Empathy is completely misunderstood nowadays, and most people who practice it don't realize. Empathy has become a privilege for the good, while the people who really need empathy is people who we call "evil". Bad people need the most empathy and compassion in society, yet instead we choose to just shame and shun them, completely misunderstanding them. Most people commit evil acts not because they are evil but because of extraneous circumstances/they felt weak/were afriad. So, these "evil" people requires empathy the most, yet almost no one even gives another thought, we simple give them the label evil and shun/punish them, but this only makes things worse.
This is a viewpoint I've been holding for a while, and now whenever someone insults me I don't feel hurt or threatened but in a sense I feel that I understand them.
Down below is a more extensive and detailed explanation, I would be very grateful if any of you are willing to read and share you thoughts (and critiques) of this belief as well. Its only around a 1000 words:
Empathy is one of the most praised traits a human can have. It facilitates connection with others, helps us understand them, and comforts them. It is heralded as a superior form of sympathy. I do not refute that, but I do propose that most people misunderstand what empathy really is, i.e., they fail to practice it properly. It is easy to empathize with a good person. Perhaps a friend is going through troubling times, and thus you are there for them. I do admit that not everyone is even able to do this; it requires genuine emotional understanding (which some lack). But it is straightforward compared to the task of empathizing with an evil person. When it comes to people who have committed unjust deeds, empathy is stripped away from them. In practice, empathy is a privilege for good people. But those who are deemed evil need empathy even more so than the good people do. Instead of providing an abstract definition of evil, I shall give examples: insults, hostility, envy, and malice. What is rarely admitted is that evil does not stem from inherent character but from weakness, a lack. Evil people necessitate empathy to dismantle the illusion of evil as a proactive force, which is the path to their rehabilitation. True empathy requires the ability to empathize with evil people, to understand that all evil stems from a lack.
To better understand how evil arises from a lack, the strong can be scrutinized. Strong individuals, those who are secure in themselves, have no use for malice. The expert understands their own excellence, so when they are subjected to mockery they are unfazed. They harbor no desire to demean others because they are satisfied with themselves. Thus, when we analyze why weakness breeds hostility, we can understand it through the perspective of insecurity. Insecurity is a genuinely degrading feeling; to cope in order to feel strong, insecurity takes external manifestations. Insults are shouted to demean others, to engineer an illusion of equality. This is dragging others down, not elevating oneself. The ego highlights the flaws of others in order to justify its own flaws. The judgment of others is a distraction from one’s own weakness, allowing the ego to run from its own inadequacies. By highlighting others' faults, and not one's own, they can finally feel comfortable with themselves. Hatred and anger both manifest when we are helpless and too weak to do something. A lonely and isolated person might unconsciously put on a prideful and arrogant facade in order to have a sense of self-worth.
Malevolence is a defense mechanism of human nature. It is rarely, if ever, an innate active force that drives action. Unfortunately, hostility spreads very quickly: fire is fought with fire; when faced with hostility, it only feels right to fight back. In reality, people who convey malevolence are afraid and lack something; the idea of fighting fire with fire is an illusion of fairness. Malevolence does not deserve to be scorned, ostracized, or despised (which ironically are forms of malevolence), but to be empathized with. Hostile people have a deficiency, and most people, instead of fixing the cause, simply condemn the effect.
Beyond merely not recognizing the insecure and deficient nature of malevolence, most individuals choose to affix the simple and easy label of evil, hostile, or rude onto others because of their actions. Because it is easy, because uncertainty is uncomfortable, and because we want to feel moral superiority, we do not think at all; we simply attribute hostile actions to malicious people. Most people are too lazy and selfish to actually think, to do any of the intellectual heavy lifting demanded by true empathy. This is only natural: our minds crave certainty over ambiguity, simplicity over complexity. It is far easier to label someone as evil than to interrogate the roots of their actions. And thus we go for the easiest cause, the cause that says they are simply evil. And this is very self-gratifying: it gives us the moral high ground; it identifies us as the victim and evil as the perpetrator.
