The Question of Empathy

Great Debates
1

One of the recent debates on this board resurrected a long held question of mine regarding human empathy. While, in my mind, the question is already answered, I am curious as to whether this opinion is broadly shared.

Therefore, with no further ado:

Regarding human empathy, which kind of person is more empathetic? Is it the person who can empathize even with a person who commits acts that seem devoid of humanity? Or is it the person who cannot under any circumstance understand such a person?

To illustrate with an unavoidable example (so I might as well dispense with it in the OP):

Who displays more empathy in regards to a mass murderer?
(This includes Stalin, Hitler, Bundy, bin Laden, etc. Let’s call them the Big Bad Evil Guy {BBEG} for short)

Person 1 - Understands or attempts to understand why the BBEG does what he does. Argues that BBEG is still human and that the behavior, reprehensible as it may be, is a product of innately human characteristics. Argues that there are doubtlessly many human reasons as to the motivations and the results of BBEG’s actions.

Person 2 - Does not understand or attempt to understand the BBEG. Classes BBEG as purely “evil” when assured of the factual results of BBEG’s actions. Cannot fathom the thought process or motivations that led to BBEG’s decisions. May argue that BBEG is, essentially, not human.
I tried to limit my bias as much as possible, but I know that I probably failed. If it isn’t obvious, my bias is toward Person 1. I think that Person 1 is invariably a more empathetic person than Person 2. Attempting to understand the unpleasant side of human nature isn’t the same thing as succumbing to it.

This bothers me, because I feel like in our modern society Person 2 is celebrated as the more empathetic, or at least the more “right”.

I have more of an argument forthcoming, but I’d like to see if we can get any discussion out of the topic before I go forward.

2

I think I agree with you.

I recall at a church dinner some time ago an older fellow was talking about a girl he’d met who talked about the pictures of Saddam Hussein she’d seen, just after he was pulled out of his hiding place – it was around that time, yes. He said something like this:

“She said ‘As I looked at him, I realized that the greatest and the smallest of us are just people when all’s said and done. Despite all he’d done, despite all his horrors, I looked into his face and remembered “Whatever you do unto the least of these, you do unto me.” Whatever he’d done, he was still a person. I looked into his face and I saw Christ.’”

He shook his head. “I can’t imagine how she can think that.”

My first thought, when I imagine someone really horrible, is “I can’t imagine what would drive him to that.” My second thought is to try to imagine it.

I’ve realized I don’t want to imagine it. Because when I do, it’s unpleasantly successful. Talk about the abyss looking into you…

3

Person 1. I don’t see the answer can be Person 2 without playing with the definition of “empathy.”

4

I don’t think it’s debatable that the first person is more empathic. What people will debate is which position is more moral.

So, you have empaths and judgmentalists.

5

But isn’t judgmentalists a loaded word?

How about “those who are more discerning”?

I’m just trying to level the playing field.

6

That’s because the description of Person B is incomplete. You don’t have an approach like person B’s without having feelings for the victims.

Unless person A is also empathetic of the victims, he’s not more empathetic, just empathetic of a different person in the crime equation. Person B is given more credit because a lot of people will think of person A as being empathetic of the wrong person.

7

That’s a great point. I was listing the original post to have the assumption of being equally empathetic towards the victims.

8

I don’t think that’s necessarily true. People judge others harshly all the time for acting contrary with what they believe to be proper even if there’s no victim. They deny others their empathy, often explicitly, because they think the person in question caused his own problems or acted foolishly.

That’s not to say that consideration for the victims isn’t a big factor, but humans like to pass judgement, and compassion for the victim is not mutually exclusive with compassion for the perpetrator.

9

So it’s only a binary choice? Then put me with Person 2. Even were I able to discount the previous deeds of (name a villian), there’s no way (for me) to avoid that this creature is demonstrably nasty, and not worth the effort to feel sorry for. And I really cannot relate to whatever it was they were thinking.

10

Yes, the first person is the more empathetic; and yes, the second one is what we chest-thumping Mericans believe is the Right way to deal with the eternal and complex problem of Good and Evil.

Discussions of media and children often touch on those points. Because of course we’re trying to raise “civilized” little people (for one thing, they’re easier to live with). But look at the story arc of most cartoons and it’s a matter of the Just waiting for a certain threshold to pass and then rising up to beat the crap out of the Unjust.

11

The first person is more empathic, but I am not convinced that all empathy is automatically a good thing.

Also, sometimes a person thinks they are person one, and being empathic, but what they really are doing is idolizing evil because they find it enthralling. This is what the people around them are reacting to.

12

As usual, it’s hard for me to see this question in pure black and white terms. A true BBEG has gotten where they are through a series of choices. Perhaps those choices were formed from situations that I can empathize with, but in the end, they took it too far and lose their right to any latitude for what they’ve done.

OTOH, I found myself feeling quite empathetic with the Abu Ghraib perps. What they did was completely reprehensible, but it was easy for me to imagine how the pressures of being in the army in a war combined with a ‘company culture’ that accepted or expected such behavior could lead otherwise good kids (I’m old - if they’re in their 20s, they’re kids) to do really bad stuff.

IOW, the levels of my empathy for evil-doers is more situational than set.

13

I think the OP is making the assumption that empathy and understanding are the same thing. I don’t think they are - understanding is an intellectual ability, while empathizing is emotional. I can see myself understanding exactly how and why someone does what they do without actually feeling much empathy towards them.

And even if I do emphasize with a BBEG, judging someone’s character is not the same as judging their actions. In effect, I can feel sorry for someone and at the same time believe that they need to be stopped at all costs.

14

But surely what you are talking about here is sympathy, not empathy. For me, the definition of being human is that we try, constantly if not consistently, to put ourselves in other peoples shoes and determine why they do, or say, or think the way they do. Without that constant reflection I’m not sure we can function properly.

I guess that one of my conclusions about BBEGs is exactly that - I suspect they are no longer able to imagine how their actions make others feel. Either that or they don’t care (or are able to trivialize that in favour of other more pressing reasons for behaviour). If I didn’t at least try to understand what makes people do reprehensible things, I would arguably be in danger of tumbling down the same path.