Available instantly

Hardcover
£78.95

Paperback
£7.77

Audio CD
£29.91

Buy used

£78.95

FREE delivery 14 - 20 October on your first order to UK or Ireland. Details

Used: Good | Details

Sold by walton_bookstore

Only 1 left in stock.

Image Unavailable

Image not available for
Colour:

To view this video download Flash Player

Follow the author

Paul Bloom

Follow

Against Empathy: The Case for Rational Compassion Hardcover – 6 Dec. 2016

by Paul Bloom (Author)

1,097 ratings

See all formats and editions

New York Post Best Book of 2016

We often think of our capacity to experience the suffering of others as the ultimate source of goodness. Many of our wisest policy-makers, activists, scientists, and philosophers agree that the only problem with empathy is that we don&;t have enough of it.

Nothing could be farther from the truth, argues Yale researcher Paul Bloom. In AGAINST EMPATHY, Bloom reveals empathy to be one of the leading motivators of inequality and immorality in society. Far from helping us to improve the lives of others, empathy is a capricious and irrational emotion that appeals to our narrow prejudices. It muddles our judgment and, ironically, often leads to cruelty. We are at our best when we are smart enough not to rely on it, but to draw instead upon a more distanced compassion.

Basing his argument on groundbreaking scientific findings, Bloom makes the case that some of the worst decisions made by individuals and nations&;who to give money to, when to go to war, how to respond to climate change, and who to imprison&;are too often motivated by honest, yet misplaced, emotions. With precision and wit, he demonstrates how empathy distorts our judgment in every aspect of our lives, from philanthropy and charity to the justice system; from medical care and education to parenting and marriage. Without empathy, Bloom insists, our decisions would be clearer, fairer, and&;yes&;ultimately more moral.

Brilliantly argued, urgent and humane, AGAINST EMPATHY shows us that, when it comes to both major policy decisions and the choices we make in our everyday lives, limiting our impulse toward empathy is often the most compassionate choice we can make.

From the Publisher

	The Sweet Spot	Against Empathy

Customer Reviews	249	1,097
Price	£21.99	£10.01
	✓	✓

Product description

From the Back Cover

A controversial call to arms by one of the world&;s leading psychologists, Against Empathy reveals how the natural impulse to share the feelings of others can do more harm than good both on the world stage and in our personal lives.

We often think of our capacity to experience the suffering of others as the ultimate source of goodness. Many of our wisest policy makers, activists, scientists, and philosophers agree that the only problem with empathy is that we don&;t have enough of it.

Nothing could be further from the truth, argues Yale researcher Paul Bloom. In Against Empathy, Bloom reveals empathy to be one of the leading motivators of inequality and immorality in society. Far from helping us to improve the lives of others, empathy is a capricious and irrational emotion that appeals to our narrow prejudices. It muddles our judgment and, ironically, often leads to cruelty. We are at our best when we are smart enough not to rely on it but to draw instead upon a more distanced compassion.

Basing his argument on groundbreaking scientific findings, Bloom makes the case that some of the worst decisions made by individuals and nations&;whom to give money to, when to go to war, how to respond to climate change, and whom to imprison&;are too often motivated by honest, yet misplaced, emotions. With precision and wit, he demonstrates how empathy distorts our judgment in every aspect of our lives, from philanthropy and charity to the justice system and from medical care and education to parenting and marriage. Without empathy, Bloom insists, our decisions would be clearer, fairer, and&;yes&;ultimately more moral.

Brilliantly argued, urgent, and humane, Against Empathy shows us that when it comes to both major policy decisions and the choices we make in our everyday lives limiting our impulse toward empathy is often the most compassionate choice we can make.

Product details

Publisher ‏ : ‎ Ecco Pr
Publication date ‏ : ‎ 6 Dec. 2016
Language ‏ : ‎ English
Print length ‏ : ‎ 285 pages
ISBN-10 ‏ : ‎ 0062339338
ISBN-13 ‏ : ‎ 978-0062339331
Item weight ‏ : ‎ 386 g
Dimensions ‏ : ‎ 2.29 x 13.21 x 20.07 cm
Best Sellers Rank: 315,597 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)
- 3,755 in Psychology & Psychiatry
- 42,644 in Social Sciences (Books)
Customer reviews:
1,097 ratings

About the author

Follow authors to get new release updates, plus improved recommendations.

