Motivation and emotion/Book/2025/Rational compassion

Scenario: What would you choose? A child has a fatal illness and is bound to die. Although there isn't a treatment to cure them, there is a drug that can help in reducing their pain in their final days. They are on a long waiting list for this drug, along with a large number of other patients who have an equal chance of passing away and have also been waiting for just as long, if not longer than this child. Knowing this, would you want this child to get the medication sooner by getting bumped up the line? Imagine now that you had the opportunity to work with this child or that you know her personally, or put yourself in their shoes. What would you, or your loved ones desire if it were you? Would they take action if you were offered the opportunity to advance on the waiting list for relief?

Bloom (2016) argues that empathy is dangerous, and that it needs to be replaced with compassion to make help humanity make a real change in the world. To break this down, he defines empathy as a "spotlight" that centers our energy, focus and sympathy to a specific group or individual, by putting ourselves in their position (Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs, 2016). While the common perception of empathy stands that it is a positive human characteristic that promotes community support and change, Bloom argues that in actuality it is not only unessential to moral judgment, but it can also deter it. It causes biases and unfair distribution of resources.

Giving compelling individuals or groups precedence over more pressing needs, empathy can skew moral judgment. Rather, rational analysis and social awareness, combined with stable concern for others provides a more trustworthy framework for equitable and efficient action. Dahl (2017), however, contends that by highlighting the biases and limitations of empathy, Bloom's work runs the risk of undervaluing its ability to elicit moral concern and sustain prosocial engagement over time. Furthermore, his utilitarian definition of "rational compassion" might overlook feminist scholarship on how power and inequality shape which emotions and viewpoints are valued or considered "rational," as well as moral principles that differ across cultures and philosophical perspectives

According to Bloom (2016), empathy is the ability to understand and, to a certain degree, share the feelings of others, allowing people to relate to and react to the experiences of others. Scholars argue over empathy's function as a moral compass, stating that separate cognitive factors impact one's interpersonal understanding, even though empathy is frequently linked to moral "goodness".

• Entails sharing or reflecting the emotional state of another person, such as experiencing distress when seeing another suffer (Dahl, 2017).
• According to research, empathy can encourage prosocial behavior but can also breed prejudice against people we relate to, which can occasionally result in unjust or harmful choices (Batson et al., 1995).
• Considering high-stress professions as healthcare professionals like therapists and nurses who work directly with patients who show greater empathetic traits can become overwhelmed by sharing a patient's stress, causing a drop in performance and effective choices, demonstrating that in some situations, emotional empathy can work against rather than in favor of a patient (Ryan, 2018).

• This refers to the capacity to comprehend the ideas, emotions, or viewpoints of another individual without necessarily needing to share or experience the same feelings way they do (Kukar, 2018).
• In professional, social or even cross-cultural contexts, it can help make more just and strategic decisions through facilitating the anticipation of others' responses and needs (Dahl, 2017).
• Suitable for occupations like diplomacy or counselling and support services, where problem-solving skills and emotional control depend on an awareness of viewpoints (Ryan, 2018).

From the standpoint of moral psychology, morals can be defined as the standards and judgments that influence how individuals identify, understand, and determine whether a behavior is right or wrong. The psychological processes that evaluate behavior, character, and values in light of norms, feelings, and consequences comprise of moral judgment, which is the foundation of moral cognition. It is impacted by moral philosophy, empathy, logical thinking, cultural norms, and concerns for welfare, justice, fairness, and rights.

• Compassion versus empathy in morals: Empathy typically serves as a "spotlight," drawing moral efforts and attention to certain individuals or groups while disregarding others, which can result in an unequal distribution of resources (Ryan, 2018). Empathy frequently biases assistance toward identifiable individuals while reducing concern for larger groups, according to research on the collapse of compassion (Cameron & Payne, 2011). Compassion, especially Bloom's concept of logical compassion, on the other hand, is more equitable and durable since it enables people to respond to widespread suffering without becoming immobilized by an overabundance of empathy. This contrast explains why large-scale disasters often fail to motivate proportionate response and clearly relates morality to helping tendencies.
• A zero-sum mindset: The idea that resources are limited, which has become more prevalent recently as a result of international crises like the Covid-19 outbreak (Gates Cambridge, 2024), also promotes a zero-sum perspective on empathy in which aiding one group is seen as inevitably hurting another. This framing perpetuates social divisions and undercuts cooperative problem-solving (Ryan, 2018).
• Selective assistance and moral licensing: Additional research demonstrates the inconsistency between morality and helpful conduct. The concept of moral licensing illustrates how people may feel empowered to act less morally or less willingly to assist others after doing one moral or prosocial deed. Merritt, Effron, and Monin (2010), for instance, describe how a single act of morality, like giving to a particular cause, might paradoxically excuse discriminating views or inaction in other situations. This demonstrates how moral judgment is frequently dynamic and context-dependent rather than cumulative.

