Is Empathy Toxic? Confronting Misconceptions and Embracing Connections
- Greg Mullen
- 7 days ago
- 8 min read
Empathy is a surprisingly new idea in human history and, like many new ideas, has its advocates and skeptics. This article explores the origins of empathy, its significance distinct from sympathy, and takes a closer look at popular arguments for and against its role in modern society.
A Brief Origin of Empathy
The word "empathy" derives from the Greek term "empatheia," which translates to "passion" or "suffering." Its contemporary meaning began to take shape in the early 20th century through the adaptation of the German word "Einfühlung," which means "feeling into." This transformation emphasizes empathy's core principle: the ability to share and understand another's emotional experience.
The concept of empathy as we know it today was notably advanced by early psychologists such as Edward Titchener, who introduced the term "empathy" into English psychological discourse in 1909, drawing on the German concept of "Einfühlung" (Titchener, 1909). Titchener argued that empathy was an important aspect of human consciousness and emotional experience. Later, psychoanalysts such as Sigmund Freud and Carl Rogers contributed to the understanding of empathy. Freud explored the emotional connectedness essential for therapeutic relationships, while Rogers emphasized empathy as a fundamental component of effective therapy, coining the term "unconditional positive regard" to encapsulate the importance of empathy in client interactions (Rogers, 1959).
Before the late 19th century, the concepts of emotions and interpersonal relationships were often framed through philosophical, religious, or literary lenses rather than psychological ones. The vocabulary and theories needed to articulate the nuanced experience of empathy were not yet developed. Terms like “empathy” (derived from the Greek "empatheia") and the ability to analyze interpersonal emotional experiences systematically were only introduced with the evolution of psychological science.
In many cultures around the world, religious teachings provided the guidelines for ethical and moral behavior that emphasized compassion and altruism, but these were often linked to duty and obligations rather than a deep understanding of another's emotional state. For example, religious texts and teachings encouraged followers to care for one another, but this was often framed within the context of communal responsibility, divine command, or a desire to avoid social conflict rather than individual emotional engagement characterized by our modern understanding of empathy.
In modern society, the significance of empathy has been propelled by psychologists like Martin Hoffman, who conducted extensive research on empathy's role in moral development and altruism (Hoffman, 2000). Hoffman's work differentiated between various types of empathy, such as cognitive empathy (the ability to understand another's perspective) and emotional empathy (the ability to resonate with another's feelings). Additionally, researchers like Brené Brown have popularized the conversation around empathy and vulnerability, emphasizing its critical role in personal development and connection (Brown, 2010).
Today, empathy is recognized not just as a psychological concept but as a vital skill for navigating an increasingly diverse and interconnected world, influencing fields ranging from education to leadership and social justice activism.
Sympathy vs. Empathy: Understanding the Difference
While many people use "empathy" and "sympathy" interchangeably, they represent distinct emotional responses to various situations.
Sympathy often manifests through social expressions of care or concern, such as offering condolences during a difficult time or expressing sorrow for someone’s struggles. Although it may lack the depth of personal engagement characteristic of empathy, sympathy is still a critically important emotional skill. It plays a vital role in providing support to others, especially in situations where a deeper emotional connection may not be necessary or feasible.
Empathy, on the other hand, can be viewed as a finite yet rechargeable emotional resource that individuals draw upon to different degrees based on their perceived community connections. This resource allows individuals to genuinely experience and resonate with another's feelings. This iea of empathy can be thought of as concentric circles of perceived community, or concentric circles of concern; individuals may feel more empathetic toward those close to them, such as friends and family, while their empathetic responses may or may not extend outward to acquaintances, strangers, or broader social groups, depending on the context and their emotional capacity at the time.
Moreover, empathy is not static; it has the potential for development and growth. Individuals can cultivate their empathetic abilities through practice and support, enabling them to engage more fully with different emotional experiences and communities. This increased capacity for empathy can lead to stronger, more meaningful relationships and a greater understanding of diverse perspectives.
By recognizing the distinctions between sympathy and empathy—and understanding empathy's dynamic and rechargeable nature—we can foster deeper connections and enhance our ability to support larger interconnected communities in times of need.
Arguments Against the Need for Empathy (with Rebuttals)
Despite empathy’s recognized value in fostering connection, compassion, and social cohesion, critics have recently raised serious concerns about its moral, psychological, and even societal consequences. These critiques come not only from casual observation but from deeply philosophical and cultural arguments found in recent works such as The Sin of Empathy by Joe Rigney and Toxic Empathy by Allie Beth Stuckey.
“Empathy Can Obscure Moral Clarity”
Critics like Joe Rigney (2025) caution that emotional empathy—when it leads to full emotional identification with others—can blur moral boundaries, particularly when directed toward those engaged in harmful behaviors. From this perspective, prioritizing emotional resonance might appear to compromise justice or lead individuals to sympathize with views that seem morally questionable from one specific perspective.
However, such concerns often rely on the assumption that a clear and singular moral standard exists—one that empathy might distort. In reality, moral understanding is often shaped by cultural, social, and situational factors, and what appears as a morally compromised position from one standpoint may reflect a complex moral logic from another. Empathy doesn’t necessarily obscure moral clarity—it can reveal the layered, conflicting values that different individuals or groups hold in a pluralistic society that promotes democracy rather than a theocracy.
Rather than rejecting empathy for its potential to confuse, we might embrace it as a tool for navigating moral relativity. Emotional connection can help us appreciate the perspectives of those whose values diverge from our own, not to excuse harmful actions, but to better understand the contexts and motivations behind them. In this way, we can balance reflection, humility, and dialogue to foster moral curiosity rather than moral absolutism and encourage a more nuanced engagement with social justice in a pluralistic society.
