Give me a comprehensive list of all the criticisms of empathy.
Empathy—the ability to understand and share the feelings of another—has long been celebrated as a cornerstone of human connection, moral development, and prosocial behavior. From early childhood education to corporate leadership training, empathy is frequently promoted as an unalloyed good, a quality to be cultivated and strengthened. However, a growing body of scholarly work has begun to question this uncritical embrace of empathy, highlighting its limitations, costs, and potential harms.
This document presents a comprehensive analysis of the criticisms of empathy from multiple perspectives, including psychology, neuroscience, philosophy, organizational behavior, and clinical practice. By examining these critiques, we can develop a more nuanced understanding of empathy's role in human experience and decision-making, recognizing both its value and its limitations.
One of the most significant criticisms of empathy is its inherent bias. As psychologist Paul Bloom argues in his book "Against Empathy: The Case for Rational Compassion," empathy naturally directs our attention and concern toward people who are similar to us or whom we find relatable. This bias operates at a subconscious level and is difficult to overcome.
Research has consistently shown that we feel more empathy for those who share our cultural background, language, or appearance. As Bloom notes, "I'm likely to feel empathy toward you, a handsome white guy, but somebody who is repulsive or frightening I don't feel empathy for. I actually feel a lot less empathy for people who aren't in my culture, who don't share my skin color, who don't share my language."
This empathic bias can reinforce existing prejudices and lead to preferential treatment for in-group members. In healthcare settings, for instance, studies have documented disparities in pain management based on patients' race, with medical providers showing less empathy for the pain of racial minorities. Similarly, in charitable giving, donors often respond more generously to appeals featuring a single, identifiable victim who shares their cultural background than to statistics about large-scale suffering affecting different groups.
Empathy also suffers from what Bloom and others call an "innumeracy problem." Our empathic responses don't scale with the magnitude of suffering—we often care more about one identifiable victim than thousands of statistical victims. As Bloom explains, "Empathy zooms me in on one but it doesn't attend to the difference between one and 100 or one and 1,000."
This spotlight-like quality of empathy makes it a poor guide for resource allocation decisions. Public health initiatives, humanitarian aid, and other large-scale efforts to alleviate suffering require consideration of numerical differences and statistical data—precisely the kind of information that empathy tends to ignore or downplay.
The innumeracy problem is evident in many contexts. News stories about a single child trapped in a well can generate worldwide attention and millions in donations, while ongoing famines affecting millions receive comparatively little coverage or support. Similarly, rare but vivid threats (like terrorism) often generate more empathic concern and policy attention than more common but less dramatic risks (like traffic accidents or preventable diseases).
A third cognitive limitation of empathy is its inadequacy as a guide for moral reasoning. Empathy tends to lead to short-sighted, emotionally-driven decisions that may feel good in the moment but produce suboptimal outcomes. As Bloom argues, "So it might feel good but empathy often leads us to make stupid and unethical decisions."
Empathy can override rational cost-benefit analysis, leading to decisions that prioritize immediate emotional relief over long-term solutions. For example, empathic responses to visible suffering might lead policymakers to invest heavily in emergency relief while neglecting preventive measures that could avert future crises.
Moreover, empathy-based decisions often fail to consider unintended consequences or opportunity costs. Resources devoted to addressing one emotionally compelling problem might be diverted from less visible but more impactful interventions. This is particularly problematic in contexts like global health, where evidence suggests that the most cost-effective interventions often target less emotionally salient problems.
Feeling others' pain and suffering comes with significant psychological costs. Unlike compassion (caring about others' welfare without necessarily feeling their emotions), empathy involves actually experiencing others' distress, which can be emotionally exhausting.
Research in healthcare and other helping professions has documented high rates of "compassion fatigue," an acute inability to empathize driven by stress, and burnout, a more gradual and chronic version of this phenomenon. A study of hospice nurses found that "excessive empathy," defined as the tendency to sacrifice one's own needs for others, was a key predictor of compassion fatigue. Similarly, a survey of Korean nurses showed that self-reported compassion fatigue strongly predicted intentions to leave their jobs.
This emotional exhaustion isn't limited to healthcare settings. Customer service professionals, therapists, social workers, and others in emotionally demanding roles face similar challenges. Even in everyday life, constantly empathizing with friends, family members, and colleagues can deplete emotional resources and lead to avoidance behaviors.
Empathy also appears to be a limited resource that gets depleted with use—what some researchers call its "zero-sum" nature. As an article in the Harvard Business Review notes, "The more empathy I devote to my spouse, the less I have left for my mother; the more I give to my mother, the less I can give to my son."
Studies examining the trade-offs associated with empathic behaviors at work and at home have found that people who reported workplace behaviors such as taking "time to listen to coworkers' problems and worries" and "helping others who have heavy workloads" felt less capable of connecting with their families. They felt emotionally drained and burdened by work-related demands.
This zero-sum quality creates difficult choices about how to allocate limited empathic resources. It can also lead to empathic burnout when individuals try to maintain high levels of empathy across multiple domains of life without recognizing these inherent limitations.
