personal experience regarding the subject of neo-conservative empathy, in this case for suffering people in an international context, but it was to long and the memory pisses me off. So, I’ll just file it away for my book that will never be written and yield to Mr. Stein’s abbreviated, if vague, example.
After all, we are on a time budget here.
Cannonshop wrote:
There was once a time when Americans believed that the best way to demonstrate compassion was through unselfish actions (i.e. voluntarily giving to the poor, voluntarily giving to charitable organizations, volunteering one’s time to a charitable organization).
In today’s Newspeak, however, compassion has increasingly become associated with the belief that others should be forced to give to the poor (via government). This definition of compassion is inherently flawed because compassion is voluntary in nature. If an individual has to be coerced by the government to perform an action, then that action cannot said to have been motivated by compassion.
For example, imagine that you have two neighbors who work similar jobs, work a similar number of hours a week, and make similar salaries. The first neighbor opposes government welfare programs but donates 10% of his income to charity. The second neighbor is a strong supporter of government welfare programs but refuses to donate any of his income to charity.
Which of these two neighbors would you deem to be more “compassionate”?
Traditionally, we would answer that the first neighbor is more compassionate on the grounds that he is demonstrating his compassion through his actions (he is voluntarily giving 10% of his income to charity while the other neighbor is refusing to donate any of his income to charity).
Yet, listening to people nowadays–particularly fiscal progressives–one would think that compassion is determined by political ideology alone. Hence, we’re always hearing the argument that people who don’t support government welfare programs (or support cuts to these programs) are inherently lacking in compassion–regardless of how much they voluntarily give to the poor or to charitable organizations.
People can have honest differences of opinion over whether private charity alone can truly meet the needs of today’s most disadvantaged individuals. I think it is extremely unfortunate, however, than some people have decided to steer the debate away from the utilitarian arguments and toward moralist arguments–deeming anyone who disagrees with their views of government welfare programs as lacking in compassion or empathy.
Nick-
There were never enough compassionate conservatives to feed the families of the 3% percent of our nation that was unemployed when “compassionate” was the conservative political buzzword. How do you expect to feed the 10% unemployed now without government?
Are you sure that you are not using semantics to navigate a political argument that is not arguable?
Re comments suggesting that empathy is useless without action, keep in mind that empathy IS indeed a feeling. What people do with it is another matter entirely. Some people use it as a springboard, some people sit on it, some people even politicize it.
Allen, what have you done lately? that’s a question that you should hammer every Conservative and Progressive with equally-because that’s the real question, isn’t it? Has your Empathy altered your BEHAVIOUR? Do you contribute to food banks, volunteer at a shelter, even toss a nickel at a panhandler once in a while, or, do you want those tasks taken up by others, with other people’s time, money, and effort, in your name?
NeoCons use Churches, Progressives use Government, both are basically shunting off the work (and expense) onto others’ shoulders, the fundamental difference I see, is that Progressives use Government, because Government doesn’t just cajole, even threaten (hell, you know, the afterlife), Government can actively take from others, against their will, and kill any who resist.
It COMPELS, and that compulsion makes it attractive, doesn’t it? “Give to the Poor or you’ll be shot” is certainly more powerful than “Give to the Poor, or you’ll go to hell.”
so, is it really compassion, or is it simply tossing the burden on others to deal with your own guilt? I’d say it’s the guilt, on both sides, but the Progressive is worse because they choose teh path of compulsion with real-life force, instead of the path of persuasion.
Allen wrote:
Your comment is a non-sequitur to the comment that I made immediately prior to yours.
I had already acknowledged the utilitarian argument behind government welfare programs when I made this comment:
Utilitarian arguments are not the same as moralist arguments. A utilitarian argument is predicated upon the premise that a certain outcome will produce the most amount of benefit for the most amount of people. A moralist argument, however, is predicated upon the premise that certain beliefs or actions are inherently moral or immoral.
I tend to find moralist arguments to be extremely subjective. As I pointed out above, why should a man who opposes government welfare programs be deemed lacking in compassion or empathy if he gives more to charity than his neighbors?
Cannonshop-
I spent 10 years in Africa for the UN and ICRC. Does that count? I can tell you first hand, if it was left up to “churches” alone, without governments, there wouldn’t be enough ground to bury all the dead. The Catholic Church manages the World Food Program and the Norwegian Lutheran Church is a big giver and manager of relief. You could put all the rest of the churches together and it wouldn’t add up to a noticeable amount against these two and these two wouldn’t add up to a noticable amount against the UN and ICRC. It’s my opinion you have no idea what you are talking about.
Nick–
Yeah it is Moral Nick, it’s called humanitarianism.
It’s a moral principal based in our responsibilities to our fellow man, so that they don’t rise up and cut our throats for ignoring their suffering.
Allen, you still don’t get it, do you?
It’s not charity if it is coerced, and by definition, if the government does it, it is funded by coercion.
In essence, you volunteered for your personal satisfaction, and you support the taking of resources from others against their will…
To satisfy your own emotional needs.
Now do you get it? It’s not charity, it’s assauging your guilt at the raw exercise of naked power, by dribbling a little tiny bit of the crumbs of what was taken by coercion and force, on to someone else.
and it IS just crumbs. and it IS taken by force-ask any dead tax-protester, there are numerous cases.
It is not altruistic to take from others to give to others, when the contribution is not by the will of those taken from.