Paul Bloom

Brief content visible, double tap to read full content.

Full content visible, double tap to read brief content.

Paul Bloom is the Brooks and Suzanne Ragen Professor of Psychology and Cognitive Science at Yale University. His research explores how children and adults understand the physical and social world, with special focus on morality, religion, fiction, and art. His popular writing has appeared in the New York Times, the New Yorker, the Atlantic Monthly, Slate, Natural History, and many other publications. He has won numerous awards for his research and teaching. He lives in Guilford, Connecticut.

Customer reviews

1,097 global ratings

How customer reviews and ratings work

Customers say

Customers find the book thought-provoking and well-written, with thorough research and detailed analyses of empathy. The readability receives mixed reactions, with some finding it readable while others consider it unreasonable. The pacing and argument quality also receive mixed reviews, with several customers noting the book is repetitive.

Select to learn more

Thought provoking Writing quality Sleight of hand Readability Readable Empathy Pacing Argument quality

8 customers mention ‘Thought provoking’7 positive1 negative

Customers find the book thought-provoking, with one customer noting how the author uses interesting anecdotes to illustrate points, while another mentions it provides many examples to support its arguments.

"Thought provoking and detailed analyses of how empathy or absence of it can shape our opinion or decisions...." Read more

"The kind of critical thinking you need in the modern world!" Read more

"There are good points in the book, which matched with I already thought about empathy...." Read more

"...empathy, and the way Bloom debunks it, though flawed, resonated with me on many levels...." Read more

8 customers mention ‘Writing quality’6 positive2 negative

Customers praise the writing quality of the book, with one noting how the author effectively combines science and philosophy, while another appreciates its concise style.

"...It’s a short insightful, well written, with good points and it’s quite short a book, so you have no reasons not to read in case you want to know..." Read more

"...Bloom writes well at the interface of science and philosophy and references his sources ...." Read more

"...The author hits some relevent notes but the whole is not a satisfying composition...." Read more

"...Whilst the prose is well written and easy to follow I don't think the writer presents that convincing argument that follows the thread of the whole..." Read more

7 customers mention ‘Sleight of hand’5 positive2 negative

Customers appreciate the book's thorough research and references to sources.

"His arguments are well-rounded and researched...." Read more

"...writes well at the interface of science and philosophy and references his sources ...." Read more

"...Good evidence is expensive and so cost-benefit analysis is costly...." Read more

"...Yes it is well written, and it is very thorough, and the arguments are good ones...." Read more

6 customers mention ‘Readability’5 positive1 negative

Customers find the book readable.

"Love this book. As a psychotherapist it sums up a lot of the dangers of this 'silver bullet' in my profession...." Read more

"I loved this book so much...." Read more

"...Still probably worth a read." Read more

"Good and interesting book. Delivered on time." Read more

7 customers mention ‘Readable’4 positive3 negative

Customers have mixed opinions about the readability of the book, with some finding it readable while others find it unreasonable.

"...Readable." Read more

"...on the joys of reason and its largely muddled, falacious and unreasonable...." Read more

"...It is also a very readable book unlike a bunch of dense academic books I have bought where I feel very clever for understanding a few paragraphs and..." Read more

"...unguarded ‘attacks’ on academic colleagues making for slightly uncomfortable reading...." Read more

6 customers mention ‘Empathy’2 positive4 negative

Customers have mixed views on empathy in the book, with some appreciating the detailed analyses of how it works, while others note that it can overwhelm reason.

"...Empathy can overwhelm reason, sometimes it should overwhelm reason. Maybe there is no time...." Read more

"...Bloom explains that empathy is judgement...." Read more

"...It is a poor predictor of moral goodness, political affiliation and world view...." Read more

"...It didn't happen; Bloom's definition of empathy is very narrow and could have been dealt with a single chapter...." Read more

6 customers mention ‘Pacing’2 positive4 negative

Customers have mixed opinions about the pacing of the book, with several noting it is repetitive.

