Nobody is against empathy. Nonetheless, it’s insufficient. These days empathy has become a shortcut. It has become a way to experience delicious moral emotions without confronting the weaknesses in our nature that prevent us from actually acting upon them. It has become a way to experience the illusion of moral progress without having to do the nasty work of making moral judgments. In a culture that is inarticulate about moral categories and touchy about giving offense, teaching empathy is a safe way for schools and other institutions to seem virtuous without risking controversy or hurting anybody’s feelings.
People who actually perform pro-social action don’t only feel for those who are suffering, they feel compelled to act by a sense of duty. Their lives are structured by sacred codes.
Great article! It’s amazing how smug we can be about having the right feelings about the poor or other hurting people without asking whether we actually do anything to help them. So much of what we do for the poor, the environment, the 3rd world or whatever keeps getting done regardless of whether it does anything for the supposed objects of our concern. That happens because we so often care less about whether it helps than whether we feel good doing it.
As a good example, a recent book by Dambisa Moyo, called “Dead Aid”, chronicles the general ineffectiveness of 1st world aid to the 3rd world, and how little it has done to alleviate the poverty we claim to be fighting. Yet, the facts never seem to make much difference in the way we give out aid. We don’t seem to evaluate based on effectiveness in combatting poverty, which was supposed to be the goal.
I think that’s because of what Brooks observes in the article. As long as a program convinces us we are empathetic, it’s done its job. An easy trap for any of us to fall into, but one we have to avoid.
Stephen+
You mean a politically correct resolution at a church convention might not be enough?