Beyond the immediate emotional costs, research suggests that empathy can function as a "risky strength" that increases vulnerability to psychological disorders, particularly depression and anxiety. A review by Tone and Tully proposes a model in which typical development of affective and cognitive empathy can be influenced by complex interplay among individual and environmental factors that increase risk for empathic personal distress and excessive interpersonal guilt.
According to this model, genetically-influenced propensities toward physiological hyperarousal can interact with empathic sensitivity to contribute to neurobiological processes that underlie personal distress responses to others' pain or unhappiness. This empathic personal distress then increases risk for internalizing problems, particularly fear and arousal symptoms.
Similarly, interactions between genetic propensities toward negative thinking processes and empathic sensitivity are hypothesized to contribute to excess interpersonal guilt in response to others' distress. This interpersonal guilt increases risk for internalizing problems, especially anhedonia and misery symptoms.
Environmental factors, such as maladaptive parenting or chronic exposure to parents' negative affect, can further interact with these genetic liabilities to amplify risk for personal distress and interpersonal guilt, as well as for consequent internalizing problems.
Empathy can sometimes lead to ethical lapses, particularly when it comes to helping those we empathize with. Research in behavioral science and decision making shows that people are more inclined to cheat when it serves another person. In various settings, with benefits ranging from financial to reputational, people use this ostensible altruism to rationalize their dishonesty.
As the Harvard Business Review article notes, "In making a focused effort to see and feel things the way people who are close to us do, we may take on their interests as our own. This can make us more willing to overlook transgressions or even behave badly ourselves."
This erosion of ethical boundaries is particularly concerning in professional contexts where impartiality and fairness are essential. Judges, for instance, might be influenced by empathy for particular defendants, leading to inconsistent sentencing decisions. Similarly, managers might overlook misconduct by employees they empathize with, creating perceptions of favoritism and undermining organizational justice.
Empathy can also be exploited by those seeking to manipulate others. Appeals to empathy are frequently used in advertising, fundraising, and political messaging to bypass rational evaluation and trigger emotional responses. While this can sometimes serve worthy causes, it can also be weaponized to advance harmful agendas.
Political leaders, for instance, may use vivid anecdotes about individual suffering to generate empathic outrage and support for policies that, on balance, cause more harm than good. As Bloom notes regarding Donald Trump's campaign rhetoric, "Trump's rhetoric about immigrants and Muslims was often framed, particularly early in his campaign, in terms of the suffering of people. He would actually tell these stories. In his rallies, he would tell stories of victims of rape and victims of shooting. He would tell stories of people who lost their jobs. And he was appealing to the empathy of supporters, whose concerns extended mostly to their own tribe."
This strategic use of empathy to manipulate public opinion highlights its vulnerability to exploitation by skilled communicators who understand its biases and limitations.
Perhaps most troublingly, strong empathy for in-group members can increase hostility toward out-groups. In a study conducted by Bloom and University of Chicago professor Nicholas Epley, participants who were primed for empathic connection (by sitting with a friend rather than a stranger) showed greater willingness to dehumanize and torture terrorists, an outgroup with particularly negative associations.
While this study represents an extreme case, the same principle applies in many contexts. Empathy for victims of crime can fuel support for harsh punitive measures without consideration of their effectiveness or justice. Empathy for one's own nation or ethnic group can justify aggression toward perceived enemies or competitors. And empathy for those who share one's political views can intensify polarization and demonization of the opposition.
This dark side of empathy—its potential to fuel intergroup conflict—stands in stark contrast to its popular image as a force for peace and understanding.
Despite thousands of research articles on empathy, there is still no consensus on how it should be defined. As noted in a review of reviews on empathy, "Most articles and books about empathy begin by claiming that there is far from a consensus on how empathy is to be defined." This definitional ambiguity creates significant challenges for research, education, and practice.
Different fields define empathy in contradictory ways. In psychology, some researchers emphasize cognitive perspective-taking, while others focus on emotional contagion or affective sharing. In neuroscience, definitions often center on mirror neuron activity and shared neural representations. In philosophy, debates continue about whether empathy involves simulation of others' experiences or application of theories about minds.
This lack of conceptual clarity makes it difficult to compare findings across studies or to develop coherent theories about empathy's role in human experience. It also complicates efforts to measure empathy or to design interventions to enhance it.
The conceptual ambiguity surrounding empathy contributes to significant challenges in measuring and assessing it. Most empathy measures rely on self-reporting, which is subject to social desirability bias and limited by individuals' insight into their own empathic abilities. Self-reported empathy often differs from actual empathic behavior, creating a gap between how empathic people think they are and how they actually respond to others' suffering.
Behavioral assessments of empathy face their own challenges. Laboratory measures may not reflect real-world empathic responses, and contextual factors significantly influence empathic behavior. Cultural differences in empathic expression further complicate measurement, as norms around appropriate emotional responses vary widely across societies.
