- In two healthy paragraphs, summarize the piece AND show (with framed quotes and paraphrase from the text) what you believe to be the author’s three main points/arguments. Support with textual evidence and include your own initial response to the material.
Paul Bloom writes about empathy in a way that highlights the limited concern for larger-world problems. He claims that most people’s empathy has limits in that it is like a spotlight: it shines for certain people that are similar to them in race, social class, or general demographics, but completely glazes over all other people in similar situations. He gives an example of how during the Sandy-Hook school shooting, there were countless more people who were aware of it and sent gifts rather than the continuous shootings going on in Chicago. He wrote about how so many people sent in gifts and toys to a wealthy town that did not need all the charity.
Bloom writes that empathy would have a greater effect if people thought about situations with more self-control and intelligence. If people used these traits, they would be able to spread their kindness to more people and move society to a more cohesive future where more people can benefit and others aren’t left in the dark.
- Do you agree with Bloom’s main arguments? Why or why not?
Upon reading Bloom’s article for the first time, I immediately wanted to disagree; what was so wrong with empathy? But after a few days of reflecting, I know that spreading kindness out to more people will be more beneficial than focusing on one specific person. When making group decisions, I’ve always tried to focus on what is best for everyone, rather than the few people who are complaining about something. If we try to cater towards everyone’s needs, no one will end up satisfied. Similarly, if we try to feel empathy for every individual, not everyone will be happy or even receive help. The best way to do this is taking a step back and finding a solution that can best support everyone
3. Find one claim Bloom makes that evoked a strong response. Paste the direct quote from his piece, then write a few sentences in which you challenge OR support his claim in your own words and experience(s).
“Now one reasonable reaction to this is that empathy isn’t to blame for this sort of irrational and disproportionate response. The real problem is that we don’t have enough empathy for other people. We should empathize with the children and families of Newtown, but we should also empathize with the children and families in Chicago. While we’re at it, we should empathize with billions of other people around the world, in Bangladesh and Pyongyang and the Sudan. We should empathize with the elderly who don’t get enough food, the victims of religious persecution, the poor without adequate health care, the rich who suffer from existential angst, the victims of sexual assault, those falsely accused of sexual assault . . . But we can’t.”
This paragraph made me think of the Dunbar number and how we can only care for so many people before the number gets too big. If we start to say that everyone deserves empathy, we can’t truly care for all these people. In reality, everyone has major problems that they go through in life and some people go through them alone with no empathy from others. Sometimes people do need to fight through things alone and it is an important skill to build. That’s not to say that empathy is helpful, which it is, but some people feel too much empathy, and that is when people start shipping unnecessary children’s toys to Sandy Hook survivors that end up storing them in a storage locker. Instead, if people could think logistically through situations and ask what others truly need instead of just feeling bad and acting upon first instinct, I think that people would function more efficiently as a society.