"...He writes well enough but sadly what is revealed is often a lack of clarity of thought...." Read more

"...By this standard Bloom’s book is a belter. Whilst the central point may be obvious, what others have described as his ‘ramblings’ for me were page..." Read more

"Catchy title for a controversial topic - but a bit too much drag to read - repetitive - one gets the central message quickly enough, and the rest is..." Read more

"The definition of empathy is problematic and some of the book is a little repetitious...." Read more

4 customers mention ‘Argument quality’2 positive2 negative

Customers have mixed opinions about the arguments in the book, with some finding them good while others disagree.

"...Yes it is well written, and it is very thorough, and the arguments are good ones...." Read more

"...I am just trying to justify my assertion that the author's arguments are muddled and in a manner which undermines the thrust of his position. 1...." Read more

"His arguments are well-rounded and researched. However I did ......" Read more

"A tiresome read with no solid argument..." Read more

Top reviews from United Kingdom

There was a problem filtering reviews. Please reload the page.

Sujaya
5/5
Reviewed in the United Kingdom on 5 May 2025
Format: PaperbackVerified Purchase

The kind of critical thinking you need in the modern world!

Read more

Helpful

Report
PAULO CERQUEIRA
Itks a Ok book to read
Reviewed in the United Kingdom on 19 November 2022
Format: Kindle EditionVerified Purchase
There are good points in the book, which matched with I already thought about empathy.

It’s a short insightful, well written, with good points and it’s quite short a book, so you have no reasons not to read in case you want to know more about empathy.

Read more

One person found this helpful

Helpful

Report
observer100
Salutary, stimulating.
Reviewed in the United Kingdom on 23 February 2017
Verified Purchase
Despite a wandering style which would have benefited from being tightened up, this is an important and necessary book. Bloom writes well at the interface of science and philosophy and references his sources . Disrupting and examining comfortable platitudes is a useful public service. The title and the text are tongue in cheek; Bloom is not against empathy, but against its uncritical use uncontrolled by proper reason. And he does say that 'moral philosophy is hard'. Amen. Without proper information and thought, empathy can, and often does, cause harm. In the balance between emotion and reason current debate too often reflects a lurch towards emotion, a loss of balance. That is why this book is salutary.

Read more

20 people found this helpful

Helpful

Report
Trying to be helpful
The muddled meanderings of a hyper-rationalist
Reviewed in the United Kingdom on 25 March 2017
Verified Purchase
I was delighted to find this book. I have a creeping dislike of the empathy industry. There seems to be a broad clamour along the lines of 'greater empathy makes a nicer world' but when I have read the support for such a position it seems to be founded on muddled thinking and vagueness surrounding what exactly is meant by the term empathy which can end up as no more specific than a synonym for niceness. 'Greater niceness makes a nicer world' ... hmmm. In the media, empathy seems to appear as a marketing tool (feel the distress, make the donation) and as a yardstick for newsworthiness (are there pictures of people in distress?). None of this means I want a world with less or indeed fewer empathetic people just that I don't see empathy as some kind of magic pixie dust and don't like the emotional manipulation that is the basis of the media's deployment of empathy ... except, of course, when I choose to be manipulated as for example when watching a film or reading fiction. Ok, so that was my starting point: I was delighted to find a counter-blast appearing. I would favour more thoughtful consideration in how to deploy resources to improve well-being (rational compassion). Don't lets go to war or make large scale allocations of public money without clear thinking about costs and benefits.

As it turns out I was to be disappointed with the book. My impression was one of a meandering text full of muddle. The author hits some relevent notes but the whole is not a satisfying composition. He writes well enough but sadly what is revealed is often a lack of clarity of thought. Given the author is a professor of psychology at Yale and I an anonymous reviewer on Amazon these comments should not strike you as particularly credible ... I shall elaborate.