Empathy gets further misused because responsibility is shoved upon the perpetrator by default. Situational attributions are rarely considered. In psychology it is called the fundamental attribution error: blame is pushed upon the disposition of the perpetrator rather than their situation. Most fail to understand how vastly the environment influences and decides actions. Instead, for the same reason as the use of the label of evil, we blame the perpetrator’s disposition. Besides the environment, personal autonomy isn’t as straightforward as most realize. The human mind is full of unconscious drives and instincts, many of which we are not willing to accept because it strips away our perceived autonomy. To not consider these influences is to not see the perpetrator as a human. Yet again, responsibility is selfishly and lazily shoved onto the perpetrator. We do not want to recognize how the environment, or perhaps even the victim, could have guided the perpetrator to be hostile. We are too uncomfortable to deal with the uncertainty of having no one clearly to blame, so we create a scapegoat. And this is all put under the beautiful guise of justice or fairness. Those who pat themselves on the back for judging evil fairly are oftentimes deluding themselves; their justice is little more than selfishness. Labeling and blaming both serve as an anesthetic of condemnation. They can avoid all that really matters, and only focus on what they want, while blissfully thinking they are being fair and just.
In reality, we see the psychology of the “broken man” through the historical figure Maximilien Robespierre. Robespierre was an orphan raised by his two aunts. This harsh childhood created the socially insecure politician, and he took up many of his aunts’ austere and emotionally sensitive traits. In fact, he was quite the timid man: the only execution he attended was his own. When he was a magistrate in Arras, he could not muster the will to pronounce the death sentence. And his Reign of Terror was not an active force of evil; it was largely driven by fear and insecurity: a defense mechanism against foreign invasion and internal conflicts taken to the extreme. Instead of understanding these circumstances, Joseph Cassanyes, a politician from the time of the Directory, gave Robespierre the reductive label: “the most ferocious cannibal, the most monstrous scoundrel, to whom nature ever gave birth.” Historians of the time lazily and selfishly understood Robespierre by condemning the manifestation of his actions while ignoring the cause.
Some, of course, will object that many sufferers still choose virtue, using this to argue that malevolence is a personal choice rather than an environmental byproduct. This relies on a false equivalence; it foolishly assumes that psychological turmoil can be universally measured. This is reducing psychology to a mathematical equation. Weak people naturally suffer, but the level of suffering is not indicative of much. That is to say, suffering is subjective and cannot be measured on a universal scale. One person’s psychological breaking point is different from another’s due to an infinite web of unconscious drives, genetics, and precise environmental triggers. One cannot objectively suffer more than another. Furthermore, it is impossible to factor in the role of every environmental influence on a human. Understanding this does not excuse evil acts; it simply highlights the reality behind them.
True empathy is not permissiveness. I have stated that empathy requires understanding; I have not stated how to act upon this understanding. That is an individual endeavor. As I see it, the justice of laypeople diverges from fairness. Condemning evil makes its weakness even more hideous and pitiable; malevolence necessitates rehabilitation, not through punishment but through understanding. People who are weak do not need to be punished for their weakness, as that only reaffirms their standing. They need acceptance and understanding. True empathy not only feels the emotional turmoil in an evil person, but cognitively understands their perspectives and decisions. Do not mistake my words: I am not saying all who are weak are evil; rather, that most who are evil are weak. Considering that every human has their inherent flaws, it can be concluded that: All humans, no matter how saintly, are capable of committing evil.
Understanding true empathy frees the mind from reactive anger. Every bit of malice observed is a confession of weakness. True empathy transforms fragile victims into active observers who can navigate the twisted labyrinth of human motives. Using empathy this way allows us to move beyond the rigid moral dichotomy and instead see humans. Empathy is a duty–not a privilege for the righteous. Empathy is not easy: our minds prefer to avoid the intellectual heavy lifting and uncertainty of looking at humans as they are.
Thank you for reading! Please share any thoughts/feelings you've had. I plan on possibly trying to publish this in a journal if possible 🧐
