In his novel, The Secret of Father Brown, G. K. Chesterton tells the story of a priest who also happens to be a world-class detective. A visiting playboy named Grandison Chase asks him how a man of the cloth got so good at solving grisly, diabolical murders. And Father Brown offers him a powerful and slightly alarming lesson in empathy:
Well said as always, and now I'm curious about that novel.
While reading this, I was reminded of one of my closest friends, who I'm not sure even has the necessary genes for empathy, and has that kind of black-and-white absolutist view of something a little less violent: people who voted for Trump. She thinks they all, like her, believe he's literally Hitler and he wants to destroy the world, but they actually want Hitler to destroy the world.
To her, these are defective people. Not wrong, or mistaken, or uninformed, or just possessing a different opinion, and I cannot convince her that one can be a decent person and still vote differently than her. It doesn't make them right, just different. Different life experiences, different values, different priorities. Nope, that just proves how irredeemably defective they really are, for not relying solely on her sources of information and coming to her conclusions. It's all or nothing.
"I cannot convince her that one can be a decent person and still vote differently than her."
I think this one's a bit tricky on many levels in 2025.
To be crystal clear, of course, many people who voted for Trump are decent people. But there's a line, right? There comes a point where, if you vote for a particular candidate, if, as your friend frames it, you vote for Hitler, you can't claim to be a decent person.
Nobody knew for sure how Trump 2.0 would go. Many of us were warning that it would be bad, but sure, we were all just making our best guesses.
But I think Trump has been bad enough that the people who can see what he's doing now, who can look at his attacks on free speech and the rule of law, who can cheer as ICE drags people off the streets and sends them to megaprisons without due process, who watch him weaponising the national guard against American citizens who protest him, if they can look at all that, and not seriously question their decision to support him, well, I'm very interested in having somebody who feels that way explain their reasoning in a way that makes them seem like a decent person.
There's this frustrating trend among people on the Right to frame all differences as mere disagreements where we should still be able to grab a beer afterwards. But if you think only white Christians are Americans or that fascism is good or that ALL immigrants, legal or not, law abiding or not, need to "get the hell out," then we aren't just disagreeing about student loan forgiveness or big vs small government, it's not just politics, it's something very fundamental and it's totally fair to reject someone on that basis.
(Just for clarity, none of the hypotheticals in the above paragraph are hyperbole, they're all direct quotes from this recent Jubilee "debate." - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2S-WJN3L5eo)
The frustrating trend on the Left is framing almost every disagreement in these life-or-death, all-or-nothing terms. If I don't think trans women are literally women, that doesn't mean I want to kill trans women. If I think DEI is badly executed, that doesn't mean I want black people to go back to being segregated or enslaved. But because some on the Left have been convinced to always see disagreements like these in such apocalyptic terms, then everyone who holds a different opinion DOES feel like Hitler.
And then, the overarching problem is that both sides are being so badly propagandised by social media that one side can genuinely believe something that is 180 degrees from the truth about the other side. This happens disturbingly frequently. Or they get such bad algorithm-blindness that they think the propaganda that grifters pump into their feeds really represents reality and not just a tiny slice of it.
Wow, sorry, this reply ended up much longer than intended 😅
I recommend (if it seems interesting to you) reading Against Empathy by Paul Bloom in which he argues that, because empathy is so taxing and exhausting we can run out of it, we should opt for compassion instead.
basically empathy is prone to bias and exhaustion. Compassion is a broader recognition of all of our collective humanity and doesn't require that we "feel" the pain of others so it has more stamina. That's my core takeaway
In grade eleven, our history teacher was Dr. Bassett, who had a Ph.D in history. He used to send us home with a history question, and we would try to answer it in his next class. One such question was: Why do the Israelis and Palestinians fight so much? The answer was that: The best fights take place in families. Meaning that both people are from the same Semitic origins.
Yes to this. I just recently learned that genetically speaking Palestinians and Jews are linked through paternal DNA. They are literally the same people just with two very different histories. Convincing them of that is another story entirely.