This is quite a long review so let me summarise some issues with this book and you can jump to the end or not as appropriate. I am not trying to be exhaustive. The book meanders a lot and a lot of it is quite peripheral. I am just trying to justify my assertion that the author's arguments are muddled and in a manner which undermines the thrust of his position.
1. I am suspicious of the author's definition of empathy. Amonsgst the problems are that it fails to establish a clear distinction between things which are empathy and those that are not. Further, it is unclear whether his definition maps to any particular psychological machinery or entirely cuts across the way the mind/ brain works lumping together the products of different mental phenomena while throwing similar phenomena into different categories. Perhaps, this is because his definition of empathy is the product of philosophical/ literary rumination with no grounding in the real world.
2. Despite deploying his own particular definition of empathy much of the book is spent taking issue with the arguments of other commentators who are employing different definitions. That is at the very least a bit awkward since without careful restatement of their arguments it is not always clear whether they apply using his definition of empathy. Further, unless you think these other commentators are somehow authoritative then who has done the arguing is a lot less interesting than what can reasonably be argued. It can also lead the author away from the more central areas. In the worst cases, I felt myself an observer to two muddleheads arguing at cross-purposes.
3. The central question addressed by the book: do we get better results by applying empathy or rational compassion is an odd one because empathy and rational compassion perform different roles. They can work against each other or they can work in concert. Empathy can provide a spur to engage in rational compassion and empathy is adaptive in certain circumstances suggesting it may not be rational to (try to) override it, at least in those cases.
4. The author's logic is suspect. For example, he frequently makes grand claims (eg empathy bad, rational analysis good) while his arguments only support modest conclusions (eg empathy is sometimes bad/ has costs, rational analysis is sometimes good/ has benefits). The author appears blind, possibly willfully so, to any benefits to empathy (with the exception of empathising with a happy individual) or costs associated with rational analysis. Unsurprisingly, the upshot of this failure to properly count both costs and benefits is a kind of hyper-rationalism. Electrons don't need to understand quantum mechanics to follow the laws of physics likewise humans can frequently respond effectively without employing rational analysis.

The first hurdle to be confronted when discussing empathy is that different commentators use the word to mean different things. The author begins by defining how he will be using the term. In passing, I will point out that it is mildly unfair to sell a book with the controversialist title 'Against Empathy' knowing your intended purchaser may misconstrue what you mean by empathy. Still, initially it seemed an efficient and positive first step which would avoid sterile discussions about the meanings of words in favour of discussing ideas but things were not so straightforward. He defines empathy as 'the act of coming to experience the world as you think someone else does'. There is some elaboration on this spare definition, for example he is talking about an affective (emotional) rather than a cognitive response but the definition is never really stretched and squeezed to check it is good and that we are understanding it in the same way. Let me suggest some test cases of my own: (1) Watching a Turkish policeman pick up and carry the drowned body of a small Syrian boy from a beach. (2) Watching a footballer moving at speed be involved in an unexpected clash of heads. The action replay is extremely difficult to watch. (3) While out walking with a friend, they suddenly become anxious and hyper-vigilant and you respond by becoming anxious and hyper-vigilant. (4) Responding to your infant child crying. (5) Becoming angrier as you experience somebody being angry at you. As distressing as the image of the boy in (1) is, according to the author's definition you do not feel empathy for the little boy at least not unless the distress you feel is how you perceive death to feel. In the case of the footballer, do you really experience being dazed and having a sore head? No, ... then a claim to empathise is perhaps based on some less specific notion of distress. Presumably any claim to empathise is abolished if the footballer loses consciousness upon collision. Note also that the difficulty I have in watching a replay seems to reside in the anticipation of the impending clash of heads rather than in the moments after collision when the player is actually suffering. In (3), I have manufactured a clear cut case of empathy. Note that if your friend has detected a threat in the environment (eg the smell of a lion) to which his response is adaptive then your response is probably also adaptive. Notice also that in the case of the lion your empathetic response helps you directly though your increased vigilance and may also help your friend indirectly since there are now two of you on the alert. In (4) things are less clear, an infant crying is certainly highly motivating but to what extent does the distress we feel really resemble that of the infant? Is some resemblence enough to establish empathy? If so then what about (5) where we have an escalation of anger with no sense of shared purpose. If some resemblence is enough to establish empathy do we not have empathy in this case too? I think the book would have been improved had the author examined some examples of the kind I have suggested to make sure we understand his definition and that it's fit for purpose. In terms of a single psychological mechanism I feel (1)-(5) might come from the same broad mechanism or just (3) and (5) from a narrower mechanism, my suspicion is that common English usage would group (1)-(4) but not (5) as being empathy. Meanwhile, although I have offered a little analysis I am not entirely sure which of these the author wants us to include, I am suspicious that it might be a different selection in different parts of the book.

