- In his article, “Is empathy overrated?” Paul Bloom indicates empathy may harm humanity since it fails to see the bigger picture. Individuals may feel they are helping through their actions, but in reality, the consequences appear afterward, which are then ignored. He mentions in regard to the Sandy Hook Elementary school shooting aftermath, “The town was inundated with so much charity that it added to their burden” (Bloom 2). While the charity may have seemed thoughtful initially, there was so much response to the tragedy that the message became lost. Bloom uses events such as these to help the reader view the problems concerning empathy, which is often too focused on one aspect of the issue rather than a broader scope. He uses the analogy of this reaction described as a spotlight that can only focus on one particular thing at a time, thus leaving other concerns in the dark. Bloom additionally offers alternatives to empathy to be more compassionate as an individual by avoiding absorbing the suffering others face. He remarks that it is easier to help someone in the long term since short-term pain is necessary for growth.
Bloom outlines specific points that support his claim regarding empathy as a negative trait humans frequently use improperly. As described in the previous paragraph, people tend to become blinded by empathy or the remorse they feel for others, failing to recognize their actions potentially have negative consequences. During the Sandy Hook aftereffect, people misinterpreted, as shown, “with people from far poorer communities sending their money to much richer people, guided by the persistent itch of empathic concern” (Bloom 2). The supporters of the Newtown community following this horrific event overwhelmed the town with their generosity, thus creating another problem. Another illustration by Bloom is empathy is unable to focus on multiple occurrences or individuals at one time. There are too many groups and causes that people should empathize with, though it is not humanly possible to do so. Bloom makes a solid point concerning this issue, “… we can value the lives of all these individuals… But what we can’t do is empathize with all of them” (Bloom 3). Yes, we can merit these matters and consciously decide how to express this concern, but empathizing is a different conflict entirely. The ability to feel and understand a person’s anguish is difficult with one individual, but to accomplish this with multiple individuals simultaneously is nearly impossible. What I believe to be Bloom’s final point is that there are better alternatives to the use of empathy. It is not elaborated on to the degree of the previous two points, but Bloom uses some solid examples to show how to achieve kindness through other methods. He claims self-control and knowledge are needed to imbue compassion in everyday life. Described through long-term and short-term scenarios of a child punished for current behavior, which will ultimately benefit the child in the long run despite their immediate distress when told to stop or do something they do not want to.
2. As I was reading this article, I found myself despising Bloom. His text made me angry by how he approached the topic. Looking back, however, I realize he has a few decent points regarding empathy. I do not particularly enjoy empathy as it often feels fake, overdone, and only temporary. I agree with Bloom’s claims that alternatives are available, so empathy is not required as frequently. His statements concerning the Sandy Hook Elementary mass shooting came across as very insensitive, and close-minded at first, which is why I became irritated by his writing. What would have helped him in this work was his final two paragraphs mentioning the alternatives to empathy. If these arguments were included more consistently throughout the piece, Bloom would not have come across as harsh. Yes, Bloom made his points clear, but I think he could have used different examples since talking about a school shooting and then going on to say that it is insignificant in the grand scheme of American homicide is callous.
3. My initial understanding of empathy was that other people try to understand your situation despite having never experienced such a thing since each human life is different. Going into this article, I already possessed negative views on empathy. What I was not expecting was the relation to the negative consequences of people’s empathy on a larger scale. I also did not foresee the inability of humans to empathize with more than one or two people at a time, which I had not considered before reading Bloom’s piece. He also offers alternatives to empathy, where a knowledgeable background is vital, and people can still value issues others experience without intervening.
4. The part in which Bloom discusses the homicide rates in America and relates this to a mass shooting evoked a strong negative response in me as I read. While his point makes sense, I find it insensitive to compare a mass shooting of elementary school children to other general homicides nationwide. The sentence that made me angry was, “That is, if you could wave a magic wand and end all mass shootings forever, nobody looking at the overall homicide rates would even notice” (Bloom 2). The use of the term “magic wand” elicited an annoyed response where I wrote in my notes, “It is not a “magic wand” this is called the government taking action regarding gun laws in the United States or otherwise restricting them to a more controlled degree.” Using a made-up supernatural expression to describe a changeable situation, should appropriate actions be taken, is utterly inhumane.
