I suppose you don’t think more empathy is the answer in either case. Bloom’s logic is compelling, his prose fluid, and his deep humanity and compassion always evident. Daniel Gilbert, author of Stumbling on Happiness One of the most thought-provoking and convincing books I’ve read. 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. Brilliant, powerful, and provocative, Against Empathy is sure to be one of the most controversial books of our time. 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. 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.
I don’t doubt for a minute that empathy can do good things. 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 kommentar(er)