When emotional reactions take priority over logical reasoning, misdirected empathy can have detrimental social effects. Funds might be misdirected to well-known but less essential causes, neglecting equally or even more critical world issues. As communities fight for acceptance and support, this disparity may breed social injustice, discord, political movements and even crime rates. Moreover, empathy can be purposefully employed as a weapon, for example through political campaigns that use emotional appeals to influence voters or in campaigns that demonize minorities by concentrating only on the pain of one group while neglecting the larger picture. This impact is frequently amplified by media coverage and protest movements, driven by short-sighted empathy that fuels immediate outrage rather than sustainable solutions. In these respects, unchallenged and unregulated empathy runs the risk of escalating rather than reducing inequality.

When a single tragic case (e.g., a missing white child or a single murder story in Western media) receives massive empathy-driven coverage, it draws disproportionate resources and attention, while countless similar if not larger cases involving minorities or people in poorer regions, such as the current occupation of Gaza goes ignored (Middle East Council on Global Affairs, 2024). This selective empathy fuels inequality and resentment.

Example Scenario One example of misdirected empathy brought up by Bloom in one of his interviews that resonated was a discussion on child beggars. In Sri Lanka there is a prevailing issue of growing numbers in child beggars. Due to the failing child protection system, lack of support for parents who are also in poverty, or connected to drug addiction and crime, proper education and healthcare are withheld, and in instances they are subjected to abuse and human trafficking, forcibly made disabled to "attract" empathy. In worse off situations they are forced to fund and promote organised crime, and in turn this leads to them continuing on this cycle. Foreigners and unknowing civilians fall victim to these children and in turn continue to fund this broken system. (Pulse.lk., 2022)

Empathetic motivation and climate change. Since the victims of climate change cannot simply be identified, indirect or unborn, there is "no one to save or blame" directly, creating a special moral conundrum. Empathy finds it challenging to elicit widespread concern in the absence of recognizable victims, which contributes to the breakdown of compassion observed in other circumstances (Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs, 2016). However, some people show sincere moral concern for the millions of lives that may be at risk in the future, which reflects a change from limited empathy to more expansive, principle-driven compassion. Recasting climate change as a moral issue that is linked to justice, fairness, and damage reduction can spur more robust collective action, according to Markowitz and Shariff (2012), who contend that psychological detachment and weak affective triggers are frequently the causes of climate inactivity.

Bloom's idea of logical compassion is one that our society can develop as a more long-term moral compass, than empathy alone. Rational compassion places more emphasis on ethical reasoning, open-minded listening, and clear limits in circumstances such as parenting and healthcare. According to Bloom (2017), this enables us to empathize with others without becoming overwhelmed or exhausted by their suffering. Some suggested ways of practicing this on a larger scale is:

1. Identifying empathetic failures - According to Zaki and Cikara (2015), empathy is not always present or automatic, it frequently fails in the very circumstances where it is most needed, such as bullying, intergroup conflict, or medical treatment. This is when people don't fully understand what other people are feeling, when they understand but can't empathize, or when their distress keeps them from behaving compassionately. More attention must be paid to fair results and informed care because these errors have the potential to sustain discrimination, neglect, or harm.
2. Personal awareness in helping - By practicing mindfulness or compassion training, which could be implemented in school or occupation programs. This increases long-term prosocial drive, and people can act compassionately without experiencing empathic burnout. By emphasizing ideals and well-reasoned decisions above intense emotions, rational compassion promotes ongoing caring, which is beneficial in all walks of life (Bloom, 2017).
3. Policy reassessment - Bloom emphasizes that more efficient resource distribution is made possible by rational compassion, which promotes evidence-based, long-term strategies that optimize well-being rather than giving priority to emotionally compelling but statistically uncommon circumstances. Zaki and Cikara (2015) warn that empathy on its own can reinforce inequality or even conceal systemic injustices, especially when it is unequally distributed among groups. Therefore, rational compassion offers a foundation for creating more equitable, goal-oriented policies.
4. Professional practice - Bloom advises against depending just on sentimental resonance, even if clinicians acknowledge empathy as a combination of cognitive and affective engagement that builds trust across cultural barriers. By basing professional empathy in ethical reasoning, rational compassion ensures that social workers, educators, and healthcare professionals may remain both kind and objective. According to Zaki and Cikara (2015), treatments should identify and resolve specific empathic failures, whether they are brought on by miscommunication, indifference, or negative emotions. Professionals can overcome these obstacles with the support of rational compassion, which promotes fair action, critical awareness, and balanced empathy.
   

Many argue that empathy is still necessary for normal social functioning, despite some critics drawing attention to the dangers of misplaced empathy. According to Baron-Cohen, empathy is a broad trait, and people with high empathy tend to be outstanding therapists and caregivers, as they encourage empathy and connection in their work (Pearce, 2011). Individuals who possess "zero empathy," on the other hand, are disproportionately accountable for cruel behaviors and are more likely to disregard others.

