1. Paul Bloom’s essay, “Is empathy overrated?” brings his unique perspective on empathy to the reader’s attention. Bloom uses a clever craft to invite the reader to the conversation on empathy before disclosing his controversial opinion. He uses the analogy of empathy being like a spotlight to portray his first belief that the trait is narrowly focused (Bloom 1). Throughout each paragraph, a strong topic sentence has a subclaim backed by evidence and specific examples to prove that empathy does more harm than good. 

I believe Bloom’s three main points fall under the spotlight idea of empathy and its limitations and misuse. The argument that “empathy reflects our biases” and only “focuses on specific individuals” drives home the single mindedness we unintentionally have (Bloom 2). This is dangerous because Bloom gives the example of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. Larger scale shootings and other tragedies happen on a more regular basis in places like Chicago. Newton and other surrounding towns dropped everything to send millions of unneeded toys to the impacted families. Paul himself admits that he has an easier time empathizing with the families of Newton over those of Chicago and the thousands of people killed and affected by homicides. This is because of his bias of being a white man who lives in Connecticut and is a father. This idea is further backed by the point that we can empathize with one person whose story we know, rather than the statistics of a large scale of people struggling. The pathos evoked from the image of “an adorable eight-year-old” that’s critically ill clouds our mind from grasping the bigger picture. Just because a vaccine has sickened this one girl, doesn’t mean it’s not having a tremendous impact on twelve other children and saving their lives. In other words, Bloom is saying that we know it’s better for one child to die than twelve, yet we cannot feel this way when twelve is only a statistic and on the other hand, we feel the hardship of the young girl and her family. In this way, “empathy is insensitive to consequences that apply statistically rather than to specific individuals” (Bloom 3). Lastly, Bloom argues that “what really matters for kindness may be self-control, intelligence and a more diffuse compassion” (Bloom 3). Rather than focus on empathy, which has its many downfalls, we should focus on kindness. That way, we take control over the natural biases we have, and can realize what people really need in a time of hardship. We can focus on the statistics of the biggest issues that need solving so that we don’t get caught up in the smaller ones. We can spread our compassion to the places it is needed most by being smart and unbiased. All in all, Paul Bloom argues that there is a better solution to improving humanity than being empathetic. 

2. I agree with the main argument that we have a natural bias that impacts who and how we empathize with certain groups of people. It is easier for me to feel for my Mom in a situation than a stranger from another country. Bloom has a good point about the spotlight that empathy places on people and how it leaves behind others who may need the help more. This essay made me really think about the effectiveness of our empathy. When my brother passed away in 2018, all of our friends, family, and even strangers came together to show their support and love. It was a beautiful way to celebrate my brother’s short lived but amazing life. However, similar to the millions of unneeded toys sent to Newton, Connecticut, hundreds of flowers filled our house, covering every space possible. People probably spent thousands of dollars on these. Yet, my family and I didn’t even like flowers. Nor did my brother. This empathetic act came from a place of care but was not what my family and I needed. This money could have been put to a needed cause, like hunger or mental health resources to decrease the American homicide rate. I think that focusing on kindness through self-control, intelligence, and a broader compassion could be more effective than empathy itself, as Bloom claims (3). 

3. Bloom challenged my initial understanding of empathy because I had never really viewed it as a bad thing. Yes, I knew it could be harmful to be overempathetic because people could take advantage of you or the receiver could feel inept. However, I always thought that it was a really good thing. It is important to be able to put yourself in others’ shoes and feel for their situation. Everyone always carries something. I felt that it was essential to try to understand this and lend a helping hand to those who needed it. Bloom completely challenged my initial ideas because his entire argument revolved around the fact that empathy’s “negatives outweigh its positives” (Bloom 4). When I first read his argument that empathy is pretty much the same as prejudice, I thought to myself “hell no.” Throughout reading his essay though, I came to understand his general opinion. I saw the evidence that suggests we should put our energy into a better alternative that is more encompassing than the characteristic of empathy. 

4. “Empathy distorts our moral judgments in pretty much the same way that prejudice does.” 

This is the one claim that I strongly disagree with from Bloom. I understand the limitations of having bias and how that impacts who we care for the most. However, I think it’s natural to feel stronger for someone similar to us. This does not necessarily mean that we are throwing prejudice on another person who is struggling though! This argument rattled me at first. I can see Bloom’s point that he’s getting at, but stating that empathy is almost equivalent to prejudice goes too far for me. Prejudice raises the red flags of racism, sexism, and homophobia. I may be naturally inclined to help someone similar to myself, but this does not mean I am kicking others’ problems to the curb by prejudicing them. 

5. In Bloom’s last paragraph, he regards empathy, concluding that “its negatives outweigh its positives – and… there are better alternatives” (Bloom 4). Do you agree with this? Where are the “better” places we should be putting our energy into? Is it possible to transform the negative definition of empathy we have made and turn it into a positive thing?