“Empathy Can Be Performative or Narcissistic”
In Toxic Empathy, Allie Beth Stuckey (2024) critiques what she sees as a cultural shift toward an “empathy culture” where public expressions of concern are often more about self-image than genuine care for others. She argues that this performative version of empathy tends to blur the lines between compassion and approval, sometimes preventing necessary accountability in the name of emotional sensitivity. According to Stuckey, such expressions may become self-serving, emotionally excessive, or even enabling of harmful behaviors.
While this critique exposes important flaws in how empathy can be distorted, the issue stems from the misuse of empathy rather than from empathy itself. True empathy is grounded in sincere listening, emotional boundaries, and the encouragement of personal growth. By developing emotional intelligence and engaging in self-reflection, individuals can avoid falling into performative patterns and instead offer empathy that is both supportive and responsible.
“Empathy Can Be Emotionally Overwhelming”
A widely acknowledged concern is that empathy, particularly when directed toward people or groups we don’t personally know, can lead to emotional overload. This experience—often referred to as empathy fatigue—tends to arise when individuals extend concern beyond their immediate relationships and into broader, more abstract social issues or distant crises.
Engaging empathetically with unfamiliar situations often requires significant mental and emotional effort. This can involve facing one’s own discomfort, especially when others’ pain reflects unresolved emotions or personal vulnerabilities. Rigney (2025) emphasizes that exposing ourselves to another’s emotional reality can leave us susceptible to emotional strain, especially when the suffering we witness mirrors our own or triggers feelings of helplessness and despair. Without adequate emotional resources, people may experience instability or burnout as a result.
This highlights the importance of distinguishing between emotional empathy—where we feel others’ emotions as if they were our own—and cognitive empathy, which allows us to understand others without internalizing their emotional states. Practicing cognitive empathy fosters sustained, meaningful engagement while preserving emotional balance. Rather than draining us, well-managed empathy can strengthen our emotional boundaries and guide us toward constructive, compassionate action. Building this kind of resilience requires intentional reflection, self-awareness, and support systems that replenish rather than deplete our emotional well-being.
“Empathy Doesn’t Always Lead to Effective Action”
Some critics contend that empathy can stall meaningful change by allowing people to feel emotionally involved without taking steps to address the issues at hand. Emotional concern, in this view, can become a kind of self-satisfaction—leaving individuals believing they’ve contributed, even when no real effort has been made to improve the situation. Stuckey (2024) argues that this dynamic can give the illusion of engagement while allowing harmful patterns or systemic problems to continue unchallenged.
However, this critique overlooks the fact that the failure to act stems from a lack of intentional follow-through, not from empathy itself. Empathy—especially when practiced with clarity and purpose—can be a powerful driver of meaningful engagement. When people not only understand but also connect with the lived experiences of others, they are often more inclined to take thoughtful, informed action. While empathy alone may not be sufficient, it lays a necessary foundation for moral responsibility and social responsiveness. When empathy and agency are combined, they form a catalyst for positive, lasting change.
“Empathy May Impede Rational Decision-Making”
A common critique, particularly in domains like leadership, business, and public policy, is that empathy can cloud sound judgment. The concern is that emotionally driven responses may overlook larger implications or lead to biased decisions based on personal attachment rather than broader fairness.
Rigney (2025) maintains that compassion should be guided by discernment, not dominated by the emotional turbulence of others. He cautions that decisions made purely on the basis of emotional alignment can sometimes result in ineffective leadership, poorly targeted generosity, or unjust prioritization of certain needs over others.
Yet, empathy and rationality are not inherently at odds. On the contrary, the ability to understand people’s experiences and motivations can enrich decision-making by anchoring it in human realities. When balanced with logic, ethical standards, and reflective thinking, empathy becomes an asset rather than a liability. Emotional awareness, far from undermining reason, can elevate it—shaping choices that are not only smart but also socially responsive and just.
Exploring the Core of Empathy
Books like The Sin of Empathy and Toxic Empathy challenge us to examine empathy more carefully, not abandon it. The valid critiques they raise point to the need for more disciplined, mature, and intentional forms of empathy. Empathy is not an end in itself—it is a bridge: one that must be built with boundaries, guided by wisdom, and walked with both courage and care.
Empathy is a pivotal concept in human relationships and communication, heralded for its ability to foster understanding and connection. As we've explored, empathy's significance transcends individual interactions; it has the potential to drive societal change and cultivate a more compassionate world. However, realizing this potential requires dedication and continuous growth.
To get the most out of practicing empathy, we must commit to expanding our understanding of it as a necessary competency. Engaging in reflective practices, educational opportunities, and community connections can enhance our empathetic reasoning and allow us to approach others with greater compassion and insight.
If you're ready to deepen your understanding of empathy and other socioemotional skills, reach out to Greg Mullen at Exploring the Core LLC. Take the first step towards becoming a more empathetic individual and influence the world around you in meaningful ways.
Greg Mullen
April 8, 2015
References
Brown, B. (2010). The gifts of imperfection: Let go of who you think you're supposed to be and embrace who you are. Hazelden Publishing.
Hoffman, M. L. (2000). Empathy and moral development: Implications for caring and justice. Cambridge University Press.
Rogers, C. R. (1959). A theory of therapy, personality, and interpersonal relationships, as developed in the client-centered framework. In S. Koch (Ed.), Psychology: A study of a science (Vol. 3, pp. 184-256). McGraw-Hill.
Rigney, J. (2025). The sin of empathy: And other lies that distort the way we care. Crossway.
Stuckey, A. B. (2024). Toxic empathy: When compassion becomes a weapon. Salem Books.
Titchener, E. (1909). Lectures on the experimental psychology of the thought processes. Macmillan.