Musings on Three Ways Empathy Can Be Corrupted and How Both Empathy and a Well-Formed Conscience Are Needed to Perfect Each Other
While thinking further on Bishop Barron’s sermon on empathy last weekend, especially the places where I both agree and disagree with his framing, I thought about some other worthwhile nuances to articulate. That is, besides the previously stated importance that empathy is paired with a truthful understanding of what is good for oneself. Soon, I had a secondary observation which I felt could make good food for thought when combined with the first observation.
This secondary nuance pertains to how empathy can be incomplete if it is merely “projective empathy”. That is, being able to put oneself in another’s shoes, only to stop at that point and not take into account how the other person’s differences might also make them respond differently to the same experience. In my observations, this is another way in which empathy can become misguided, and it can worsen when combined with the other error of not being grounded in what is truly good for oneself (akin to a joke I heard from a fellow Christian about how trying to follow Christ’s Golden Rule can backfire, if one happens to be a masochist).
These are my observations on how three kinds of errors can form when one’s sense of empathy involves one or both of these flaws, before then showing how the proper and complete attitude can serve as an antidote:
1.) When a person knows what is truly good for oneself and intends to love his neighbor as himself, but his empathy is merely projective — This can be the classic situation in which one’s zeal for their goal is absolutely good and just, whether it is evangelizing someone to a proper view of God, helping them to succeed or overcome a weakness, and teaching them proper moral behavior, but they lack the virtue of prudence in doing so. For example, they might not understand that their neighbor needs a unique delivery of the message to learn what they are being taught, might have a more difficult time understanding what was easy for the teacher to know, might be sabotaged if their painful experiences or struggles are treated in a tone deaf manner, might sincerely need to see more in order to be convinced, and so on. With this setup, mere monologue exists where dialogue should be.
2.) When a person’s empathy is complete enough for him to be in tune with feelings and thoughts unique to the other person, but he lacks a firm grasp what is truly good for oneself — I think this combination of strengths and weaknesses is what leads to the issues Bishop Barron intended to call out in his latest sermon. For example, if someone believes that the highest good for oneself is merely being accepted by others as long as no overt harm is being done, then empathy can become hijacked to make one much more willing to uncritically affirm certain qualities in another and encourage the other to stay in their bubble without seeking to become greater. It could also make a person more effective at appealing to others and unknowingly leading them into error. And while this mindset can provide the benefit of encouraging someone to listen to others and test their understandings, it can also make one wrongly assume that the other person’s differing idea of the ultimate good for them is equally valid.
3.) When a person’s understanding of what is good for oneself is misguided and his empathy is merely projective — This can incorporate some of the worst from both worlds, leading a person to be convinced that their wrong idea of what is good for them is actually correct, then become invigorated by their projective empathy to give that same “good” to others, while being deaf to potential pleas of people they claim to help. One prime example could be when people view utilitarian happiness as the ultimate good, believe they themselves would rather die than live with a disability, and blindly project their attitude onto other people. Consequently, they push for the abortion and euthanasia of people faced with grave disabilities, while thinking themselves compassionate. To give an example on the other side of the political spectrum, there are numerous people who are raised with misguided and/or abusive parenting practices. Yet they might feel less negatively impacted by it, perceive it a normative case of “tough love”, erroneously attribute the good in their lives to those specific practices, assume all other good people would be just as “thankful” to have their upbringing, then promote such treatment on the next generation of children, while being dismissive when others call out how the same parenting practices/culture impacted them much more severely. In both examples, people become unwilling to consider that another person’s experience could illuminate a real flaw in the very philosophies, which they rely on to judge what is best for the other.
4.) When a person knows what is truly good for oneself, seeks to love his neighbor as himself, and also has a complete empathy which notices the differences between himself and his neighbor — That is when the virtue of prudence manifests itself and enables one to more perfectly obey Christ’s words to love one’s neighbor as himself, plus do unto others as one would have them do unto him. They have both the well-formed conscience and a complete sense of empathy needed to know what is truly good for oneself, desire it for others, and possess the wisdom to accommodate another person’s unique qualities and needs, when figuring out how to lead another towards that same ultimate good. Said empathy when grounded by a willingness to seek objective truth can also enable one to use another’s experience to test whether their own mindsets need fine-tuning, without indiscriminately agreeing with other perspectives to a relativistic degree.
