The Empathy Dilemma

Empathy is often seen as a virtue, a moral compass guiding us toward compassion and understanding. However, in an increasingly polarized world, empathy is also weaponized, withheld, and selectively applied to advance specific political and ideological agendas. This article explores the sociological phenomenon of selective empathy and how it manifests both in political narratives and in the minds of those consuming these narratives.

Empathy, by definition, allows us to recognize and share the emotions of others. But what happens when we deliberately shut it off for certain groups? When we stop empathizing with particular communities, we not only marginalize them but also risk dehumanizing them altogether. This phenomenon is not random — it is often cultivated and reinforced by political discourse, media portrayals, and deeply ingrained social structures.

The Selectivity of Empathy

The concept of selective empathy is far from new. Historically, societies have chosen who deserves compassion based on race, class, nationality, and ideology.

“Selective empathy serves as a mechanism that upholds systemic biases while maintaining the illusion of moral integrity.” — Brugeron, Deneuville, & Mniaï, 2023

A clear example of this is found in media coverage of conflicts. The Ukrainian refugee crisis received widespread global sympathy, whereas refugees from Syria, Afghanistan, and Palestine have faced skepticism and hostility.

The framework of selective empathy determines who is seen as a ‘worthy’ victim, often aligning with geopolitical interests and cultural proximity. Selective empathy manifests in daily life in subtle yet impactful ways. Consider the following examples:

1. Seeing a victim of a gang shooting on the news and feeling indifferent because “they should have lived in a safer area.”
2. Watching coverage of a war in another country and justifying civilian casualties until the conflict starts affecting one’s own country.
3. Feeling sympathy for an animal stuck in a drain but not for a homeless person on the street.
4. Expressing deep concern for children suffering in a foreign conflict but dismissing similar suffering among marginalized groups in one’s own country.
5. Being outraged when a political opponent is attacked but making excuses when the same happens to someone from one’s ideological camp.
6. Supporting strict law enforcement in disadvantaged communities while advocating for rehabilitation programs for people of similar backgrounds in wealthier areas.

These examples highlight how our moral evaluations are often guided by our biases, reinforcing social divisions rather than bridging them. The ability to selectively apply empathy allows individuals to maintain a sense of righteousness while ignoring the suffering of those deemed unworthy of compassion.

The Role of Political Agendas in Selective Empathy

Political strategists and policymakers understand the power of empathy in shaping public opinion. In the U.S., Democrats and Republicans have long debates over which groups deserve government assistance and social support.

“Politicians with high dispositional empathy tend to pursue policies centered on social welfare, while those with lower empathy levels emphasize self-reliance and justice.” — Clifford, Kirkland, & Simas, 2019

The “empathy deficit” in politics is often a talking point to discredit the opposition. For instance, during the 2012 U.S. presidential election, Barack Obama criticized Mitt Romney for lacking empathy toward the working class, while conservatives countered by arguing that liberal empathy selectively disregarded small business owners burdened by taxes.

“Obama criticized Romney for his lack of empathy, privileging a model of empathy as a pro-social affective capacity.” — History of Emotions Blog, 2012

Beyond electoral campaigns, the idea of selective empathy shapes policy decisions in significant ways. Policymakers often craft narratives that invoke empathy to justify specific policy directions.

For example, discussions on social welfare programs are framed in ways that make some groups seem more deserving than others. While politicians may highlight struggling single mothers as worthy of assistance, they may simultaneously portray unemployed individuals as lazy and undeserving of aid. This disparity underscores how empathy can be deliberately directed to support ideological goals.

Selective empathy also plays a role in foreign policy. Governments frequently use empathy as a rhetorical tool to justify military interventions, emphasizing the suffering of oppressed groups in enemy states while downplaying similar issues in allied nations. This can be seen in the inconsistent responses to humanitarian crises, where military action is framed as a cruel necessity while diplomatic solutions are preferred in others.

Public figures and media outlets amplify selective empathy by controlling which stories receive attention. Coverage of humanitarian crises, natural disasters, and civil rights movements often reflects implicit biases about whose suffering matters. The result is a public perception shaped by incomplete and skewed narratives, reinforcing pre-existing societal divisions.

Empathy and Political Polarization

Empathy does not always function as a bridge between opposing groups; paradoxically, it can deepen political divides.

“While cognitive empathy can reduce political polarization, affective empathy — emotional alignment with one’s ingroup can exacerbate it.” — Fido & Harper, 2019

Moreover, social media has intensified selective empathy. Platforms like Twitter and Facebook allow users to curate their informational bubbles, reinforcing their existing biases. The phenomenon of ‘cancel culture’ demonstrates how empathy is extended to some while being explicitly denied to others, further entrenching ideological rifts.

When Empathy Becomes a Liability

It is not always the case that empathy is a uniformly positive quality.

“Empathy, when unchecked, can lead to biased decision-making. Political leaders who operate solely on empathetic impulses risk prioritizing one group’s needs at the expense of broader societal well-being.” — Segovia-Nieto & Ramírez-Velandia, 2019

For example, empathy-driven policies on immigration can create a backlash from native citizens who feel economically and culturally threatened. Conversely, an overemphasis on national interests can justify the inhumane treatment of asylum seekers. The challenge, therefore, lies in balancing empathy with pragmatic governance.

The Danger of Empathy Manipulation

Empathy can also be strategically manipulated. Authoritarian regimes often suppress empathy toward marginalized groups to justify oppression.

“Historical examples include Nazi propaganda that dehumanized Jewish populations and American slavery narratives that portrayed enslaved people as incapable of self-governance.” — History of Emotions Blog, 2012

In contemporary politics, populist leaders use selective empathy to rally support. “By positioning themselves as defenders of ‘the people’ against ‘the elite’ or ‘the outsiders,’ they craft narratives that invoke deep emotional resonance while excluding groups deemed threats.

Can We Overcome the Empathy Dilemma?

The empathy dilemma poses a significant challenge: should we feel bad for those who oppose our values? The answer is complex. True moral integrity requires extending empathy even when it is difficult. This does not mean abandoning accountability; it means recognizing the shared humanity of those we disagree with.

Reducing selective empathy requires conscious effort. Engaging with diverse perspectives, challenging media narratives, and recognizing our internal biases are crucial steps. As political polarization deepens, the question is not whether we should feel empathy but how we wield it responsibly.