Why Empathy Is Being Demonized (And Why It Shouldn’t Be)

Empathy has long been a cornerstone of human connection, yet in recent years, a troubling narrative has emerged: the idea that empathy is not just misguided but dangerous. Some voices in political, religious, and intellectual spaces have gone so far as to claim that empathy is a moral failing, a manipulative force, or even a sin...thus manufacturing an empathy crisis. But these arguments misrepresent both the nature of empathy and the actual challenges we face as a society. Instead of identifying real issues, they distort the truth and scapegoat one of the most essential virtues we possess.

Critics of empathy often argue that it distorts justice, clouds rational decision-making, or is used as a tool for social manipulation. Certain theological perspectives suggest that excessive empathy can lead to moral compromise, as feelings take precedence over biblical truth. However, this position ignores the profound empathy that Jesus himself demonstrated throughout his ministry...whether in his compassion for the sick, his defense of the marginalized, or his grief for the suffering. His actions suggest that empathy is not a departure from truth, but rather an embodiment of it.

From a psychological standpoint, some claim that empathy can lead to emotional burnout or biased decision-making. Paul Bloom (2016) has argued for “rational compassion” over empathy, suggesting that feeling too deeply for others can cloud judgment. While it is true that unchecked emotional reactivity can have consequences, this argument mischaracterizes empathy itself. Empathy is not an abandonment of reason but an integral part of ethical decision-making. Research shows that leaders who demonstrate empathy create healthier, more productive environments, and societies that cultivate empathy experience greater social cohesion and well-being.

Politically, the charge against empathy often manifests as a rejection of policies aimed at equity and justice. Critics argue that too much empathy fosters victimhood and entitlement, fueling progressive policies that undermine personal responsibility. However, data does not support this claim. Instead, research suggests that empathy-driven policies—such as social safety nets, equitable healthcare, and restorative justice— are not only popular but also result in stronger, more stable communities. If empathy were truly weakening society, we would expect to see the most empathetic nations faltering. Instead, we find that those with high levels of social trust and compassionate policies consistently rank highest in well-being and economic stability.

The fundamental flaw in the anti-empathy argument is that it assumes empathy operates in extremes. But human beings naturally regulate empathy, just as they do other fundamental needs. Consider water—essential to life, yet fatal if consumed in excess. Does this mean water is dangerous? No. It means balance and critical thinking are necessary. The same applies to empathy. The response to potential overreach is not to demonize empathy but to cultivate it wisely, with discernment and healthy boundaries.

The real crisis in Western culture is not an excess of empathy but a deficit. A 2011 study by Konrath et al. found that levels of empathy among young adults have declined by nearly 40% since the 1980s.

Rising rates of loneliness, political polarization, and mental health struggles indicate that we are not suffering from too much empathy...we are suffering from too little. The idea that empathy is an enemy not only misdiagnoses the real issue but also serves to justify apathy, exclusion, and cruelty under the guise of “truth.”

This argument against empathy bears false witness to reality. It reframes a fundamental human virtue as a vice, distracting from the actual forces driving societal decay...greed, inequality, and disconnection. History shows that societies thrive when empathy and justice go hand in hand, not when they are set against each other. The question we should be asking is not whether empathy is dangerous but rather why someone would decide to label it as such. The real threat to our future is not an overabundance of empathy but the growing indifference that threatens to divide and dehumanize us.

Sources

• Bloom, P. (2016). Against empathy: The case for rational compassion. HarperCollins.

• Goleman, D. (2006). Social intelligence: The new science of human relationships. Bantam.

• Konrath, S. H., O’Brien, E. H., & Hsing, C. (2011). Changes in dispositional empathy in American college students over time: A meta-analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 15(2), 180-198. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868310377395

• Wilkinson, R., & Pickett, K. (2018). The inner level: How more equal societies reduce stress, restore sanity, and improve everyone’s well-being. Penguin.

• Zaki, J. (2019). The war for kindness: Building empathy in a fractured world. Crown.