A few months ago I posted a link to a very-well-done series on Stewart Udall, someone I will call a “hero” without any hesitation. The first five parts came out in rapid sequence. The sixth never came. I asked the author about it yesterday, and BAM, he finished it. Here it is! And it’s good. Oh so good.
http://thoughtsonthingsandstuff.com/stewart-udall-sequence…/
Be sure to start with part 1 if you haven’t been reading the series:
http://thoughtsonthingsandstuff.com/stewart-udall-sequence…/
https://samharris.org/podcasts/the-virtues-of-cold-blood/
This was a very thought-provoking podcast. Thank you for sharing, Eric.
For anyone interested in a summary, here are a couple of examples (not their specific examples, because I don’t want to bother taking dictation, but the same premise) of the ways in which empathy can be harmful.
First, imagine a small girl is trapped in a well. We would likely feel a large amount of compassion for her and want to help, because of empathy. However, if we heard of a group of a thousand people who were suffering just as badly as this little girl, we would feel less compassion for the group or individuals–even if it included this same little girl.
With regard to this first concern, something I wish they had discussed is futility. I don’t know that our sense of compassion decreases necessarily, but perhaps rather that our sense of futility grows with numbers, and that tends to overshadow our compassion. When it’s a matter of helping one individual, we feel as though it is within our capacity to do so, but we feel less and less empowered as the numbers grow. And even though our potential to help the one remains the same, the looming futility of the whole dampers that initial desire.
Additionally, I discussed the ailments of empathy and this podcast this morning in a Mindfulness Meditation/Buddhism class, and my friend Noah suggested that it might also be a protection/self-preservation mechanism. (He also added that in Buddhism there is generally only an admonition to seek to feel compassion universally, and not things like “investment” or “empathy”.)
The second general concern with empathy can be explained as follows. We would probably all agree that things like bias, nepotism, favoritism, and preferential treatment are morally wrong, or at least unjust. And what’s at the core of these behaviors? Empathy. This is not how they explained it, but I think this is a more direct route.
They did give the example of how when auditions were performed for an orchestra, mostly only males were hired. But once they moved to blind auditions, the gender balance became more neutral. Their advocacy is that more things be done “blindly” in this way. For example, in a courtroom trial, the severity of a sentence will largely be based on the ability of witnesses and others to emotionally manipulate the jury, and not necessarily the crime committed. They called it immoral that this is allowed to happen in the courtroom.
I watched the movie San Andreas with my brothers (Tyler and Jordan, check out this podcast) this week, which we viewed largely as comedy. Even if you haven’t seen it, the template is very generic. There is a tragedy, whether it be natural or supernatural, and numerous people are dying all around. However, the movie is focused on a select few characters (for whom you are manipulated to feel empathy) who survive through the tragedy, which is in many ways portrayed in the background. And the expectation is that you feel GOOD about how things played out.
These sort of stories have often bothered me. I’m not comfortable with the background deaths. In this particular movie, in one scene, Dwayne Johnson’s character knocks out someone who wants a vehicle, and then he takes the vehicle himself. Other similar acts of preferential treatment are received by the main characters all throughout. And the expectation is that we feel contentedness over this, because they are attractive and we know more of their story and we feel empathy for them.