The Sin Of Empathy

Understanding the Authoritarian Morality of Modern Conservatives

Over the past few years, I’ve noticed a curious trend—more and more conservatives are talking about empathy as a negative thing. I first noticed this when Allie Beth Stuckey, a far-right commentator and Christian, released a book called Toxic Empathy: How Progressives Exploit Christian Compassion. To be honest, I didn’t read the book, but I have listened to Stuckey speak about it numerous times. She and a growing number of conservatives feel that the left poses a threat by appealing to people’s compassion to guide their moral and political decisions rather than appealing to what she claims is “Truth.”

A few weeks ago, I engaged in a debate with a far-right conservative debater named Andrew Wilson, who began his litany of critiques by claiming that I had sold out to the progressive false gospel of “kindness”—as if kindness were an insidious and subversive (his word) value that undermined the Truth and the well-being of our nation, despite the very clear teaching of Scripture that God requires us to “love kindness.” (Micah 6:8)

Then, earlier this week, when Bishop Mariann Budde of the Washington National Cathedral appealed to Trump to have “mercy” on people in our country who are afraid, there was a massive backlash, including from the President himself. He viewed the Bishop’s call not as a reasonable, Christ-rooted plea to consider others, but as left-wing propaganda. One Twitter user even declared, “Do not commit the sin of empathy” in response to the Bishop’s remarks.

What in the world is going on here? How has the far-right come to believe that empathy, compassion, and caring for the lived experiences of others are actually dangerous and evil things to be avoided?

Earlier today, I engaged in a dialogue with Sean McDowell, a well-known evangelical apologist, about the themes of my new book Queer and Christian. As we debated whether or not LGBTQ+ relationships were sinful, I found myself articulating something I have believed for a long time but had not expressed as clearly until now. A lightbulb went off for me.

As both a Christian and a human, I seek to live by the general principle of “do no harm.” The biblical basis for this is abundant—Jesus himself summed up all of the law and the prophets in “Love your neighbor as you love yourself.” Loving your neighbor certainly entails having compassion for them, empathy for their struggles, and a desire to see their well-being and flourishing. As Rachel Klinger Cain helpfully summarized in a video on TikTok, this is what we call Horizontal Morality. It values the well-being of ourselves and others as the highest aim, and it’s rooted in the real world. If something produces tangible harm, we stand against it. If something produces tangible good, we stand for it— for ourselves, for our neighbors, and for society at large.

To embrace a Horizontal Morality, you must embrace empathy. You must be willing to listen and learn from the experiences of others and allow those experiences—and the demonstrable proof of either their flourishing or their suffering—to guide one’s moral framework.

However, conservative Christians, and increasingly the entire right wing, do not embrace a Horizontal Morality rooted in neighborliness and the value of doing no harm to others. Instead, they follow a Vertical Morality, which they believe comes from God. If God says something is wrong, then it is wrong—even if it produces good or, at the very least, does no harm. If God says something is right, then it is right—even if it causes harm to others.

For them, morality is rooted in authority. If they believe the Bible is God’s inerrant word, then whatever God says or does in the Bible is good—even if they intuitively know it is not. If God commands genocide, then it is a good genocide because God commanded it, and God has the ultimate authority. If God says gay relationships are wrong, then they are wrong—even though the evidence clearly shows that such relationships produce the same flourishing for gay couples as for straight ones. There is no wiggle room. No amount of evidence or empathy can change their minds. God said it, they believe it, and that settles it.

This becomes even more concerning when you realize that this version of authoritarian morality is also being applied politically. Though few would admit it in such terms, many conservatives view Trump as a God-appointed leader whose actions are good and right—regardless of their impact on others. Because empathy is demonized and harm reduction is not the goal, their authoritarian morality compels them to support anything Trump does, whether or not it has demonstrable negative effects on others. He is the authority, and what he says must be good, even if it hurts people.

At the same time, those who demonize empathy for immigrants being deported, queer children afraid for their lives, or women struggling to access medical care often benefit from Trump’s policies themselves. This selfish view of morality further blunts their ability to see the suffering caused by Trump's actions.

This is the fundamental divide we face:

1. Those who trust a 4,000-year-old book as the eternal dictate of God for all moral matters.

2. Those who put their trust in human religious institutions as having divine authority.

3. Those who believe Trump has been anointed by God to carry out justice.

Versus:

Those who base their ethics and politics on empathic understanding—witnessing the effects of a policy or moral guideline and using that to determine what is right and good.

In my debate earlier today, I simply asked, “Show me the harm caused by LGBTQ+ relationships.” Of course, there is no evidence of harm, and an abundance of evidence for the good that comes from such relationships. That, to me, seems like a pretty good reason to say, “These relationships must be good.” But my evangelical opponent simply appeals to the Bible, believing it to be the dictates of God, and says, “Well, God says it's unnatural and sinful, therefore it is—regardless of anyone's experience or evidence to the contrary.”

Similarly, when Bishop Mariann pleaded with Trump to have mercy on undocumented immigrants, she was appealing to the truth that most people who come to this country are seeking to build a new life—just like our ancestors. Her appeal was rooted in Horizontal Morality, which I believe Jesus demonstrated in every utterance in the Gospels. When people confronted Jesus with “Well, the Bible says…,” he responded by telling them to focus on the human rather than the law (Mark 2:27).

Unfortunately, the demonization of empathy is the necessary first step towards establishing an authoritarian regime. Think of how Hitler spent years convincing the German people not to care about the suffering of Jewish people. “Who cares about feelings? We have to do what is true,” their argument went. Hitler himself said:

“It is a shameful spectacle to see how the whole democratic world is oozing sympathy for the poor tormented Jewish people…”

Sympathy, empathy, compassion, and lived experience do not matter to those with authoritarian morality. What matters is obedience—suppressing their feelings, conscience, and evidence to align with what they believe to be the “Truth.”

So what can we do?

I see only one option: Those who embrace a Horizontal Morality must not allow our empathy to lead us to cynical burnout. We must double down on our commitment to compassion, allowing our love for our neighbors to motivate us to fight for them. We must resist authoritarianism with everything we have and continue to hold up a mirror to those blinded by their commitments, trusting that every human has the capacity for compassion—and if that capacity can be awakened, we might have a fighting chance to turn the tide of these dark days for Christianity and America.