Many times, ‘empathy’ is seen as a basic virtue of good people who try to understand others, especially when they make mistakes or do things society disapproves of. Those who show no empathy are often interpreted as hard-hearted or lacking compassion, which can sometimes lead us to unknowingly overlook right and wrong.
One study clarifies this. Researchers measured brain activity of a group watching two people play a game: one played fairly, the other used cheating tactics. Both players received mild electric shocks.
Results showed that when the fair player experienced pain, both male and female observers clearly showed empathy. But when the cheater was shocked, many men showed reduced empathy, while brain areas linked to ‘pleasure’ became more active. Meanwhile, women on average still responded with empathetic feelings.
This doesn’t mean one gender makes better decisions than the other, but suggests an evolutionary aspect. Sometimes empathy toward rule-breakers may be a natural mechanism to ease conflicts in small ancient societies where women’s roles included caregiving and fostering social harmony, especially toward children or weaker group members.
However, it’s undeniable that if a group’s justice is protected but everyone continues to empathize with a cheater, the group’s rules weaken. Conversely, if cheaters know others don’t accept or feel sorry for them, they might restrain themselves more.
This shows empathy isn’t a principle applicable in all situations but a social tool that helps humans coexist. Empathy must be used carefully, because over-identifying with those who harm others and defending them can become mere excuses.
This idea connects to what’s called ‘toxic empathy’—unlimited empathy that neglects the victims’ impact. For example, after a crime, social discourse might focus solely on the perpetrator’s difficult life, overshadowing the victims’ voices and diminishing accountability.
Psychologist Paul Bloom points out that emotion-led empathy, especially ‘feeling pain with someone,’ often contains biases. We tend to empathize more with those close to us, those with clear stories, or those who look like us, rather than strangers who are less defined in our minds. Bloom notes that intense sympathy for one person may lead us to unfair decisions affecting many others.
Bloom doesn’t say we should stop empathizing but suggests distinguishing between ‘emotional feelings’ and ‘reasoned goodwill.’ He believes decisions should rely on both reason and principles, considering the bigger picture rather than letting immediate emotions guide us, since emotions can bias us, cause favoritism, or unintentionally support injustice.
For instance, if hearing about a lawbreaker’s hardship moves us deeply, we might urge judges to reduce their sentence. But rationally, we should also consider societal impacts and justice for victims. It’s not that we shouldn’t empathize, but empathy should be balanced with clear principles.
This doesn’t mean we should be cold; rather, empathy remains a crucial value but must have ‘limits’ and work alongside moral judgment. We can understand why someone errs while affirming that their actions are wrong and must be held accountable.
In a world full of conflict, the answer may not be simply more or less empathy, but using it mindfully—so empathy doesn’t become an excuse, and compassion walks hand in hand with justice.
That may be the form of empathy society needs most right now.
.References