May 24, 2025

Empathy and Its Discontents

The origins of the war on empathy is rooted in an ugly objective neutrality.

Prior in this Empathy series:

Today, I’d like to begin to tell you the story of how those on the religious right (Christian, Evangelical, Nationalists) have mounted the war on empathy over the last 20 years. It is a story that is bookended, on one side, by Barak Obama’s commencement address at Northwestern University on June 16 2006, and on the other side, by Reverend Mariann Edgar Budde's appeal to mercy in her sermon at the Washington National Cathedral’s inaugural prayer service following President Trump’s second inauguration on January 21, 2025.

My point of departure is Julia Carrie Wong’s excellent account in The Guardian article, “Loathe thy neighbor: Elon Musk and the Christian right are waging war on empathy,” following up on the references she identifies in her piece; I highly recommend her piece, you should read it. However, where Wong credits Budde’s speech as a significant event in an emerging “war on empathy” on the American right, I would rather say that Budde’s sermon is the culmination of 20 years of attacks on empathy and what empathy, a core tenet of President Obama’s political philosophy, represents.

In fact, Budde doesn’t actually use the word “empathy” but uses “mercy” in her appeal for compassion. But her person (including her gender) and words become an occasion to bring forward, into the mainstream, what had already been built out, in a culmination of sorts. Our aim is to see how the attack is constructed, deployed, and spread to other social sectors (such as the libertarian and effective altruism subculture featured in an upcoming part). At the end of this piece you will find a timeline (to which we will continue adding more layers) of what is a fairly straightforward series of events.

An Empathy Deficit

In his commencement address at Northwestern University on June 16, then-Senator Barack Obama introduced the idea of an “empathy deficit,” stating,

“There's a lot of talk in this country about the federal deficit. But I think we should talk more about our empathy deficit—the ability to put ourselves in someone else's shoes; to see the world through those who are different from us—the child who's hungry, the laid-off steelworker, the immigrant woman cleaning your dorm room.”

Obama linked this call for empathy to his Christian faith, describing it as a moral imperative grounded in the biblical principle of loving one’s neighbor. The background context for his speech is important: a faint memory now, but throughout the early 2000s, faith communities made efforts to promote social issues like immigration reform and the global fight against HIV/Aids. Up to this point, an appeal to empathy had not provoked much ire, but it seems that when now-elect President Obama again identifies empathy as a desirable qualification in selecting a Supreme Court Justice in 2009, this is the statement that first sparks controversy. The politically conservative right voiced the view that empathy compromises judicial objectivity.

The left critiqued it as well, seeing this appeal to empathy as entitled — see John Paul Rollert’s piece in The Atlantic, “Between the World and Me: Empathy Is a Privilege.” We will return to the elided critique of empathy on the left in another part. This, now, seems to be a moment of politicization, where everyone went off to gather firewood.

Empathy gains popularity alongside Obama’s presidency. Across education, mainstream media, and corporate culture, empathy is seen as valuable. It becomes a key focus in social-emotional learning programs, leadership training, and diversity initiatives, promoted as essential for teamwork and inclusivity in the workplace. Social media movements like #YesAllWomen and #BlackLivesMatter harness storytelling and personal testimony to evoke empathy, raising awareness and successfully mobilizing public support for social justice causes. Scientific research into the biological basis of empathy gives rise to a theory of “mirror-neurons”that reaches its height around 2013 — more on this later.

Against Empathy

Then Yale psychology professor Paul Bloom publishes Against Empathy: The Case for Rational Compassion (2016).* *This work seems to be origin of the story — now oft repeated, even by Wong — of empathy as a strange, new invention with roots in German aesthetics. This framing sets the stage for his argument that empathy is not eternal or sacred, but a constructed and potentially misleading moral compass. (This is a premise that I reject in “Is Empathy Really So Strange?”) I would argue that empathy is not in and of itself an emotion or feeling, but an openness or permeability to affect and a precondition for our humanity, but Bloom sees it negatively as feeling or prejudice that presents an obstacle to rational decision making in fields such as politics and philanthropy.