Of course other authors use different definitions of empathy. Simon Baron-Cohen, an autism researcher and avid empathy fan (eg Zero Degrees of Empathy) measures *empathy by administering a questionaire in which the subject is asked to say how they would react to various imagined situations. Its basicly asking the subject how empathetic they would have Baron-Cohen think they are. It turns out that the average woman would have Baron-Cohen think her more empathetic than the average man would have Baron-Cohen think him. Women are thus more *empathetic. I tend to think less has been demonstrated here than he claims. I suspect women tend to see women as more empathetic than men and men agree. Maybe they are right, but how could one prove it? Not using Baron-Cohen's method, for if individuals just identify with their gender then you would expect to get his result. Wait ... why are we talking about Baron-Cohen? Well exactly and this is a problem with the book, the author is forever disappearing down rabbit holes in the pursuit of an argument with the questionable assertions of questionable authorities. Simon Baron-Cohen is just one of his favoured questionable authorities. And of course there is the big problem that as an autism researcher, Baron-Cohen is (primarily?) interested in theory of mind/ cognitive empathy which does not fit within the author's definition of empathy. The author and Baron-Cohen may wish to argue but it is not always clear they have anything to argue about.

Ok, so definition established, does empathy get in the way of doing cost-benefit analyses? Yes, absolutely ... well, sometimes. How often do arguments in the political sphere go 'isn't it awful we must do something' and action ensues without any proper evaluation of whether it really is awful, how awful the awfulness is, whether the thing we are about to do is likely to help, whether there might be other more efficient ways of responding and so on and so forth. But hang on, ... it does not always go like this. Registering supposed awfulness does not mean we inevitably must act impulsively without an appropriate level of consideration. Empathy can overwhelm reason, sometimes it should overwhelm reason. Maybe there is no time. Maybe the decision does not warrant getting out the heavy cognitive guns and impulse will do. On the other hand, reason can sometimes overrule emotion and sometimes it should. The thundering hooves of war, famine, pestilence and death are often heard at some distance. The issues are large but we have time to gather evidence and to think before we act. Public policy regarding welfare, care and support for our fellow citizens is an ongoing issue, so considered, rational approaches provide benefit on an ongoing basis. Humans are complicated, there is more than one tool in the mental toolkit. Sometimes different tools can be used together or combined in sequence. The author however takes a one size fits all approach and feels that reason should be the master and emotion, in this case empathy derived, is always inferior. This is sustained in his arguments only by ignoring the costs of reason and ignoring the benefits of emotional response.

Rationality is good in its place but its place is not everywhere. Thus I very much like leaving small decisions to instinct and I think it is rational to do so. Instinct is quick and dirty, it generally does a reasonable job and is generally much cheaper to apply than reason. Good evidence is expensive and so cost-benefit analysis is costly. The author does not seem to get this nor the fact that most decisions are small decisions handled well by instinctual mechanisms. Do you remember all the decisions you made as you manipulated the controls of your vehicle on your way to work this morning? Did you reason out each use of the adjustments of these controls? How carefully do you choose your words? Don't you just kinda open your mouth and words come out, instinctively without any prior checking that the 'rational you' is going to agree with the words. Seems to work, gotta love that instinct. Would you like to converse with someone who insists on running the rational rule over every choice of word before the least utterance? No? Me neither. Well, ... our author seems to have fallen in love with rationality and its love in the sense of an unreasonable obsession. Tedious, wrong and unneccessary. There's a whole chapter on the joys of reason and its largely muddled, falacious and unreasonable. Its also a diversion: 'the case for rational compassion' still stands its just that rationality surely ought to demand cost-benefit analysis for the big things and more instinctive, including empathetic handling of the small things. The author is overlooking the costs of cost-benefit, ... it is not free. Good evidence is often expensive and correspondingly thin on the ground.

