Reddit Reddit reviews Against Empathy: The Case for Rational Compassion

We found 33 Reddit comments about Against Empathy: The Case for Rational Compassion. Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.

Books
Healthy Relationships
Interpersonal Relations
Self-Help
Against Empathy: The Case for Rational Compassion
Against Empathy The Case for Rational Compassion
Check price on Amazon

33 Reddit comments about Against Empathy: The Case for Rational Compassion:

u/VladMolina · 12 pointsr/philosophy

>also possess a set of psychological characteristics that many would consider prototypically immoral."

The implicit equation here is that empathy = moral goodness. When empathy leads us to feel good about making a decision that is objectively bad for the whole world excluding ourselves, that foundation is very dubious despite our kneejerk instinctive reaction. For example, people are more motivated to donate to a cause if they hear about one person being harmed in detail, and then become LESS motivated to donate if they learn they will help that one person and many others in the same situation. Motivation to act altruistically declining when an intervention is objectively superior with no drawbacks is a clear problem. It would seem that letting emotions be our guides is not always a reliable route to the most ethical action possible.

Against Empathy is an interesting exploration of this subject (albeit a questionable stocking stuffer).

u/Qinistral · 10 pointsr/BlackPeopleTwitter
u/poptartmozart · 9 pointsr/worldnews

This is such an idiotic strawman. "You have to let them all in or they'll die!"

Stop being so dramatic. The vast majority of these people aren't even war refugees, they're economic migrants looking to suck the welfare tit. They're simply here to take advantage of you. And people like you are so blinded by your supposed "empathy" that you'd rather play the sucker than accept reality.

As for those who are actual refugees? We can create safe zones. We can help set up living in places like Turkey as we already are. And, in fact, we can help far more by doing this, because resettling them near their homes costs 1/3 of moving them to the west. But then oh, I forgot, you don't get to virtue signal if we resettle them somewhere else. You don't get to march in the street with your "refugees" (migrants) welcome sign. And that's what this is really about for people like you. Vanity. You don't care about helping the maximum amount of people. You care about proving your own moral superiority. And if thousands of Europeans have to raped/gunned down/ run over? Well, that's a price you're willing to pay for your vanity. Because you're just so empathetic.

Get yourself a Christmas gift.

u/SomeGuy58439 · 8 pointsr/slatestarcodex

> If I ever get a blog started up, I definitely would have an article about this concept of "empathy" near the front of the queue. Bluntly, I think it's inaccurate. What you're really talking about is compassion.

You could even write a book about it - e.g. Dec 2016's Against Empathy: The Case for Rational Compassion

u/Church-TuringSneezes · 7 pointsr/mildlyinteresting

There are some cases where I believe empathy gets in the way of morality. It's been well studied that empathy can cause people to be myopic with respect to doing the right thing. It causes people to feel the emotions of whoever is in their immediate frame of attention. If they act upon those emotions, they will often feel good about themselves even if, rationally speaking, they're making the problem worse.

This is a pretty great book on the topic

It sounds to me like this is a perfect example of a situation where a person's empathy interfered with their ability to do the right thing.

/u/HeatherLaFrito I think it was selfish of you to buy those fish, even if it felt to you like it was the right thing to do at the time. Hopefully you will take good care of them but think better of such things in the future. Of course, you could also try to return them. That would probably be the best option.

u/Whysareyoubeingmean · 5 pointsr/samharris

> "Why arrest a murderer? It's a fools errand to expect to end murder."

That might be the weakest analogy i've ever encountered and I hope you'll admit it wasn't very thought out.

"Believe it or not, being in this country "illegally" is not a crime in and of itself"

It is a violation of federal immigration law to remain in the country without legal authorization, but this violation is punishable by civil penalties, not criminal. Chief among these civil penalties is deportation or removal, where an unlawful resident may be detained and removed from the country.


Nice misdirection.


I have put myself in their shoes and my views remain the same, I think it's you who are being limited in your thinking. Allow me to suggest what I think is a valuable book:

https://www.amazon.com/Against-Empathy-Case-Rational-Compassion/dp/0062339338

u/UniqueUserName2015 · 4 pointsr/worldnews

If you want to read more on this, I recommend the book "Against Empathy" by Paul Bloom. Obviously, the title is meant to be provocative but the contents talk about exactly this... why does the death of a cute child move us to action more than an adult... and lots more.

u/Hatfullofsky · 3 pointsr/Denmark

Jeg har for nyligt færdiggjort/genlæst Against Empathy af Paul Bloom, som er en rigtig god og velskrevet poppsyk bog om hvorfor empati i virkeligheden er skadeligt værktøj når det kommer til at træffe beslutninger. Nogle af pointerne kan læses i hans ældre artikel om emnet.