In the 10-part, 18-hour Vietnam War documentary series from directors Ken Burns and Lynn Novick there was a story about a North Vietnamese woman. People told her she should have children. She had two sons. They both were killed in the final assault on Saigon.
Upon watching it I had a deep sense of empathy for her. When I mentioned it to fellow Vietnam War veterans and Vietnamese friends there was no empathy from any of them.
This says nothing special about me or negative about them, but it relates to the rare occurrence of empathy for "them." I too have been without empathy in such matters, it is a universal difficulty.
A majority of the world relates both to their religious beliefs.
You write like Justice and peace are some universally accepted truism. Even the concept of truth is tide to religion. Most religious people believe that truth comes from God. If science conflicts with their view of what their god believes, science is wrong.
I believe I have pointed out to you before that even the UN Human Rights charter is at odds with itself. It details out individual human rights and then goes on to say that religion both individually and as a community is a human right. Its not possible to do all.
It's not about justice, empathy, peace, terrorism, etc. Why? Because they are all parts of the human condition. Human's are genetically programmed for tribalism and likely religious tribalism. As a result, depending on your perspective, it's easy to justify both Hamas and Israel being just.
If you take a step back and look at the Islam versus Jewish conflict as a centuries old religious war (which is what it is) is a no brainer. Both claim to have God on their side. God = justice from a religous perspective. As a result, talking about the conflict in some idealistic terms like justice, empathy, genocide, terrorism, or even peace is meaningless. You're missing the forest because of the trees.
Israel will win because they currently have the "might". Moslems won in the 8th century because they then had the "might".
In the human condition, might makes right. Especially if you justify it based on God being on your side.
Its the reason why only Trump could create a long lasting "peace" in the middle east. He's not big on concepts like justice, empathy, religion, etc. He has a great grasp on the Human Condition - i.e. might makes right - and basis his strategy from there. Other presidents get hung up on all the idealistic stuff. As a result, they got no where.
Sure words have different meanings to different people....
Religions are just stories that have grown over time. But some of these stories take root in a very short span. Humans seem to want to explain their reality and when stories do that for them it's hard to give up. Stories are the root, not religion imo.
I think though that believers deep down know that morality does not come from their story. That is why they have inner conflict. I have been deep inside and I know what's there.
DJT seems to act as might is right but I'm not sure he believes it's "the right", just that it will achieve what he wants....and it doesn't demonstrate an understanding of the human condition. Might doesn't not make right for the human condition....but you might be talking about just the book by that name.
As for me I will choose love and see how it works out for me. Each of us could choose to be better if only we would.
Your falling into the same trap. As a word "right" is dependent on the moral context its being used. When I say "Might makes right" I'm referring to the term "right" devoid of any morality. Those with "Might" control history. History defines what is "right" from a moralistic perspective for tribes.
Your thoughts on religion are just you aligning with the religion of the left. I don't know you but I'm guessing your tribe (along with Steve's) is the left. You assume some higher "morality" that you believe everyone will align to. Typically the UN Human Rights definition. But as I stated in my initial response to Steve, the UN Human Rights definition is at conflict with itself. The left tends to ignore that. HRC being the most flagrant example. They include the phrase "Human Rights" in their name but never defined where they get the definition of Human Rights. That's intentional. They get to use a term the left likes and get to define what it means implicitly.
Until the Left realizes that their new world religion is no better than an old world religion, they will continue to delude themselves. As I stated, it's the reason Democratic presidents are so ineffective at internal problems especially in the middle east.
Well said as always, and now I'm curious about that novel.
While reading this, I was reminded of one of my closest friends, who I'm not sure even has the necessary genes for empathy, and has that kind of black-and-white absolutist view of something a little less violent: people who voted for Trump. She thinks they all, like her, believe he's literally Hitler and he wants to destroy the world, but they actually want Hitler to destroy the world.
