Self-Destructive Empathy

Empathy is a relatively recent term that essentially expresses the tendency for psychological or emotional support towards people who are persecuted or suffering. It usually refers to support for minority groups against dominant majorities.

It is called “self-destructive” when used in public discussions to describe the idea that a society or an individual shows excessive empathy to the extent that it ignores risks or their own interests. As a result, it ultimately leads to self-undermining or “self-destruction.” In other words, the well-intentioned desire to understand and help others reaches a point where, according to its critics, it becomes harmful.

The term mainly appears in: political debates (e.g., about immigration, security, cultural conflicts) and in criticisms of liberal or “humanitarian” stances as well as in public dialogues about the limits of social tolerance and solidarity.

For many, this characterization is a rhetorical tool rather than an objective concept. Therefore, it constitutes an oversimplification of complex issues, aiming to present empathy as a weakness. On the other hand, those who use it want to emphasize that empathy without limits can become unrealistic and that there needs to be a balance between understanding and self-protection.

A notable case is Gad Saad, who in his book The Parasitic Mind (2021) argues that Western societies, due to excessive empathy, adopt ideas or policies that undermine their own stability. If a society avoids setting boundaries (e.g., on security issues or cultural conflict), this is not “humanitarianism” but self-weakening.

Douglas Murray, with a similar line of thought in The Strange Death of Europe (2018), is very close to the same arguments. Europe, he insists, is guided by guilt and excessive tolerance, leading to cultural and political destabilization. These views align closely with those expressed by Christopher Lasch in his famous book The Revolt of the Elites (1995).

Lasch suggests that the elites can support “humanitarian” positions without suffering the consequences themselves. This creates a kind of moral narcissism or “empathy at a distance” (Lasch’s book The Culture of Narcissism, reprint, 2018). In other words, the problem is not that we care excessively, but that we care without responsibility, without limits, and without bonds. That is, without enduring the consequences of what we do.

Therefore, as I have written before, there is a problem of leadership. Leaders must not ignore the people, focusing only on their image towards foreigners. For example, by taking measures for green development that drive electricity prices and inflation sky-high because Brussels demands it, while ordinary people suffer.