1. The essay “Is Empathy Overrated?” discusses how empathy might not be the best tool in determining how we focus our attention towards the things that need it. The author, Paul Bloom, argues that empathy is too narrow, because it focuses most on people who we feel a connection with, and ignores people who are different from us. This is made clear when he writes “it’s far easier to empathize with those who are close to us, those who are similar to us, and those we see as more attractive or vulnerable and less scary” (Bloom 2). Here, Bloom is making the point that empathy is biased and prejudiced because we have a harder time empathizing with people who we can’t relate to. Bloom also argues that empathy is flawed because we can only have empathy for individuals, or relatively small groups. He conveys this argument by writing about his general apathy towards the large numbers of murders that happen in a year in Chicago versus his empathy towards school shooting victims in Newtown (Bloom 2). The reason for using this example is to connect his opinions about empathy to real world examples and help the reader visualize the negative impact of empathy when directed at only small groups. Instead of empathy, Bloom discusses how we should approach major issues from a place of “self-control and intelligence and a more diffuse compassion” (4). Bloom posits that it is better to approach issues with these because they result in more rational conclusions that take into account what will be best for the most people. I agree with Bloom that empathy is heavily reliant on personal connection, but I don’t believe that is necessarily a bad thing. Empathy has its place, and that place is primarily within personal relationships. You empathize with those in your immediate vicinity, with those you care about, and occasionally those who have wronged you. When it comes to directing our focus outward towards global issues, a less empathetic approach is necessary because empathy isn’t useful for dealing with issues on a large scale. This does not mean that empathy is useless, just that it is only useful in our personal lives.
  2. I partially agree with Bloom when he talks about why empathy is ineffective and possibly even harmful when used towards all issues, because it can’t focus on a broad range of things, and it is too personal to be useful in helping the most people, rather than honing in on just a few of the most prominent cases. However, Bloom doesn’t address where empathy is useful, which is in our relationships with close friends or when we are hurt by someone else. Bloom seems to suggest that empathy is a net negative for the world, when it is in fact a positive, so long as it is applied where it is intended to be applied.
  3. Bloom discusses empathy as a negative, which is definitely in contrast to my prior encounters with the subject of empathy. I was always inclined to view empathy as a totally positive thing, but Bloom introduced some ways that empathy can actually be negative that I hadn’t considered before, or at least had attributed to some other cause. Primarily, Bloom’s assertions about how empathy causes one to focus on the suffering of people who are like us first, rather than the people who most need help, really challenged how I viewed empathy, because I hadn’t ever realized how empathy plays into our biases.
  4. “Although we might intellectually believe that the suffering of our neighbor is just as awful as the suffering of someone living in another country, it’s far easier to empathize with those who are close to us, those who are similar to us, and those we see as more attractive or vulnerable and less scary.”
    • I disagree with Bloom’s point here because I feel that he has a fundamental misunderstanding of what empathy is, or at least he expects it to be more than what it is. Empathy can only occur when the empathizing individual can relate in some way to the person/people experiencing suffering. It can’t, nor is it supposed to, account for our response to people suffering who we can’t relate to. But acting like this is somehow a flaw to empathy and not the intended function is like calling your freezer faulty when it makes the soda you put in there and forgot about explode. The freezer did what it was supposed to do, you just used it incorrectly. Empathy is supposed to only apply towards people we relate to because that’s what empathy is: relating to someone to the point that you feel what they feel. Empathy is impossible unless you relate to the subject on some level. Also, empathy on its own isn’t any good anyway because even if you empathize with someone, action is needed to actually help them. Bloom puts too much of the blame on empathy when it’s only a small part of why people may choose to help some people and not others.