Baron-Cohen makes a distinction between people who are "zero empathy negative," such as those with borderline, narcissistic, or psychopathic personality disorders, who can purposefully cause suffering to others, and those who lack empathy but still possess redeeming qualities, such as those with autism spectrum disorders, who may miss empathy cues without meaning harm (Pearce, 2011). This viewpoint highlights empathy's wider social worth and the significance of developing it in both personal and professional contexts by highlighting the protective function empathy plays in averting cruelty and fostering compassion.

• First, moral decision making is weakened when the social and contextual significance of human emotion is ignored. Predicting and manipulating "moral reasoning" runs the risk of providing an inadequate and overly abstract explanation of human conduct when it ignores social frameworks that both influence and react to emotional instincts, such as empathetic care.
• Second, altruism that is both rational and emotional functions best when combined. Heck (2017) emphasizes that emotional involvement is essential for maintaining motivation, even while logical analysis might increase the effectiveness of our actions. Therefore, the best kind of altruism results from fusing the long-lasting motivation that comes from emotion with logical impact analysis.
• When one "good" deed is used as an excuse for further harm or inaction, this is known as moral licensing. Heck (2017) demonstrates how this might manifest in the fields of activism, parenting, and healthcare, where emotional attachments alone can occasionally result in a misaligned energy and actions. By maintaining moral commitments throughout time, balanced empathy combined with sound judgment can help avoid such misalignments.

It has been argued that Bloom ignores significant socioeconomic constraints by relying too heavily on cases of middle-class justification.

• According to Kukar (2018), poverty places a heavy cognitive burden on people, which can influence and occasionally limit their ability to make decisions and spend resources. Bloom's framing runs the risk of perpetuating stereotypes about marginalized groups by ignoring this dimension, which subconsciously acknowledges their lower moral agency while depicting feelings like compassion as reactive and less "rational."

• Cultural biases also influence moral judgment. According to research on cross-cultural moral psychology, individualist cultures place a higher value on autonomy and rights, while collectivist societies tend to emphasize justice and helpful behaviors based on community harmony (Henrich, Heine, & Norenzayan, 2010). These variations show how morality is ingrained in cultural circumstances rather than being a fixed concept. Bloom's emphasis on reason over emotion is criticized by Kukar (2018), who notes that this presupposes that everyone has the same freedom and choice. In actuality, racially and gendered experiences, among other systemic injustices, influence moral judgments and the fundamental concept of what is deemed "moral." This viewpoint emphasizes how morality cannot be comprehended in isolation from its structural and social underpinnings.

• Furthermore, Bloom's rigid rationality over emotion has come under fire for oversimplifying the practical application of empathy. According to Barish (2021), people may react differently when empathy is evoked, either with compassion or with empathy-driven reactions, for example protests such as Sri Lanka's "Aragalaya" in 2022 protest is a great example for a community's ability to band together and risk harm and arrest for collective benefit and wellbeing. This natural interaction between emotion and cognition is minimized in Bloom's approach, which may lead to a skewed perception of how moral judgments truly occur in everyday life.

As a moral compass, rational compassion is a strong substitute for empathy alone. When combined with compassion and thoughtful reasoning, cognitive empathy, on the other hand, can help us comprehend other people's viewpoints without becoming emotionally overwhelmed and can lead to more moral and sensible choices. However, opposing viewpoints warn that Bloom's proposed method runs the risk of underestimating empathy's capacity to create and maintain moral concern and response in the long run (Dahl, 2017) and ignores the ways in which social structures and disparities shape which viewpoints are deemed "rational" or "moral" (Kukar, 2018). In addition, generalizing research findings in the absence of specific distinctions between various moral judgment types in Bloom's work further raises questions on how realistically it can be applied.

Society can practice capabilities like gaining perspective, analytical thinking, emotional regulation, and awareness of social disparities to effectively foster rational compassion. Emotional responsiveness and rational moral judgment can be balanced with the aid of cognitive empathy training, moral philosophy education, and exposure to a variety of experiences. The practical conclusion is that combining the proactive direction of reasoning with the motivating qualities of empathy is necessary for making moral decisions that work.

This section provides internal (wiki) links to the most relevant Wikiversity pages (such as the motivation and emotion book chapters) and Wikipedia articles.

Against Empathy - Wikipedia

Empathy-altruism - Wikipedia

Moral psychology - Wikipedia

Empathy (2010)- Book chapter

Autism spectrum disorder (assessment portfolio)- Book chapter

2022 Sri Lankan protests - Wikipedia

• 4 questions for Paul Bloom (American Psychological Association(APA))
• Defining Zero-Sum (Merriam-webster)
• Paul Bloom's Case for Rational Compassion (Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs I Youtube)
• Sri Lanka to enforce strict ban on child begging-Xinhua
• What does it mean to see the world as a zero-sum competition? - Gates Cambridge