Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Rejecting Empathy for Animal Ethics

  • Published:
Ethical Theory and Moral Practice Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Ethicists have become increasingly skeptical about the importance of empathy in producing moral concern for others. One of the main claims made by empathy skeptics is a psychological thesis: empathy is not the primary psychological process responsible for producing moral concern. Some of the best evidence that could confirm or disconfirm this thesis comes from research on empathizing with animals. However, this evidence has not been discussed in any of the prominent critiques of empathy. In this paper, I investigate six different empirical claims commonly made about empathy toward animals. I find all six claims to be problematic, though some are more plausible than others, and argue that empathy is indeed not psychologically central to producing moral concern for animals. I also review evidence indicating that other moral emotions, particularly anger, are more strongly engaged with producing moral concern for animals, and are thus more capable of achieving various normative aims in animal ethics. The conclusion of my argument is that empathy should lose its currently privileged place.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The role of empathy in moral judgment and action has seen something of a revival in recent years, among both philosophers and psychologists (e.g., Coplan and Goldie 2011; Held 2006; Howe 2013; Oxley 2011; Slote 2007, 2010; Stueber 2006, 2012). This has been the case in animal ethics as well. Notably, the increased emphasis on empathy in animal ethics has been quite rigorously tied to new empirical studies in cognitive science. Lori Gruen (2009, 2012) and Elisa Aaltola (2012), for instance, both draw heavily from the latest research in cognitive science to advance their own theories of how empathy improves moral treatment of animals. This stands in contrast to earlier writings on empathy and animal ethics (e.g., Donovan 1996; Luke 1995; Shapiro 1994).

  2. My analysis is similar in nature to Jesse Prinz’s (2011a, 2011b) arguments against the necessity of empathy for moral concern (particularly with respect to human beings). For instance, he asks, without empathy, will we will judge animals negatively and deny their needs? Without empathy, can we meet our moral duties toward animals? These questions provide the background to my investigation. I more directly address the question of centrality, which is slightly different. Even if empathy is not necessary for morality, we still might think that it is much more important than any other moral emotion. For instance, perhaps it is empathy that primarily determines positive evaluations of animals, even if other routes to positive evaluations exist as well.

  3. One example of people advocating something like the generalization hypothesis comes from Munro (2005), p. 66. She reports that self-described animal protectionists often ask people to apply the empathy they show toward their pets and other human beings to a wider variety of animals.

  4. Here I understand “cruelty” to encompass both active (e.g. intentional abuse) and passive (e.g. neglect) forms of mistreatment. This is generally how the term is used in clinical (Ascione 2008) and legal (Favre 2011) contexts.

References

  • Aaltola E (2012) Animal suffering: Philosophy and culture. Palgrave, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Allen MW, Hunstone M, Waerstad J, Foy E, Hobbins T, Wikner B, Wirrel J (2002) Human-to-animal similarity and participant mood influence punishment recommendations for animal abusers. Soc Anim 10:267–284

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Angantyr M, Eklund J, Hansen EM (2011) A comparison of empathy for humans and empathy for animals. Anthrozoös 24:369–377

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arluke A, Sanders CR (1996) Regarding animals. Temple University Press, Philadelphia

    Google Scholar 

  • Arluke A, Sax B (1992) Understanding Nazi animal protection and the holocaust. Anthrozoös 5:6–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ascione F (1992) Enhancing children’s attitudes about the humane treatment of animals: generalization to human-directed empathy. Anthrozoös 5:176–191

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ascione F (1999) The abuse of animals and human interpersonal violence: Making the connection. In: Ascione FR, Arkow P (eds) Child abuse, domestic violence, and animal abuse. Purdue University Press, West Lafayette, pp 50–61

    Google Scholar 

  • Ascione F (ed) (2008) The international handbook of animal abuse and cruelty: Theory, research, and application. Purdue University Press, West Lafayette

    Google Scholar 

  • Baron-Cohen S (2011) The science of evil: On empathy and the origins of cruelty. Basic Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Batson CD, Chang J, Orr R, Rowland J (2002) Empathy, attitudes, and action: can feeling for a member of a stigmatized group motivate one to help the group? Pers Soc Psychol B 28:1656–1666