These measurement problems have practical implications. Without reliable ways to assess empathy, it's difficult to evaluate the effectiveness of empathy training programs or to identify individuals who might benefit from targeted interventions. The lack of valid measures also hampers research on empathy's relationship to other psychological constructs and behaviors.
While empathy is often touted as essential for effective leadership, healthcare, education, and other professional domains, research suggests that empathy alone is insufficient and may sometimes be counterproductive. Empathy without boundaries can impair professional judgment, and empathy without action or skills is inadequate to address complex problems.
In healthcare, for instance, physicians who become too emotionally involved with patients may make poorer clinical decisions or experience burnout that diminishes their effectiveness over time. Similarly, leaders who prioritize empathic connection over necessary but difficult decisions may fail to address organizational problems effectively.
This doesn't mean that empathy has no place in professional contexts, but rather that its value depends on how it's integrated with other skills and capacities. As the Harvard Business Review article suggests, "Empathy is essential to leading and managing others—without it, you'll make disastrous decisions and forfeit the benefits just described—failing to recognize its limits can impair individual and organizational performance."
Empathy also raises practical concerns about resource allocation. Time spent on empathic connection reduces time available for other tasks, creating tensions between empathy and efficiency in many organizational contexts. This is particularly challenging in healthcare, education, and other fields where professionals face increasing pressure to maximize productivity.
Organizations struggle to balance empathy with efficiency metrics, often sending mixed messages to employees about priorities. While leaders may emphasize the importance of empathic connection with customers or clients, performance evaluations and incentives may reward speed and volume over quality of interaction.
These tensions reflect broader questions about how to value and measure empathy's contributions to organizational outcomes. Without clear evidence linking empathic behaviors to metrics that organizations care about (like profitability, retention, or innovation), it's difficult to justify investments in cultivating empathy or to design systems that support rather than undermine empathic connection.
Given empathy's limitations, some scholars and practitioners argue that alternative approaches may be more effective in many contexts. Compassion (concern for others' welfare without necessarily feeling their emotions) may be more sustainable than empathy, particularly in helping professions where emotional contagion can lead to burnout.
Rational compassion, as advocated by Bloom, combines caring about others with deliberative reasoning about how best to help them. This approach acknowledges the importance of emotional connection while recognizing the need for cognitive processes that can overcome empathy's biases and limitations.
Similarly, cognitive perspective-taking without emotional contagion may be more effective in some professional contexts, allowing individuals to understand others' viewpoints without becoming overwhelmed by their feelings. And systems thinking may address large-scale problems better than empathy, focusing on structural changes rather than individual responses to suffering.
These alternatives don't necessarily exclude empathy entirely, but they suggest that empathy should be part of a broader toolkit rather than the primary or sole approach to understanding and responding to others' experiences.
The criticisms of empathy presented in this document challenge its uncritical embrace as an unalloyed good. From cognitive limitations like bias and innumeracy to psychological costs like burnout and distress, from ethical concerns about boundary erosion to practical challenges in professional contexts, empathy presents a complex set of trade-offs that deserve careful consideration.
This doesn't mean that empathy has no value. In many interpersonal contexts, the ability to understand and share others' feelings creates meaningful connection and motivates prosocial behavior. But recognizing empathy's limitations can help us develop more nuanced approaches to moral decision-making, professional practice, and social policy.
By supplementing empathy with rational deliberation, by being aware of its biases and working to counteract them, by setting appropriate boundaries to prevent burnout, and by recognizing contexts where alternative approaches might be more effective, we can harness empathy's strengths while mitigating its weaknesses. This balanced perspective acknowledges both the power of emotional connection and the importance of cognitive processes that can guide and constrain it.
In the end, the goal is not to abandon empathy but to understand it more fully—including its dark sides and limitations—so that we can use it wisely and well, as one tool among many for creating a more just and compassionate world.
Bloom, P. (2016). Against empathy: The case for rational compassion. Ecco.
Tone, E. B., & Tully, E. C. (2015). Empathy as a "risky strength": A multilevel examination of empathy and risk for internalizing disorders. Developmental Psychopathology, 27(4), 1547-1565.
Håkansson Eklund, J., & Summer Meranius, M. (2021). Toward a consensus on the nature of empathy: A review of reviews. Patient Education and Counseling, 104(2), 300-307.
Thompson, T. (2018). Against empathy? MedEdPublish, 7(3), 29.
Waytz, A. (2016). The limits of empathy. Harvard Business Review.
Decety, J., & Cowell, J. M. (2014). Friends or foes: Is empathy necessary for moral behavior? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9(5), 525-537.
Zaki, J. (2019). The war for kindness: Building empathy in a fractured world. Crown.
Batson, C. D. (2011). Altruism in humans. Oxford University Press.
Eisenberg, N., & Eggum, N. D. (2009). Empathic responding: Sympathy and personal distress. In J. Decety & W. Ickes (Eds.), The social neuroscience of empathy (pp. 71-83). MIT Press.
Halpern, J. (2003). What is clinical empathy? Journal of General Internal Medicine, 18(8), 670-674.