Simultaneously the author overlooks the benefits of empathy. He quite reasonably points out that empathising with those in distress is distressing and questions whether it is useful in the case of members of the caring professions such as clinical psychologists, counsellors, social workers, nurses and medics. Isn't it enough that such individuals value the well-being of those they care for? Its a fair point. What is not fair is to simply overlook the possibility that empathy serves us well in other situations. I am not sure science has an answer as to why distressing emotions are quite so ... er, distressing but let us for a moment accept this is merely a lack of imagination and there really is value in the distress of negative emotions. Accepting that, when one person suffers a negative emotion it may be adaptive for others to do likewise. This is because we often face the same kind of environmental challenges as those around us. If it serves them to experience a particular emotion then it may well be useful for us to feel that emotion. Thus if they are anxious (perhaps they can smell lion) it may serve us to feel anxious (even before we smell lion). Of course, environmental challenges have changed over the past 100,000 years but we still often benefit by taking the short-cut of doing as others are doing and feeling as they feel helps us to do this. Notice of course that carers and those cared for generally do not face the same focal environmental challenge: if you gash your face then its unlikely the nurse who tends to the wound has the same immediate issue of face-gashedness as you do. Feelings of distress, pain and weakness that inhibit you from vigourous and possibly damaging action probably serve you better than they would the nurse.

So in summary: this is the muddled meanderings of a hyper-rationalist. If you have a measured fondness for cost-benefit and the like then I suspect you won't like it as its unreasonable (2 stars?). If you are pro-empathy or are fairly suspicious of the idea of rational compassion and feel like reading something written by the 'other side' you may well fair better (4 stars?).

Read more

53 people found this helpful

Helpful

Report
M. Roberts
as with books such as Robert I Simon's 'Bad Men Do What Good Men Think'
Reviewed in the United Kingdom on 20 July 2017
Verified Purchase
Reading other customer reviews on Paul Bloom’s ‘Against Empathy’ broadly I have to agree with the consensus that his central point is both obvious and can be summed up in just a few lines. Indeed, as with books such as Robert I Simon’s ‘Bad Men Do What Good Men Think’, just reading the title could save you the cost of the book. But this is unfair. One of the measures of a good book for me is how much I find myself discussing it with my long-suffering wife over breakfast. By this standard Bloom’s book is a belter. Whilst the central point may be obvious, what others have described as his ‘ramblings’ for me were page after page of stimulating ideas. Granted not always on message (after all, the message is pretty concise) and, for a UK audience at least, his frequent unguarded ‘attacks’ on academic colleagues making for slightly uncomfortable reading. Nevertheless, there’s a wealth of ideas here and its precisely Bloom’s slightly dogmatic style that gets the debate going. Accepting that this is Bloom’s very personal view is important, getting over this allows you to enjoy a well thought out and well-argued case. If you take nothing else away, it cannot be denied that empathy is no basis for morality.

I dropped my review from five to four stars for what I believe is a glaring omission to the argument; namely reciprocity. I kept turning the pages expecting to find some mention of this vital ingredient of human social behaviour persuasively argued in Matt Ridley’s book ‘The Origin of Virtue’. Although Bloom does tantalising touch on the social angle, any book that argues about empathy – whether for or against – without touching on reciprocity is diminished in its worth and here’s why. Our empathetic responses might go some way to explain why we might help an elderly stranger across the street. However, if we accept Bloom’s argument that our empathy is acutely focused on those that are immediately relevant to us – a force that ripples out from family, to neighbours, to fellow citizens at which point, for the most part, it loses its potency – then exactly why do we help the elderly stranger without any immediate expectation of reward? Citing empathy doesn’t really help us here and in a book that’s against empathy, failing to mention that so much of our moral behaviour is driven by a hard-wired instinct for future reward within the social group, seems odd.

Read more

69 people found this helpful

Helpful

Report
Sky
Definitly recommend
Reviewed in the United Kingdom on 15 August 2017
Format: HardcoverVerified Purchase
Love this book. As a psychotherapist it sums up a lot of the dangers of this 'silver bullet' in my profession. Bloom explains that empathy is judgement. Knowing this therapists can use it with awareness- to empath blind can mess people up rather than truly encourage independent thinking and self actualisation.
It is also a very readable book unlike a bunch of dense academic books I have bought where I feel very clever for understanding a few paragraphs and then Leave them to gather dust in a corner. Highly recommended

Read more

10 people found this helpful

Helpful

Report