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Batson CD, Chao MC, Given JM (2009) Pursuing moral outrage: outrage at torture. J Exp Soc Psychol 45:155–160

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Batson CD, Kennedy CL, Nord LA, Stocks EL, Fleming DA, Marzette CM (2007) Anger at unfairness: is it moral outrage? Eur J Soc Psychol 37:1272–1285

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Batson CD, Klein TR, Highberger L, Shaw LL (1995) Immorality from empathy-induced altruism: when compassion and justice conflict. J Pers Soc Psychol 68:1042–1054

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Batson CD, Polycarpou MP, Harmon-Jones E, Imhoff HJ, Mitchener EC, Bednar LL, Klein LL, Highberger L (1997) Empathy and attitudes: can feeling for a member of a stigmatized group improve feelings toward the group? J Pers Soc Psychol 72:105–118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Batt S (2009) Human attitudes towards animals in relation to species similarity to humans: a multivariate approach. Biosci Horiz 2:180–190

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berenguer J (2007) The effect of empathy in proenvironmental attitudes and behaviors. Environ Behav 39:269–283

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blader SL, Tyler TR (2002) Justice and empathy: What motivates people to help others? In: Ross M, Miller DT (eds) The justice motive in everyday life. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 226–250

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Broida JP, Tingley L, Kimball R, Miele J (1993) Personality differences between pro and antivivisectionists. Soc Anim 1:129–144

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown LM, Bradley MM, Lang PJ (2006) Affective reactions to pictures of ingroup and outgroup members. Biol Psychol 71:303–311

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carver CS, Harmon-Jones E (2009) Anger is an approach-related affect: evidence and implications. Psychol Bull 135:183–204

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coplan A (2011) Understanding empathy: Its features and effects. In: Coplan A (ed) Goldie (eds) Empathy: Philosophical and psychological perspectives. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 3–18

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Coplan A, Goldie P (2011) Empathy: Philosophical and psychological perspectives. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Darwall S (1998) Empathy, sympathy, care. Philos Stud 89:261–282

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis MH, Mitchell KV, Hall JA, Lothert J, Snapp T, Meyer M (1999) Empathy, expectations and situational preferences: personality influences on the decision to participate in volunteer helping behaviors. J Pers 67:469–503

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donovan J (1996) Attention to suffering: a feminist caring ethic for the treatment of animals. J Soc Phil 27:81–102

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eddy TJ, Gallup GG Jr, Povinelli DJ (1993) Attribution of cognitive states to animals: anthropomorphism in comparative perspective. J Soc Issues 49:87–101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenberg N, Fabes RA, Spinrad TL (2006) Prosocial development. In: Handbook of child psychology, Vol. 3, Social, Emotional, and Personality Development, 6th edn. Wiley, Hoboken, pp 647–702

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenberg N, Miller PA (1987) The relation of empathy to prosocial and related behaviors. Psychol Bull 101:91–119

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ellingsen K, Zanella AJ, Bjerkås E, Indrebø A (2010) The relationship between empathy, perception of pain and attitudes toward pets among Norwegian dog owners. Anthrozoös 23:231–243

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erlanger AC, Tsytsarev SV (2012) The relationship between empathy and personality in undergraduate student’s attitudes toward nonhuman animal. Soc Anim 20:21–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Favre DS (2011) Animal law: Welfare interests and rights, 2nd edn. Aspen Publishers, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Filippi M, Riccitelli G, Falini A, di Salle F, Vuilleumier P, Comi G, Rocca MA (2010) The brain functional networks associated to human and animal suffering differ among omnivores, vegetarians and vegans. PLoS One 5:1–9

    Google Scholar 

  • Fox MA, McLean L (2008) Animals in moral space. In: Castricano J (ed) Animal subjects: An ethics reader in a post-human world. Wilfried Laurier University Press, Waterloo, pp 145–175

    Google Scholar 

  • Furnham A, McManus C, Scott D (2003) Personality, empathy and attitudes to animal welfare. Anthrozoös 16:135–146

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldman A (1993) Ethics and cognitive science. Ethics 103:337–360

