- In 400 words or less, summarize the piece AND show (with framed quotes and paraphrase from the text) what you believe to be the author’s three main points/arguments. Support with textual evidence and include your own initial response to the material.
In his article “Is empathy overrated?” Professor Paul Bloom argues that empathy has more negative effects than positive ones. His research demonstrates how people are more empathetic towards people that are like them, and also can’t give out enough empathy needed which challenges the idea that empathy is a good thing. He uses examples from the murders at Sandy Hook high school to prove that “were constituted so that novel and unusual events catch our attention and trigger our emotional responses.” Here he is elaborating on how if something (example being the Sandy Hook shooting) stands out and catches our attention we are likely to be empathic but in reality there are other bigger issues that slip by unnoticed and unnamed. Bloom’s arguments speak to readers about the larger issue with showing empathy, and how it is actually biased and “spotlighted”. He describes empathy with the term spotlighted by saying, “it has a narrow focus, one that shines brightly on those we love and gets dim for those who are strange and different.” I never had really thought about it like this and after reading this piece, I do see his side of the argument. I like how he summed up his article by saying he wasn’t against empathy but just thinks it has more negative outcomes than good ones. I’d say that I do agree but in a less aggressive sense than Bloom. I think empathy does have it’s positive aspects but there is a point where a line can be drawn.
- Do you agree with Bloom’s main arguments? Why or why not?
I do agree with some of his main points but not all. I don’t think that it necessarily distorts our moral judgments, and I feel that statement is a little aggressive but I do agree with some of the negative aspects he talked about with empathy. Like how it can be biased towards people like us and that it’s not that beneficial to be extremely empathetic because then everyone’s problems become your own.
- In what ways does Bloom challenge your initial understanding or perception regarding empathy?
My original perception of empathy was that it was good to a degree, I had already had the opinion that it wasn’t beneficial to be overly empathic. But Bloom challenged my understanding by pointing out that it could be biased and spotlighted, which was something I hadn’t really thought about before.
- Find one claim Bloom makes that evoked a strong response. Paste the direct quote from his piece, then write a few sentences in which you challenge OR support his claim in your own words.
“To the extent that you can appreciate that it’s better for one specific child to die than for an unknown and imprecise larger number of children to die, you are using capacities other than empathy.”
I thought this was a very strong claim, and it kind of makes you think about whether it’s true or not. Personally I’m not sure if I think it’s true though because either way whether it’s one or twelve children I wouldn’t like to hear about them dying.