Hans pointe er at empati per definition er en irrationel, flyvsk og intuitiv process, og at selv når dens resultat må betragtes som et gode, er det ikke empatien der bør tilskrives det. Og ofte er den ikke et gode: For eksempel når biologien får os til at have mere empati med folk der ligner os selv, når vi bliver snydt af pathos og store ord, eller når vi ændrer holdning til et emne fordi vi ser et billede af et lille barn med store øjne. Og særligt hvordan mennesker der forstår menneskets empati er dygtige til at udnytte den.

Hans pointe er ikke at vi ikke skal være ordentlige mennesker, men at vi skal være "rationally compassionate" - vi skal hjælpe mennesker, mere end vi gør i dag, men vi gør det bedst ved at træffe rationelt funderede beslutninger om hvordan vi maksimerer det gode vi gør.

Essentielt er det bare endnu en bog om bias, men jeg vil alligevel anbefale den fordi jeg synes den slår ned i noget højaktuelt i det moderne informationssamfund.

u/Regina_George_Victim · 3 pointsr/politics

I think you would like this book.

I am 3/4 of the way through, and it has totally changed my view of the net positive of empathy (which is that it's NOT a net positive). And, as a side note, I've done research related to emotions in the workplace for about 10 years.

u/johnbentley · 2 pointsr/videos

> Empathy is the key to changing your mindset.

Bloom 2016, Against Empathy: The Case for Rational Compassion

> Bloom reveals empathy to be one of the leading motivators of inequality and immorality in society. Far from helping us to improve the lives of others, empathy is a capricious and irrational emotion that appeals to our narrow prejudices. It muddles our judgment and, ironically, often leads to cruelty. We are at our best when we are smart enough not to rely on it, but to draw instead upon a more distanced compassion.

u/Skallywagwindorr · 2 pointsr/belgium

> Serious question here and I really don't mean any offense. Are you authistic?

i never got tested so i can't say for sure, but i do not think so.

> I'm asking because you seem to be unable to relate to other human being

Why do you think this? It is true that i see no gains in empathy but i truly feel compassion for people, i align for the most part with the view of Paul Bloom on this.

> abstract concept of ideology

can you tell me what you mean with this?


u/cphgn · 2 pointsr/uAlberta

to those who are down-voting: https://www.amazon.com/Against-Empathy-Case-Rational-Compassion/dp/0062339338
"With precision and wit, he demonstrates how empathy distorts our judgment in every aspect of our lives, from philanthropy and charity to the justice system; from medical care and education to parenting and marriage. Without empathy, Bloom insists, our decisions would be clearer, fairer, and—yes—ultimately more moral.

Brilliantly argued, urgent and humane, AGAINST EMPATHY shows us that, when it comes to both major policy decisions and the choices we make in our everyday lives, limiting our impulse toward empathy is often the most compassionate choice we can make."

u/sike86 · 2 pointsr/hsp

I have similar problems as a HSP. For me it helped to find cases against empathy and pleading for rational compassion. (I too work in a hospital and am sometimes burned out by all the suffering). I highly recommend some work by Paul Bloom.
Video: http://www.theatlantic.com/video/index/474588/why-empathy-is-a-bad-thing/
Article: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/05/20/the-baby-in-the-well
Book: https://www.amazon.com/Against-Empathy-Case-Rational-Compassion/dp/0062339338

u/jpmcglone · 2 pointsr/JordanPeterson

Here's the link to the meetup group :)

https://www.meetup.com/Jordan-Peterson-Study-Group

I can recommend a book I'm reading right now: "Against Empathy" --
I'm loving it so far. Read the first chapter, and I think it will surprise you, actually.