Bloom describes empathy as a "capricious and irrational emotion" that appeals to our narrow prejudices, muddles our judgment, and ironically, often leads to cruelty. For example, he explains that empathy for a victim can escalate into hatred for the perpetrator, or even entire groups associated with them—thus increasing cruelty and conflict. (This argument is rehearsed by Gurwinder in his post “Why Empathy Makes Us Cruel & Irrational,” which I critiqued thoroughly in “Who's Afraid of Empathy?” ) Bloom suggests that instead of relying on empathy, we should draw upon a more distanced compassion to make clearer, fairer, and ultimately more moral decisions. Compassion, as we have seen in the previous part, is an older, theological term, but the two (empathy and compassion) are not actually the same. The slippage between these terms may or may not be intentional… at the very least we identify Bloom’s unexamined preference for theologically based thinking.

Rationality Vs. Emotion

There are many critiques of the rejection of emotion in moral decision making. Let’s do a quick tour of the history: Starting with Aristotle’s virtue based ethics, emotions are integral to the development of moral character and the potential for virtuous thought and action. Martha Nussbaum (1947– ), a leading philosopher behind the revival of virtue based ethics in the twentieth century, explains that emotions have cognitive content: they reflect what we value and understand about the world. Ignoring our feelings means ignoring a critical part of our ethical perception.

Reacting against the rationalist of his era that over-valued reason in decision making, David Hume (1711–1776) provocatively argued that “reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions” (Hume 266). Reason, in Hume’s view, is instrumental: it helps us figure out how to achieve our goals, but it cannot determine what our goals should be. Those are set by our passions.

Even Adam Smith (1723–1790), who coined the terms “free markets” and “division of labor” in the foundational text of classical economics, liberalism, and capitalism, The Wealth of Nations, had the sense to know that what he called sympathy is the foundation of our human morality. In his Theory of Moral Sentiments, he affirmed that our ability to imaginatively identify with others' feelings is what motivates ethical behavior (Smith 13).

Jumping to the 1920s and 1930s, philosophers associated with the Vienna Circle attempted to define philosophy strictly as a scientific discipline grounded in empirical verification, formal logic, and linguistic clarity. They avoided engaging in the politics of their time (i.e., the rise of fascism in Europe) and rejected any normative role for philosophy, wanting to divorce philosophy from politics, ethics, and aesthetics. This ideology is taken further by Logical Positivism post-World War II, but there was also a strong reaction against Logical Positivism because that call for neutrality is a way to conceal racist, sexist, and Eurocentric assumptions. Bernard Williams (1929–2003) and Charles Taylor (1931– ) respond to this where they argue that abstract, disembodied rationalism strips away context and humanity. Not something to strive for, this type of detachment leads to coldness, cruelty, and moral blindness.

The opposition between rationality and emotion is nothing new. But the elevation of reason, achieved through the degradation of emotion, is a deliberate political strategy to subjugate those who are not deemed capable of reason, those who are led by their emotions.

Feminist Responses and Care Ethics

Feminist philosophers have long critiqued the ideal of “dispassionate objectivity” as a masculine-coded fiction, because emotions are not inherently irrational, but carry knowledge about power, oppression, and justice. (This is also Nussbaum’s point above, and she isn’t even in the feminist camp.) Alison Jaggar in particular comes to mind, and her pronouncement that anger and empathy are “outlaw emotions” because they challenge dominant ideologies and help expose social injustices (Jaggar 166). The literature on this subject is extensive; strong introductory texts include Andrea Nye’s Words of Power and Genevieve Lloyd’s Man of Reason, both of which I have recommended before to this audience.

But the most pertinent discussion is probably a feminist ethics of care. Carol Gilligan’s In A Different Voice (1982) mounted a critique of psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg’s model of moral development. Kohlberg’s theory, which outlined a six-stage progression toward moral maturity, was based on studies of primarily white, middle-class boys and men. In his model, the highest stages of moral development emphasized abstract reasoning and the application of universal ethical principles. Kohlberg extrapolated these findings to propose a general theory of how "we" make moral decisions. But then girls and women (who were not actually studied by Kholberg until the later stages of his research, an afterthought) were found to be deficient when measured against Kohlberg’s theory of moral development.

When girls and women were assessed using Kohlberg’s framework, they often appeared to score lower, leading to the conclusion that they were morally less developed. Gilligan challenged this interpretation, arguing that the discrepancy arose not from moral deficiency, but from the model’s gendered assumptions. Gilligan contended that many women tend to approach moral questions not through strict adherence to rules or impartial justice, but through an “ethic of care” that emphasizes empathy, relationships, and attentiveness to the needs of particular others. Rather than seeing moral decisions as problems to be solved by applying impersonal, abstract principles, the care orientation seeks to preserve connection and minimize harm within relationship webs. Empathy plays a central role in this model—not as a sentimental or irrational force, but as a mode of attunement and responsiveness to others’ lived realities. In short, Gilligan argued that women’s way of reasoning represented a different but equally valid moral voice. This was part of the development, in feminist theory, of women’s ways of knowing.

