Against Empathy: The Case for Rational Compassion

by Paul Bloom

Much of this makes sense. If we were to have empathy for our enemies, it would block us from hurting them. Unfortunately, though, this isn’t how empathy works. Consider what happens when a country is about to go to war. Do leaders gain support by making rational arguments with statistical assessments of costs and benefits? Is the decision driven by the sort of “unempathic cost-benefit calculation” that Baron-Cohen complains about? Does this cold-blooded calculation explain the psychology of those who supported either side of the conflict in Gaza—or the American invasion of Iraq? Not so much. What is more typical is that people feel deeply about the crimes done in the past toward their families or compatriots or allies. Consider how the Israeli reaction to the news of three murdered Israeli teenagers spurred the attacks on Gaza, or how Hamas and other organizations used murdered Palestinians to generate support for attacks against Israel. If you ask a proponent on either side why they are killing their enemies’ children, they don’t spout the sort of bureaucratic number crunching that Baron-Cohen worries about. They more often talk about the harm that’s been done to those they love.

This is an excellent point, and failure to understand this is what leads to so many infuriating takes lamenting the modern coldness of war. I would prefer people to be cold about war than emotionally invested in it! The idea that a calculated drone strike from afar is somehow worse than chopping an enemy down, feeling the blood spray on your face, is utterly absurd and the worst of all the romantic impulses.