Most of us grew up hearing about the golden rule: treat others as you would want to be treated.

But today, in a country that feels more divided than ever, empathy itself has come under fire. Some political voices call it a weakness that is harming the United States.

Lately, these sentiments have made me wonder: Why are we turning on empathy? And is it really something bad?

Empathy’s Moral Tradition

Across religious and philosophical traditions, empathy is not viewed as a flaw but as a foundation for ethical living.

In Christianity, Jesus is described as being “moved with compassion.” He healed the sick, fed the hungry, and defended the marginalized. 

In Judaism, the principle of chesed, or loving-kindness, places mercy at the center of moral life. 

In Islam, compassion is considered one of God’s primary attributes, and true believers are commanded to care for the poor, the traveler, and the oppressed.

How did something so central to moral life start to lose its standing?

Part of the answer might be the way our culture has shifted over time. America has always valued self-reliance, but somewhere along the way, we have lost the idea of shared obligation. When we place the individual too far above the good of the community, it becomes a lot easier to see compassion for others as optional instead of essential.

Empathy Under Fire From The Right

More and more, voices on the right are not just questioning empathy. They are vilifying it as a threat to society itself.

On Joe Rogan’s popular podcast, billionaire Elon Musk described empathy as a “bug” in the human moral system. He warned that Western civilization suffers from what he called “suicidal empathy,” where unchecked compassion undermines its ability to defend itself.

This skepticism is not limited to the richest man on Earth. Among some conservative thinkers, empathy is seen as a threat to moral clarity. 

For example, commentator Allie Beth Stuckey argues in her book Toxic Empathy: How Progressives Exploit Christian Compassion that when people get too caught up in emotions, they can lose sight of sound judgment. She warns that unchecked empathy can pull well-meaning people into supporting causes that look compassionate on the surface but run against deeper moral or religious principles. In her view, empathy without discernment is not just risky. It becomes a tool that pulls people away from truth under the banner of kindness.

While these statements may not reflect every mainstream voice, their arguments are catching on. They reflect a growing belief that empathy is not just naïve but exploitable and maybe even dangerous. That mindset is reshaping political debates we hear today over immigration, poverty, and public health.

We are already seeing this impact real-world decisions. For example, the U.S. global AIDS program, known as PEPFAR and originally launched by President George W. Bush, helped save millions of lives in Africa and beyond. Yet it has recently faced sharp funding cuts, driven not by humanitarian concerns but by political distrust. Health experts warn that these reductions could lead to missed treatments, stalled progress in controlling HIV transmission, and a resurgence of the epidemic in vulnerable communities.

We are seeing similar decisions closer to home. With food assistance programs, concerns about fraud often get more attention than conversations about hunger. In immigration policy, fear and security concerns crowd out talks about mercy or asylum.

Outside of politics, skepticism about empathy has run just as deep among some Christian thinkers. 

Joe Rigney, a Fellow of Theology at New Saint Andrews College and Associate Pastor at Christ Church, argues in his book The Sin of Empathy that excessive emotional identification can pull believers away from theological truth. He warns that when feelings are allowed to outweigh making smart decisions, empathy can cloud judgment and blur the lines between right and wrong.

Pastor Josh McPherson of Grace City Church in Wenatchee, Washington, went even further. In his Stronger Men Nation podcast, he said “empathy almost needs to be struck from the Christian vocabulary.” 

While these Christian leaders believe unchecked compassion risks aligning believers with destructive causes, not all on the right agree. David French, formerly of the conservative editorial magazine National Review and now with The New York Times, has been one of the strongest mainstream columnists pushing back. He points out that Jesus lived a life marked by deep and consistent empathy, choosing to step into the suffering of others instead of keeping them at arm’s length. 

Other religious leaders have echoed French’s sentiment, warning against treating empathy as a weakness.

After President Donald Trump was sworn in, the minister at the National Cathedral offered a quiet but pointed rebuttal. The Rev. Mariann Edgar Budde, Episcopal Bishop of Washington, used her sermon to emphasize that Christian faith calls believers to compassion, humility, and care for the vulnerable. Despite criticisms from conservatives and other pastors, she and other faith leaders in the weeks that followed continued to warn against treating empathy as a weakness.

Other Protestant voices raised similar concerns. Russell Moore, the former head of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, argued that empathy is not a sin, pointing to the Apostle Paul’s command to “weep with those who weep” in Romans 12:15. 

