How the case against empathy overreaches

Many people think of empathy as a powerful force for good within society and as a crucial component of moral cognition. Recently, prominent theorists in psychology and philosophy have challenged this viewpoint and mounted a case against empathy. The most compelling versions of this case rely heavily on empirical evidence from psychology and neuroscience. They contend that the inherent partiality and parochialism of empathy undermines its potential to serve moral ends. This paper argues that the argument against empathy overreaches; it makes an unwarranted inference from descriptive evidence about our empathic capacities to normative claims about the proper role of empathy in culture, society, and ethics. The paper concludes with suggestions about how to use insights from the empirical literature to build a more nuanced and contextually sensitive account of the role of empathy in our ethical lives.

Automated summary

This paper responds to the objections raised against empathy. The opponents mainly rely on empirical evidence to demonstrate the limitations of empathy, but this objection is overreaching. The paper suggests using insights from empirical literature to establish a more nuanced and contextually sensitive account of the role of empathy in our ethical lives.