Does Empathy Guide or Hinder Moral Action? Bloom Vs. Zaki

Does Empathy Guide or Hinder Moral Action?

What is empathy? Is it purely emotional, or can it blend with reason and understanding as well? What is empathy useful for and is the ability to have empathy something that contributes to being a better person? Is empathy a good guide for moral action? How we define empathy and address these questions is the subject of a debate between Paul Bloom and Jamil Zaki in a NY Times article bearing the same title. In general, Bloom is against the use of empathy when it comes to decision making, while Zaki believes it to be a very effective guide in decision making and beyond. Our objective is to explore in detail where Bloom and Zaki agree, disagree, and how they go about substantiating their perspectives on empathy. 

We will begin with where Bloom and Zaki share common ground. They both agree that empathy includes experiencing other people’s emotions. More specifically, empathy usually “acts like a spotlight, focusing one’s attention on a single individual in the here and now” (Bloom 1 & Zaki 4). They also agree that empathy can be biased and used improperly as a justification for aggression. Bloom (2) provides an example of minorities being targeted and labeled negatively. This is made possible through the activation of empathy for those from the majority who were mistreated by a small part of the minority. Finally, both Bloom and Zaki agree that there are limitations to the accuracy and objectivity of the rational mind. They differ, however, with regards to how to make up for these natural constraints, as we will see.

The fundamental difference between Bloom and Zaki lies in how they define empathy itself. While Bloom limits its meaning to one’s capacity to fully experience another's emotions and pain, Zaki extends the interpretation of empathy not just to the sharing of the others feelings, but also to the ability to “understand where those feelings (of a friend) come from and wish for him to feel better” (Zaki 3). This leads us to some of the other areas of disagreement between them. 

Bloom maintains that empathy is purely emotional and biased. Empathy is not capable of being impartial. It can only be directed toward non-threatening people with a similar appearance to ourselves. It is thus ill-suited to be used as a tool or guide for moral action. If we follow this kind of emotion, it is inevitable that we will end up favoring our own kind and treating others unfairly. Conversely, Zaki claims that empathy can be directed toward people unlike ourselves. It is a brain function like memory or attention that can be channeled at one’s discretion - for good or evil. 

Since empathy on its own is insufficient when it comes to serious decision making, Zaki believes that by aligning empathy/emotions together with a sense of right and wrong/principles, it becomes possible to achieve the right balance. Both emotion and reason are necessary for guiding moral action and producing a just outcome. Bloom relies on logic and compassion as guides for moral action. The place for empathy and emotion is when enjoying fiction or the like. Allowing for emotion in policymaking can be catastrophic. Compassion, distinct from empathy in its ability to be impartial, “does the trick quite nicely” (Bloom 3). Bloom defines compassion as caring for others without feeling their pain, hence his view that compassion is the ultimate moral guide. A proper arbiter of decision making cannot involve emotions. To make up for the limitations that reason and rationale might present, Bloom suggests that one should always check his view with peers in order to rid himself of any improper biases or prejudices. 

Zaki completely rejects Bloom’s idea of being able to use pure rationale and reason with decision making. “Emotion and reason are inextricably intertwined” (Zaki 7). You cannot split compassion from empathy and emotion. The capacity to think and feel always blend into each other. If we choose to direct emotion in a good way this can surely be part of what makes us a better person.

I believe that at the heart of this debate there are two arguments. Firstly, is it possible to use pure logic without any emotion? Secondly, if it is possible, would it be wise to keep the emotions out of the picture. In other words, are emotions wild and completely subjective, or can they be reasoned with thereby allowing for them to be used in a desired fashion?

Bloom makes a few assumptions as he makes his case about empathy. It is blinding, overwhelming, and always biased. Based on this he goes on to say that empathy is bad for essentially everything besides enjoying fiction. Bloom is of the opinion that empathy cannot serve as an adequate guide for healthcare professionals, policymakers, or parents. A patient wants to see in her doctor the confidence and certainty that she is lacking. This is a rather narrow and extreme translation of how empathy operates. 

To challenge this, Zaki brings forth a few instances where we see that empathy was and can be a truly helpful tool and guide. Cancer patients whose doctors show empathy experience less depression and more feelings of empowerment. It has been sown that givers of empathy grow happier and healthier. Directly challenging the notion that empathy is strictly biased, Zaki uses the example of the effect that a novel titled “Uncle Tom’s Cabin” had on people's views toward slavery in the mid-1800s. It evoked empathy towards those suffering from the effects of slavery and “sparked a new momentum for abolitionism” (Zaki 4). This clearly demonstrates how empathy can be used in many ways towards all kinds of people regardless of their background and appearance. 

Bloom’s rebuttal to the aforementioned challenges is simply to accuse Zaki of failing to make important distinctions between “very different psychological processes” - and instead “lumping them together” (Bloom 5). He questions what made Uncle Tom’s Cabin and similarly the “empathic” doctors, truly impactful - emphasizing his opinion of empathy being an exclusively emotional capacity - “Was it feeling, understanding, motivation - or a specific combination of all three?” (Bloom 6). He then goes on to restate his opinion that empathy is dangerous and a poor guide to being a good person because of its narrowness and biased nature. All of this with no substantial response to Zaki’s basic demonstrations of the qualities of empathy.

It appears that Bloom has less practical evidence backing his notion of what empathy is and why it is unfit for a seat at the table of serious matters. I think it is hard to say that in real-life, emotion and reason can operate one exclusive from the other. “People can tell the difference between chickpeas and olive oil, but real-world empathy is more like hummus - blended, often for the better” (Zaki 7). Would it be nice to be able to take moral action solely from a place of pure logic and objectivity? Absolutely, but it seems we aren’t really wired that way. So instead, we do our best using everything we’ve got, and with our best intentions. Beyond this, we can only hope and pray that our choices are not misguided. We hope that one day we will be able to look back at decisions of the past and see how they brought about a better future.