To her, these are defective people. Not wrong, or mistaken, or uninformed, or just possessing a different opinion, and I cannot convince her that one can be a decent person and still vote differently than her. It doesn't make them right, just different. Different life experiences, different values, different priorities. Nope, that just proves how irredeemably defective they really are, for not relying solely on her sources of information and coming to her conclusions. It's all or nothing.
"I cannot convince her that one can be a decent person and still vote differently than her."
I think this one's a bit tricky on many levels in 2025.
To be crystal clear, of course, many people who voted for Trump are decent people. But there's a line, right? There comes a point where, if you vote for a particular candidate, if, as your friend frames it, you vote for Hitler, you can't claim to be a decent person.
Nobody knew for sure how Trump 2.0 would go. Many of us were warning that it would be bad, but sure, we were all just making our best guesses.
But I think Trump has been bad enough that the people who can see what he's doing now, who can look at his attacks on free speech and the rule of law, who can cheer as ICE drags people off the streets and sends them to megaprisons without due process, who watch him weaponising the national guard against American citizens who protest him, if they can look at all that, and not seriously question their decision to support him, well, I'm very interested in having somebody who feels that way explain their reasoning in a way that makes them seem like a decent person.
There's this frustrating trend among people on the Right to frame all differences as mere disagreements where we should still be able to grab a beer afterwards. But if you think only white Christians are Americans or that fascism is good or that ALL immigrants, legal or not, law abiding or not, need to "get the hell out," then we aren't just disagreeing about student loan forgiveness or big vs small government, it's not just politics, it's something very fundamental and it's totally fair to reject someone on that basis.
(Just for clarity, none of the hypotheticals in the above paragraph are hyperbole, they're all direct quotes from this recent Jubilee "debate." - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2S-WJN3L5eo)
The frustrating trend on the Left is framing almost every disagreement in these life-or-death, all-or-nothing terms. If I don't think trans women are literally women, that doesn't mean I want to kill trans women. If I think DEI is badly executed, that doesn't mean I want black people to go back to being segregated or enslaved. But because some on the Left have been convinced to always see disagreements like these in such apocalyptic terms, then everyone who holds a different opinion DOES feel like Hitler.
And then, the overarching problem is that both sides are being so badly propagandised by social media that one side can genuinely believe something that is 180 degrees from the truth about the other side. This happens disturbingly frequently. Or they get such bad algorithm-blindness that they think the propaganda that grifters pump into their feeds really represents reality and not just a tiny slice of it.
Wow, sorry, this reply ended up much longer than intended 😅
Can we get those last two paragraphs printed on billboards and post them around the country? I'm broke but I'll still pitch in!
Haha, nope, sorry, we either acknowledge the failings of the left and the right or we don’t. No editing out the mistakes of your preferred side.
Yep that should've said three paragraphs.
And this is why fear is weaponized by those who do or would control us. Fear of the Other keeps me from seeing how much we are alike.
Another insightful piece. Thank you.
I recommend (if it seems interesting to you) reading Against Empathy by Paul Bloom in which he argues that, because empathy is so taxing and exhausting we can run out of it, we should opt for compassion instead.
"because empathy is so taxing and exhausting we can run out of it, we should opt for compassion instead"
Interesting! How does he frame the difference between the two?
I read it a few years back and my recall is as flabby as my belly.
Here's the wiki on the book: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Against_Empathy
basically empathy is prone to bias and exhaustion. Compassion is a broader recognition of all of our collective humanity and doesn't require that we "feel" the pain of others so it has more stamina. That's my core takeaway
Thank you for your excellent, heartfelt article.
In grade eleven, our history teacher was Dr. Bassett, who had a Ph.D in history. He used to send us home with a history question, and we would try to answer it in his next class. One such question was: Why do the Israelis and Palestinians fight so much? The answer was that: The best fights take place in families. Meaning that both people are from the same Semitic origins.