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gruen L (2004) Empathy and vegetarian commitments. In: Sapontzi SS (ed) Food for thought: The debate over eating meat. Prometheus, New York, pp 284–293

    Google Scholar 

  • Gruen L (2009) Attending to nature: empathetic engagement with the more than human world. Ethics Environ 14:23–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gruen L (2012) Navigating difference (again): Animal ethics and entangled empathy. In: Smulewics-Zucker GR (ed) Strangers to nature: Animal lives and human ethics. Lexington Books, Lanham, pp 213–234

    Google Scholar 

  • Gutsell J, Inzlicht M (2010) Empathy constrained: prejudice predicts reduced mental simulation of actions during observation of outgroups. J Exp Soc Psychol 46:841–45

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gutsell JN, Inzlicht M (2012) Intergroup differences in the sharing of emotive states: neural evidence of an empathy gap. Soc Cogn Affect Neur 7:596–603

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harmon-Jones E, Gable P, Peterson C (2010) The role of asymmetric frontal cortical activity in emotion-related phenomena: a review and update. Biol Psychol 84:451–462

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harmon-Jones E, Sigelman JD, Bohlig A, Harmon-Jones C (2003) Anger, coping, and frontal cortical activity: the effect of coping potential on anger-induced left frontal activity. Cognit Emot 17:1–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hatfield E, Rapson RL, Le YL (2009) Emotional contagion and empathy. In: Decety J, Ickes W (eds) The social neuroscience of empathy. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 19–30

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Held V (2006) The ethics of care: Personal, political, and global. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Henry BC (2006) Empathy, home environment, and attitudes toward animals in relation to animal abuse. Anthrozoös 19:17–34

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hills AM (1993) The motivational bases of attitudes toward animals. Soc Anim 1:111–128

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holton R, Langton R (1999) Empathy and animal ethics. In: Jamieson D (ed) Singer and his critics. Basil Blackwell, Oxford, pp 209–232

    Google Scholar 

  • Howe D (2013) Empathy: What it is and why it matters. Palgrave Macmillan, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Klimecki O, Singer T (2013) Empathy from the perspective of social neuroscience. In: Jorge A, Vuilleumier P (eds) Cambridge handbook of human affective neuroscience. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 533–549

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Knight S, Bard K, Vrij A, Brandon D (2010) Human rights, animal wrongs? Exploring attitudes toward animal use and possibilities for change. Soc Anim 18:251–272

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krueger F, Parasuraman R, Moody L, Twieg P, de Visser E, McCabe K, Lee MR (2013) Oxytocin selectively increases perceptions of harm for victims but not the desire to punish offenders of criminal offenses. SCAN 8:494–498

    Google Scholar 

  • Linzey A (ed) (2009) The link between animal abuse and human violence. Sussex Academic Press, Brighton

    Google Scholar 

  • Luke B (1995) Taming ourselves or going feral? Toward a nonpatriarchal metaethic of animal liberation. In: Adams CJ, Donovan J (eds) Animals and women. Duke University Press, Durham, pp 230–319

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller C (2009) Empathy, social psychology, and global helping traits. Phil Stud 142:247–275

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mischel W (1968) Personality and assessment. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Munro L (2005) Confronting cruelty. Brill, Leiden

    Google Scholar 

  • Neuberg SL, Cialdini RB, Brown SL, Luce C, Sagarin BJ, Lewis BP (1997) Does empathy lead to anything more than superficial helping? Comment on Batson et al. (1997). J Pers Soc Psychol 73:510–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Opotow SV (1993) Animals and the scope of justice. J Soc Issues 49:71–85

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oxley JC (2011) The moral dimensions of empathy. Palgrave Macmilan, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Patterson-Kane EG, Piper H (2009) Animal abuse as a sentinel for human violence: a critique. J Soc Issues 65:589–614

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paul ES (2000) Empathy with animals and with humans: are they linked? Anthrozoös 13:194–202

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Plous S (1993) Psychological mechanisms in the human use of animals. J Soc Issues 49:11–52

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Preylo BD, Arikawa H (2008) Comparison of vegetarians and non-vegetarians on pet attitude and empathy. Anthrozoös 21:387–395