When Pastor Joe Rigney begins evangelizing, as early as 2019, against what he calls the “sin of empathy,” linking it to feminism, and later argues that women are more susceptible to empathy (another opinion Gurwinder echoes), he seems, strangely, to be agreeing with Carol Gilligan and feminist care ethics. We’ll start there next time.

To be continued…

Tired of subscriptions? Consider making a one time donation, starting at just $1 🧡 on Ko-Fi.

TIMELINE*

2006: In his commencement address at Northwestern University on June 16, then-Senator Barack Obama introduced the concept of an “empathy deficit,” stating, “There's a lot of talk in this country about the federal deficit. But I think we should talk more about our empathy deficit—the ability to put ourselves in someone else's shoes; to see the world through those who are different from us—the child who's hungry, the laid-off steelworker, the immigrant woman cleaning your dorm room." He linked this call for empathy to his Christian faith, describing it as a moral imperative grounded in the biblical principle of loving one’s neighbor. Obama’s speech framed empathy not only as a spiritual responsibility, but as a civic virtue, emphasizing empathy as essential for national unity and justice.

2009: President Barack Obama cites empathy as a key qualification in selecting a Supreme Court Justice, stating he wants someone who understands “what it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old.” The statement sparks controversy, with conservatives arguing that empathy threatens judicial objectivity.

2010s: Empathy gains widespread popularity across education, mainstream media, and corporate culture. It becomes a key focus in social-emotional learning programs, leadership training, and diversity initiatives, promoted as essential for teamwork and inclusivity. Social media movements like #YesAllWomen and #BlackLivesMatter harness storytelling and personal testimony to evoke empathy, raising awareness and mobilizing public support for social justice causes.

2016: The book Against Empathy: The Case for Rational Compassion by Yale psychology professor Paul Bloom is published, arguing against allowing empathy to guide actions in areas like philanthropy and politics due to potential for manipulation and bias.

2019: Pastor Joe Rigney begins evangelizing against what he calls the “sin of empathy,” linking it to feminism and the “politics of empathetic manipulation and victimhood”

2020: The murder of George Floyd by a Minneapolis police officer on May 25 sparks global protests against police brutality and systemic racism. Empathy becomes a central theme, as the viral video of Floyd’s death evokes widespread emotional outrage. Protesters, public figures, and institutions invoke empathy to drive calls for justice, reform, and solidarity, leading to a renewed cultural focus on anti-racism and police accountability.

February 2023: Joe Rigney’s book The Sin of Empathy: Compassion and its Counterfeits is published, offering a critical examination of empathy and distinguishing genuine compassion from its misleading or superficial forms.

2024: Allie Beth Stuckey publishes Toxic Empathy: How Progressives Exploit Christian Compassion. (Edited: Date corrected.)

January 21, 2025: The Right Rev. Mariann Edgar Budde delivers a sermon at the Washington National Cathedral’s inaugural prayer service following President Trump’s second inauguration. She pleads with Trump to show mercy toward immigrants, LGBTQ+ individuals, and others fearing for their lives, urging compassion for vulnerable communities in a moment of national uncertainty.

Within days of January 21, 2025: Bishop Budde's sermon “touched off a firestorm among some of Trump’s evangelical supporters.” Christian podcasters Ben Garrett tweets “Do not commit the sin of empathy.” Allie Beth Stuckey tweets about “toxic empathy that is in complete opposition to God’s Word.” Pastor Joe Rigney describes Budde's message as a “clear example of the man-eating weed of Humanistic Mercy” and links it to feminism and the “politics of empathetic manipulation and victimhood.”

January 30, 2025: Vice President J.D. Vance publicly advocated for a hierarchical interpretation of Christian love, known as ordo amoris, suggesting that love should be prioritized starting with one's family, then neighbors, followed by community, country, and finally the broader world. This perspective was articulated during an interview with Sean Hannity and further emphasized in subsequent public statements.

February 3, 2025: Cardinal Robert Prevost, who would later become Pope Leo XIV, responded to Vance's interpretation by posting on X (formerly Twitter), “JD Vance is wrong: Jesus doesn't ask us to rank our love for others,” linking to an article from the National Catholic Reporter that criticized Vance's remarks.