Here's a link:

https://www.amazon.com/Against-Empathy-Case-Rational-Compassion/dp/0062339338

u/astralpumpkin · 2 pointsr/news

>Some of his other points were seriously misconstrued, like "De-emphasizing Empathy"

Yep, Yale psychologist Paul Bloom wrote a book recently about the perils of empathy, which he describes as the way our moral and ethical intuitions can be mislead by our emotions and that, alternatively, allowing data and statistics to inform our behavior is ultimately a more sensical and compassionate route.

That's what this document was getting at.

>Google is absolutely in the right to fire him

I think people are less concerned with whether or not Google was legally in the right to do it, but more if it makes ethical or logical sense to do so. Like you said, it's pathetic and heavy-handed.

u/d4n4n · 2 pointsr/Austria

Sehr guter Kommentar. Ich kann mir vorstellen, dass dir "Against Empathy" gut gefallen würde, wenn du's noch nicht gelesen hast.

u/Je-Nas · 2 pointsr/DaveChappelle

You can think that, which is fine. I just disagree: https://www.amazon.com/Against-Empathy-Case-Rational-Compassion/dp/0062339338 — my only problem is that empathy apologists don’t just argue for empathy: they tend to push empathy as a legitimate demand and moralistic dogma, something which is wrong to be even questioned (such attitude is implicit in your “Jesus the state of this comment” and mostly explicit in the “we are arguing the merits of empathy” as a complaint of u/Rabs6 below)

u/not_my_real_name_2 · 1 pointr/Advice
u/Curates · 1 pointr/philosophy

>If someone ignores plausible ethical theories by discouraging consideration of empathy, then, regardless of how "moralistic" their language might be, they have effectively ignored one of our best ways to reach insight into morality (empathy). I'd be comfortable saying that a person who does that has ignored morality.

There are good reasons to think empathy biases us in problematic ways. We don't need empathy to be moral, many normative theories don't depend on it. This is an interesting book on the topic.

u/romandhj · 1 pointr/todayilearned

> Loving all doesn't mean that one doesn't have certain unique obligations to bear certain relations to me. Ever heard of "Think global, act local"? Loving those close to me who depend on me is part of my work of making the whole world a better place.

that is simply and only because of society today.

tell me this, if there is no orphanage or child services. and a dying child shows up on your door would you let him sit there and die? ofc not. you would bring him in and help him and feed him and give him clothes, and now what? there is nowhere for him to go, no one else will take him. the only moral choice is to literally take him in as a child, as every other alternative is completely immoral.

as you see, you are morally obligated to this child just as you are your children. you see your children as someone who require your care more than anyone because there is not anyone else required to care for them. if the state and just everyone in life loved and cared for all kids you would not be obligated to care for them. if you pushed your kid out the door they would have countless positive alternatives then you obligation would be mitigated.


also, you brushed off of jesus so fast, explain please, jesus has unique obligations to his child had he had one? what to house him? you think jesus would not house anyone who needed or asked? or feed or anything?

anyways,

modern moral philosophy was an article where the jist is that moral philosophy has to be merged with psychology, to be useful. and that basically all of the old philosophy on morality from post socratic philosophers lacks much of what we understand today.

William Macaskill philosopher who gives away i think everything after 30k he makes each year.

http://www.bigissue.com/features/5638/william-macaskill-we-should-buy-clothes-made-in-sweatshops



"Practical ethics" by Peter singer is a fantastic book and one of the foundational books on Effective altruism.



Paul bloom (Professor of psychology) has a really good new book

https://www.amazon.com/Against-Empathy-Case-Rational-Compassion/dp/0062339338

sam harris's moral landscape is also really good.

u/macromort · 1 pointr/news

> At the same time, the author is failing to recognize the intentions behind the rules of the company. Hypocrisy at its finest.

Actually I think he understands it very well: as a thinly-veiled Identity-Political grab for power. It has nothing to do with actual fairness; it's simply "I can't compete so I'll change the rules". The problem is that he doesn't understand the implications of that fact: namely that speaking truth to power isn't good for one's career. If people have abandoned principle in pursuit of power then they aren't going to care when you point out their logical inconsistencies.

>but it strikes me as dehumanizing people.

Again, I disagree with this. It's not dehumanizing people, it's professionalizing them. It's a workplace, not a day care. Also, he made that comment specifically in the context of diversity initiatives. Empathy has many well-known failure modes, and is hazardous when employed for moral reasoning. In fact, a well-known philosopher recently wrote an entire book on the subject.

