1. In two healthy paragraphs, summarize the piece AND show (with framed quotes and paraphrase from the text) what you believe to be the author’s three main points/arguments. Support with textual evidence and include your own initial response to the material.

Paul blooms starts off with the point that “Empathy distorts our moral judgments in pretty much the same way that prejudice does”. When I first heard this statement I automatically disagreed. But reading further into it I kind of see what the authors was trying to get at. Basically, it’s far easier to empathize with those who are close to us. Which I completely agree with, this is the same reason why we stopped hearing about the War between Russia and Ukraine. It was on the news everyday for the first few weeks and now we barely hear anything about it anymore. That’s because it doesn’t directly affect us. A lot of times people just forget about it even though it’s sad. Even someone like myself who has extreme passion for others will hear a news story on the news and think “oh that’s sad” and then continue on eating my dinner. Because as an individual it is so easy to get overwhelmed with it all.  

One thing that I didn’t like at all about this article is that the author seems to be totally discrediting empathy and basically saying that its not valuable. When people ask me to describe myself with one word the first one that comes to my mind is empathetic because it is very important to me and always has been. No matter how small an act of empathy it matters. Saying that the negatives of empathy outweigh the positives is absurd to me. This is basically like someone saying “ i’m not going to go vegan because that’s not going to stop everyone else from eating meat” or “ i’m not going to adopt an old dog from a shelter because that’s not going to stop others from buying puppies from breeders” while those statements may be true they are completely narrow minded and selfish. Because although you doing the right thing isn’t going to make everyone else do the right thing it still makes a difference. The author is saying empathy has a narrow focus but I believe that this author has a narrow focus on life and is forgetting to look at the big picture. Yes some may be more privileged than others so they show more empathy towards things that relate to themselves but the ability to have empathy at all is a good thing. In the end Bloom says that there are better alternatives for empathy and I would really like to know what he thinks those alternatives could be since he didn’t elaborate on that. 

2. Do you agree with Bloom’s main arguments? Why or why not? 

No I disagree with his main points. His first point that “Empathy distorts our moral judgments in pretty much the same way that prejudice does” I kind of see where he’s coming from with this point that “its easier to empathize with those who are close to us” We all do this to a certain extent we focus more on what directly affects us. If you have enough empathy you can overcome prejudice. His second main point that “empathy is a spotlight with a narrow focus; it shines brightly on those we love and gets dim for those who are different or strange.” I disagree with this argument because It really depends on the person. There are genuine people out there who have empathy for others no matter what they look like or where they came from. Like myself I believe that I could have empathy for anything or anyone. I could even have empathy for a rock as funny as that sounds. Which relates to his last point that “What really matters for kindness may be self control, intelligence, and a more diffuse compassion.” I feel like Bloom is contradicting himself here because if you have enough intelligence and self control you can overlook the biases and the narrow focus that can sometimes come with empathy.

3. In what ways does Bloom challenge your initial understanding or perception regarding empathy?

He did not challenge my understanding of empathy because I disagree with him and his points and think in fact that he is the narrow minded one. Which makes him not able to overcome his own biases and feel empathy for everyone equally. 

4. Find one claim Bloom makes that evoked a strong response. Paste the direct quote from his piece, then write a few sentences in which you challenge OR support his claim in your own words and experience(s).

“What really matters for kindness may be self control, intelligence, and a more diffuse compassion.” 

Like I said before  I feel like Bloom is contradicting himself here because if you have enough intelligence and self control you can overlook the biases and the narrow focus that can sometimes come with empathy.