But some of the most interesting religious pushbacks have come from the Catholic Church, where leadership has been particularly vocal.

Last January, Vice President J.D. Vance referenced the medieval idea of ordo amoris — the proper ordering of loves — to argue that loyalty to family and country should come before compassion for outsiders. His argument drew sharp criticism from Pope Francis and other Catholic leaders, who reminded people that mercy is not something Christians can pick and choose. It is supposed to be central to the life they are called to live.

Pope Francis’s message of mercy carried on even after his death. During the funeral Mass on April 26th, Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re delivered a pointed homily, recalling how Francis had firmly opposed the idea of building walls and often urged leaders to “build bridges, not walls.” The line was widely seen as a deliberate critique of President Trump, who was sitting in the front row. 

Millions around the world witnessed the rebuke.

Empathy Under Fire From The Left

While there is much to criticize about the right, struggles with empathy are not limited to one side of the political spectrum. Even though empathy is often championed as a progressive value, the political left has its own blind spots. 

For example, when conservative voters face tough times, some progressive voices respond not with concern, but with mockery. The sentiment often sounds like this: “They voted for this. Let them suffer.” 

There is even an entire Reddit community, r/LeopardsAteMyFace, dedicated to celebrating when misfortune befalls people perceived as politically conservative. Posts often mock individuals who supported MAGA policies or leaders and then experienced negative consequences. The idea behind the community’s name — based on the phrase “I never thought leopards would eat my face,” said by a voter for the Leopards Eating People’s Faces Party — is meant to ridicule people who are seen as victims of their own political choices.

But celebrating the suffering of others cuts against the very spirit of empathy. True compassion does not depend on political agreement. It calls for recognizing the humanity of others, especially when their politics and choices are different from our own.

Of course, this is easier said than done. The temptation to withhold empathy from political opponents is real, especially in a climate charged with anger and frustration. But once compassion becomes conditional, it stops being compassion at all. It becomes another form of tribalism, deepening the divides that are already pulling us apart.

Are Americans Losing Empathy?

While political divisions have exposed cracks in our willingness to empathize, broader societal trends offer a complex picture.

A landmark 2010 study led by psychologist Sara Konrath found that U.S. college students scored about 40 percent lower on empathy measures compared to students from the late 1970s. Researchers blamed rising individualism, competition, and the isolating effects of digital technology.

At first, this study suggested that empathy was in sharp decline. But more recent findings complicate that narrative.

In 2024, Konrath and her team published updated research showing that empathy among Millennials and Gen Z has been rising again since the late 2000s. Young Americans today report empathy levels comparable to earlier generations.

At the same time, national sentiment remains pessimistic. A 2025 compassion survey conducted by the Muhammad Ali Center found that 61 percent of Americans believe empathy has decreased over the past four years, largely blaming political polarization, anger, and distrust.

What We Can Do

Based on these surveys, empathy is not a fixed trait. It can rise or fall depending on the choices we make.

For conservatives who want a compassionate society, there is an opportunity to reclaim empathy as a sign of strength, not weakness. Caring for people outside your immediate circle does not mean abandoning your principles. It means recognizing that part of real strength is concern for others, even when they do not share your views. 

In a community like Peachtree City, that might look like supporting organizations such as Fayette Samaritans, which provides food, clothing, and financial assistance to local families. It might mean helping with programs at the Real Life Center, which supports people facing unexpected hardships. It could also mean backing efforts that encourage legal immigration while maintaining strong borders. Organizations working toward that goal that you can support include the National Immigration Forum and the American Business Immigration Coalition.

For progressives, it means not turning empathy into a partisan weapon. True compassion does not celebrate when political opponents fall on hard times. It calls for helping neighbors when life is difficult, even if they plant different yard signs or post conflicting opinions online.

For Christian believers, the call is even more direct. Scripture does not say, “Love only those who think or vote the way we do.” It commands love of neighbor, care for strangers, and compassion for the vulnerable. Remember that Jesus did not act out of obligation, but out of deep compassion, even for those who did not deserve it.

So, Is Empathy Bad?

No.

But perhaps a better question is: How do we use empathy wisely?

Empathy alone will not fix everything. It has to be paired with discernment and reason. Without it, though, we risk sliding into a society of fear, suspicion, and cruelty.

When so much seems to be pulling Americans apart, reclaiming empathy as a shared value could be part of what helps us find a better way forward. We would not erase our differences. We would deepen ties that hold us together.

The future of empathy, like the future of our country, is still being written.

What part will you play?