>Prioritize intention: This strikes me as an excuse for people who are inept at communicating without offending other people.

It's also for people who are clinically sensitive or otherwise emotionally unstable. It's essentially urging people to give others the benefit of the doubt, which how can you argue with that? It's certainly preferable to running to HR every time you misinterpret someone else's [but of course it's always a white male's] 'microaggressions'.

u/unnameableway · 1 pointr/vegan

Sadly, It’s a well known fact that the capacity for empathy is inversely correlated with the number of victims considered.

Here is an interesting book on the subject.

u/chrisoffner3d_ · 1 pointr/de

Stimme völlig zu. Ich bin da auch etwas zwiegespalten.

Auf der einen Seite respektiere ich einen unaufgeregten und sachorientierten Politikstil sehr, und denke dass das der Gesamtkultur zuträglicher ist als die reality TV-Spektakel, die wir in manch anderen Ländern sehen, in denen eine vergiftete politische Kultur und Identitätsstiftung die Bevölkerung zutiefst spaltet.

Auf der anderen Seite besorgt mich, dass die Entscheidungsfindung, also der politische Prozess selbst, bei Merkel stets völlig intransparent stattfindet. Wenn sie ihre stoische und analytische Denkmethodik öffentlich besser nachvollziehbar machen würde, fände ich das vermutlich kulturell und in puncto allgemeiner Bildung sogar sehr hilfreich.

Durch dieses scheinbar leidenschaftslose (was nicht immer schlecht sein muss) und für viele Bürger nur schwer nachvollziehbare, und damit etwas "elitär/abgehoben" wirkende Auftreten verhilft Merkel womöglich populistischen Schreihälsen in den Augen einiger zu mehr Legitimität.

u/PLEASE_USE_LOGIC · 1 pointr/PoliticalHumor

It takes more than just 1 opinion article by a neuroscientist to make a sound judgment on something; it takes more like 50 research publications on different aspects of the same topic.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2827455/

http://www.cogprints.org/619/1/Emot_Decis.html

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/media/library/decisionbrain

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irrationality

https://www.amazon.com/Against-Empathy-Case-Rational-Compassion/dp/0062339338

u/DnDstuffs · 1 pointr/news

As much as I’d like to have the same ad nauseam conversation with a socialist that always follows the same rhetorical formula I’ll think I’ll instead just leave you a link that you might benefit from.

https://www.amazon.com/Against-Empathy-Case-Rational-Compassion/dp/0062339338

Have a nice night.

u/LangstonHugeD · 1 pointr/Roadcam

I'm glad, they meant exactly what I feel.
Empathy isn't universally good. It's a human cognitive bias in the same way anger and jealousy are.
It's for sure a good thing to follow by default, but I recommend you read up more on the costs of empathy. What it was designed for isn't pragmatic and rarely ends up yielding actual good in our modern society, which it certainly wasn't designed for.

https://www.amazon.com/Against-Empathy-Case-Rational-Compassion/dp/0062339338

u/magic_beans · 1 pointr/philosophy

Bit late to this discussion but you might like the book Against Empathy by Paul Bloom: https://www.amazon.com/Against-Empathy-Case-Rational-Compassion/dp/0062339338

I heard about it on a Sam Harris Podcast which was fascinating. Basically the argument is that what most people mean by empathy is instead compassion and that actually empathy often leads to bad emotional decisions and burnout in the workplace.

Here's the podcast if you're interested: https://soundcloud.com/samharrisorg/the-virtues-of-cold-blood-a-conversation-with-paul-bloom

Matthieu Ricard also talks about this from a Buddhist perspective in a great TED talk if you can find it.

u/mavnorman · 0 pointsr/TrueReddit

> Or why not link his actual research?

It's a book.

u/anonmilitary · 0 pointsr/politics

There is a difference between empathy and rational compassion.

“But empathy is surprisingly bad at making us good. It's a spotlight focusing on certain people in the here and now. This makes us care more about them, but it leaves us insensitive to the long-term consequences of our acts and blind as well to the suffering of those we do not or cannot empathize with. Empathy is biased, pushing us in the direction of parochialism and racism. It is innumerate, favoring the one over the many. It can spark violence; our empathy for those close to us is a powerful force for war and atrocity toward others. It exhausts the spirit and can diminish the force of kindness and love.”

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0062339338/?tag=highexis-20