Yes to this. I just recently learned that genetically speaking Palestinians and Jews are linked through paternal DNA. They are literally the same people just with two very different histories. Convincing them of that is another story entirely.
Excellent!
In the 10-part, 18-hour Vietnam War documentary series from directors Ken Burns and Lynn Novick there was a story about a North Vietnamese woman. People told her she should have children. She had two sons. They both were killed in the final assault on Saigon.
Upon watching it I had a deep sense of empathy for her. When I mentioned it to fellow Vietnam War veterans and Vietnamese friends there was no empathy from any of them.
This says nothing special about me or negative about them, but it relates to the rare occurrence of empathy for "them." I too have been without empathy in such matters, it is a universal difficulty.
Justice and peace?
A majority of the world relates both to their religious beliefs.
You write like Justice and peace are some universally accepted truism. Even the concept of truth is tide to religion. Most religious people believe that truth comes from God. If science conflicts with their view of what their god believes, science is wrong.
I believe I have pointed out to you before that even the UN Human Rights charter is at odds with itself. It details out individual human rights and then goes on to say that religion both individually and as a community is a human right. Its not possible to do all.
It's not about justice, empathy, peace, terrorism, etc. Why? Because they are all parts of the human condition. Human's are genetically programmed for tribalism and likely religious tribalism. As a result, depending on your perspective, it's easy to justify both Hamas and Israel being just.
If you take a step back and look at the Islam versus Jewish conflict as a centuries old religious war (which is what it is) is a no brainer. Both claim to have God on their side. God = justice from a religous perspective. As a result, talking about the conflict in some idealistic terms like justice, empathy, genocide, terrorism, or even peace is meaningless. You're missing the forest because of the trees.
Israel will win because they currently have the "might". Moslems won in the 8th century because they then had the "might".
In the human condition, might makes right. Especially if you justify it based on God being on your side.
Its the reason why only Trump could create a long lasting "peace" in the middle east. He's not big on concepts like justice, empathy, religion, etc. He has a great grasp on the Human Condition - i.e. might makes right - and basis his strategy from there. Other presidents get hung up on all the idealistic stuff. As a result, they got no where.
Love is the Masterplan
You go with that.
The meaning of the word "Love" also changes with religious leanings.
Sure words have different meanings to different people....
Religions are just stories that have grown over time. But some of these stories take root in a very short span. Humans seem to want to explain their reality and when stories do that for them it's hard to give up. Stories are the root, not religion imo.
I think though that believers deep down know that morality does not come from their story. That is why they have inner conflict. I have been deep inside and I know what's there.
DJT seems to act as might is right but I'm not sure he believes it's "the right", just that it will achieve what he wants....and it doesn't demonstrate an understanding of the human condition. Might doesn't not make right for the human condition....but you might be talking about just the book by that name.
As for me I will choose love and see how it works out for me. Each of us could choose to be better if only we would.
Your falling into the same trap. As a word "right" is dependent on the moral context its being used. When I say "Might makes right" I'm referring to the term "right" devoid of any morality. Those with "Might" control history. History defines what is "right" from a moralistic perspective for tribes.
Your thoughts on religion are just you aligning with the religion of the left. I don't know you but I'm guessing your tribe (along with Steve's) is the left. You assume some higher "morality" that you believe everyone will align to. Typically the UN Human Rights definition. But as I stated in my initial response to Steve, the UN Human Rights definition is at conflict with itself. The left tends to ignore that. HRC being the most flagrant example. They include the phrase "Human Rights" in their name but never defined where they get the definition of Human Rights. That's intentional. They get to use a term the left likes and get to define what it means implicitly.
Until the Left realizes that their new world religion is no better than an old world religion, they will continue to delude themselves. As I stated, it's the reason Democratic presidents are so ineffective at internal problems especially in the middle east.
Of course your right, every word, how do you know how I think so well?
Peace be to you and your family
Love is still the Masterplan
Classic response for a person who has no real response!
The gentleman doth protest too much, methinks.