February 10, 2025: In a letter addressed to the U.S. bishops, Pope Francis responded to Vice President J.D. Vance's invocation of the theological concept ordo amoris to justify the Trump administration's immigration policies. Vance had argued for a hierarchical ordering of love, prioritizing family, community, and nation over others. Pope Francis countered this interpretation by emphasizing that Christian love should be universal and inclusive, drawing upon the parable of the Good Samaritan to illustrate the boundless nature of compassion. He warned against policies that criminalize migrants and stressed the importance of recognizing the dignity of every human being, regardless of their legal status. The Pope's letter served as a direct challenge to nationalist interpretations of Christian doctrine that exclude or marginalize vulnerable populations.

February 19, 2025: Joe Rigney promotes his book [The Sin of Empathy](http://The Sin of Empathy) on Albert Mohler's podcast, Thinking In Public, where Mohler offers his own critiques of empathy, calling it a “synthetic word,” too tied to “constant emoting,” Marxism, and identity politics.

February 28, 2025: Elon Musk appears on the The Joe Rogan Experience podcast where he describes empathy as “the fundamental weakness of Western civilization,” referring to it as “the empathy exploit” and likening it to a “bug” in the system. He suggested that empathy can be manipulated and weaponized, leading to societal harm if not tempered by rational analysis.

April 8, 2025: The Guardian publishes Julia Carrie Wong’s article “Loathe thy neighbor: Elon Musk and the Christian right are waging war on empathy” detailing the broader “war on empathy” being waged by figures like Elon Musk and the Christian right, highlighting the Bishop Budde sermon as a key moment that brought these anti-empathy arguments to the forefront**.... The article connects this movement to efforts to “create this intellectual infrastructure so that people can justify to themselves that actually by hurting other people I'm saving civilization and I'm saving them from harm”...** and dismantle society's capacity to respond to suffering.

May 8th, 2025: Julia Carrie Wong appears on the podcast Tech Wont Save Us to discuss her work, in an episode entitled “The Roots of Elon Musk’s War On Empathy w/ Julia Carrie Wong.”

Please Note: I am “working in public” and this is a working draft.

REFERENCES*

Betts, Anna. “Bishop who angered Trump with call for mercy says she will not apologize.” The Guardian, 23 Jan. 2025.

Bloom, Paul. Against Empathy: The Case for Rational Compassion (Ecco, an imprint of HarperCollins Publishers, 2016).

Gilligan, Carol. In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women’s Development. Harvard University Press, 1982.

Honigsbaum, Mark. “Barack Obama and the 'empathy deficit'.” The Guardian, 4 Jan. 2013.

Hume, David. A Treatise of Human Nature. Edited by David Fate Norton and Mary J. Norton, Oxford University Press, 2000.

Jaggar, Alison M. “Love and Knowledge: Emotion in Feminist Epistemology.” Inquiry, vol. 32, no. 2, 1989, pp. 151–176.

Kohlberg, Lawrence. The Philosophy of Moral Development: Moral Stages and the Idea of Justice. Vol. 1, Harper & Row, 1981.

"Importance of Empathy - Barack Obama at Morehouse College Commencement." YouTube, uploaded by Edwin “Empathy” Rutsch. Posted below.

Lloyd, Genevieve. The Man of Reason: “Male” and “Female” in Western Philosophy. Methuen, 1984.

Nye, Andrea. Words of Power: A Feminist Reading of the History of Logic. Routledge, 1990.

Rigney, Joe. The Sin of Empathy: Compassion and its Counterfeits. Canon Press, 2023.

Rollert, John Paul. “Between the World and Me: Empathy Is a Privilege.” The Atlantic, 28 Sept. 2015, https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/09/between-the-world-and-me-empathy-is-a-privilege/407647/.

Smith, Adam. The Theory of Moral Sentiments. Edited by Knud Haakonssen, Cambridge University Press, 2002.

Smith, Adam. An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. Edited by Edwin Cannan, Modern Library, 1994.

Stuckey, Allie Beth. Toxic Empathy: How Progressives Exploit Christian Compassion. Sentinel, 2024.

Wong, Julia Carrie. "Loathe Thy Neighbor: Elon Musk and the Christian Right Are Waging War on Empathy." The Guardian, 8 Apr. 2025, www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2025/apr/08/empathy-sin-christian-right-musk-trump.

Share this article

Twitter Bluesky LinkedIn Facebook Email