Most people would probably agree that empathy not only exists, but is in fact an important and fundamental aspect of being human. Anyone not capable of empathy is regarded as a sociopath, someone not to be trusted. Empathy is thought of as a basis for morality and social organization. But is it, really? Is real empathy even possible?

In issue 52 of Philosophy Now, Ramsey McNabb describes the conundrum:

To deny that empathy is possible is a problem, since it is highly valued in the fields of ethics, medicine, education, and elsewhere. Without empathy for others, it is not clear why we would ever be motivated by anything other than selfishness. Indeed, a person with a complete lack of empathy might rightly be classified as an amoral sociopath. In medicine, empathy for their patients’ experiences (symptoms, feelings) enables doctors to diagnose and treat them more effectively, and with greater compassion. Empathy enables teachers and other educators to grasp the particular problems and needs of students.

This is the common understanding of empathy, but as McNabb explains, there is another view which is not unreasonable and which has some currency:

On the other hand, the impossibility of empathy, and the importance of uniqueness of experience is a highly treasured ‘truth’ in current education and social justice theory. To presume to know how another person feels is to strip that person of his or her separateness and uniqueness. It is especially offensive to people who have been victims of one form or another of oppression when members of the privileged group claim to know how they feel.

For example, Diana Meyers states: “The metaphor of putting oneself in the other’s shoes is misleading, for it is a mistake to assume that the other feels the same way as one would oneself feel in the same circumstances.” See her ‘Difference, Empathy, and Impartial Reason’, Subjection & Subjectivity: Psychoanalytic Feminism & Moral Philosophy, (Routledge, 1994). Also, in 1992, when Bill Clinton made his infamous “I feel your pain” comment, many people were offended and criticized him for his declaration of empathy.

So, does genuine empathy exist and serve as a basis for social interaction, or is it just a sham and something which only serves to devalue the uniqueness of human experiences? I think that the former is true — the latter only appears to be the case if we take the concept “I know who you feel” to too great of an extreme. I may not know how you feel to the same extent that you know, but that does not preclude genuine understanding.

People might justifiably feel offended when someone presumes to “know” how they feel if there is good reason to think that they couldn’t possibly have the sorts of experiences upon which such mutual understanding is possible. We are all human, but sometimes being human isn’t enough — some things you actually have to experience in order to understand (or at least experience something very similar).

Thus, expressions of false empathy are certainly possible, but this doesn’t mean that all expressions of empathy are false. To suggest that they are goes too far in the other direction, even to the point of denying that our common humanity is meaningful for the purpose of mutual understanding. The fact that we are both human may not always be enough, but it does count for something.

 

Read More:

• Philosophy 101
• Critical Thinking