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prinz J (2011a) Against empathy. South J Philos 49:214–233

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prinz J (2011b) Is empathy necessary for morality? In: Coplan A, Goldie P (eds) Empathy: Philosophical and psychological perspectives. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 519–38

    Google Scholar 

  • Rozin P, Lowery L, Imada S, Haidt J (1999) The CAD triad hypothesis: a mapping between three moral emotions (contempt, anger, disgust) and three moral codes (community, autonomy, divinity). J Pers Soc Psychol 76:574–586

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rozin P, Markwith M, Stoess C (1997) Moralization and becoming a vegetarian. Psychol Sci 8:67–73

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sax B (2000) Animals in the Third Reich. Continuum, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Sevillano V, Aragonés JI, Schultz PW (2007) Perspective taking, environmental concern, and the moderating role of dispositional empathy. Environ Behav 39:685–705

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schultz PW (2000) Empathizing with nature: The effects of perspective taking on concern for environmental issues. J Soc Issues 56:391–406

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shapiro K (1994) The caring sleuth: portrait of an animal rights activist. Soc Anim 2:145–165

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shelton ML, Rogers RW (1981) Fear-arousing and empathy-arousing appeals to help: the pathos of persuasion. J Appl Soc Psychol 11:366–378

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sheridan CL, King RG (1972) Obedience to authority with an authentic victim. P Annu Conv Am Psychol Assoc 80:165–166

    Google Scholar 

  • Signal T, Taylor N (2007) Attitude to animals and empathy: comparing animal protection and general community samples. Anthrozoös 20:125–130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slote M (2007) The ethics of care and empathy. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Slote M (2010) Moral sentimentalism. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Solomon RC (1999) Peter Singer’s Expanding Circle: Compassion and the liberation of ethics. In: Jamieson D (ed) Singer and his critics. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 64–84

    Google Scholar 

  • Stueber K (2006) Rediscovering empathy: Agency, folk psychology, and the human sciences. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Stueber K (2012) Varieties of empathy, neuroscience and the narrativist challenge to the contemporary theory of mind debate. Emot Rev 4:55–63

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stürmer S, Snyder M, Kropp A, Siem B (2006) Empathy-motivated helping: the moderating role of group membership. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 32:943–956

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stürmer S, Snyder M, Omoto AM (2005) Prosocial emotions and helping: the moderating role of group membership. J Pers Soc Psychol 88:532–546

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tagar MR, Federico CM, Halperin E (2011) The positive effect of negative emotions in protracted conflict: the case of anger. J Exp Soc Psychol 47:157–164

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tam KP (2013) Dispositional empathy with nature. J Env Psychol 35:92–104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor N, Signal TD (2005) Empathy and attitudes towards animals. Anthrozoös 18:18–27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson KL, Gullone E (2003) Promotion of empathy and prosocial behavior in children through humane education. Aus Psychol 38:175–182

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Doorn J, Zeelenberg M, Breugelmans SM (2014) Anger and prosocial behavior. Emot Rev 6:261–268

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vitaglione GD, Barnett MA (2003) Assessing a new dimension of empathy: empathic anger as a predictor of helping and punishing desires. Motiv Emot 27:301–325

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Westbury HR, Neumann DL (2008) Empathy-related responses to moving film stimuli depicting human and non-human animal targets in negative circumstances. Biol Psychol 78:66–74

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xu X, Zuo X, Wang X, Han S (2009) Do you feel my pain? Racial group membership modulates empathic neural responses. J Neurosci 29:8525–8529

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This paper benefited from helpful comments by Clare Palmer, Linda Radzik, Gary Varner, José Bermúdez, Brandon Schmeichel, and David Wright.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Food and Resource Economics, University of Copenhagen, Rolighedsvej 25, 1958, Frederiksberg, Denmark

    T. J. Kasperbauer

Authors
  1. T. J. Kasperbauer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to T. J. Kasperbauer.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kasperbauer, T.J. Rejecting Empathy for Animal Ethics. Ethic Theory Moral Prac 18, 817–833 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10677-014-9557-1

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10677-014-9557-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation