Why Empathy Isn’t Enough
為什麼同理心不足以解決問題
One of the most frequently mentioned words I encounter, whether in education or business-related articles, is “empathy.” It is often touted as a universal panacea—if we simply have empathy, positive outcomes are sure to come. However, while empathy is a valuable foundation for addressing social issues, what does it actually entail, and why is it insufficient on its own?
我最常在教育或商業領域中看到的一個詞就是「同理心」。它經常被吹捧為解決所有問題的萬靈丹——只要我們有同理心，就會有好的結果。即便同理心是解決社會問題的基石，但它到底是什麼？為什麼只有同理心還不夠？
Empathy, often described as the ability to understand and share another person’s emotions, serves as a crucial starting point for fostering relationships and deeper understanding. However, viewing empathy as a one-size-fits-all solution oversimplifies its nuances and limitations. To fully grasp its role in social relationships, we must first explore its various forms, consider perspectives like those of Nel Noddings, and recognize why empathy alone cannot resolve systemic or ethical challenges. Furthermore, empathy is inherently limited; no one can completely understand another’s experiences, as individual contexts and worldviews are uniquely personal.
同理心——通常被視為理解與感受他人情緒的能力——是正當的社會關係及寬以待人的重要基礎。然而，將同理心視為萬能解決方案，往往簡化了它的複雜性與侷限性。我們需要探討同理心的不同形式，結合 Nel Noddings 的教育觀點，並理解到為什麼僅靠同理心無法解決系統性與道德上的挑戰。此外，同理心的一個根本侷限在於，沒有人能完全理解他人的經歷，因為個體經歷與世界觀都是獨一無二的。
Empathy exists in multiple forms. Cognitive empathy involves intellectually understanding another’s perspective and is particularly valuable in leadership, negotiation, and education. Emotional/affective empathy refers to sharing another’s emotions, fostering profound emotional connections. Compassionate empathy goes further by inspiring action to alleviate suffering, while strategic empathy uses understanding to achieve specific objectives, such as in diplomacy or business. While each type has its strengths, none guarantees effective or ethical outcomes on its own.
同理心有諸多形式。認知型同理心指的是從理智上理解他人的觀點，這在領導、談判及教育中格外重要。情感型同理心則與他人的情感產生共鳴，益於建立深厚的情感聯繫。關懷型同理心則結合了情感共鳴與行動，以減輕他人的痛苦。而策略型同理心則運用自身對他人的理解來實現特定目標，例如在外交或商業中建立關係。即便每種形式都有其優勢，但任何一種都無法保證結果的有效性與倫理性。
A fundamental limitation of empathy is its inability to fully capture another person’s reality. Scholars like Levinas and Stein note that empathy is filtered through one’s own biases and assumptions, allowing only an approximation of another’s experiences. Levinas argued that the “other” remains fundamentally unknowable, underscoring the epistemological limits of empathy. Even the most empathetic individual can only partially understand someone else’s perspective. After all, you can’t truly walk in someone else’s shoes because they simply don’t fit.
同理心的關鍵侷限在於，我們無法全然把握他人的現實。誠如學者 Levinas 與 Stein 所強調，同理心不可避免地受到自身偏見與假設的影響，因而只能大致理解他人的經歷。Levinas 主張，我們根本無法理解「他者」，這也凸顯了同理心在認識論上的侷限性。即便是最富同理心的人，也只能部分地理解他人的觀點。畢竟，如人飲水，冷暖只有自己知道。
In education, Nel Noddings advocates for empathy as a core element of her ethics of care, where teachers and caretakers build meaningful relationships by understanding and addressing students’ unique needs. However, she stresses that empathy alone is insufficient. Teachers must combine it with concrete actions, such as adapting teaching strategies, providing resources, or advocating for systemic change. While empathy lays the foundation for care, it requires intentional efforts and follow-through to be truly effective.
在教育領域裡，Nel Noddings 提倡以同理心為核心的關懷倫理，她主張教師應透過理解與回應學生來建立有愛的關係。然而，她也強調，光有同理心是不夠的，教師仍須結合實際行動，諸如調整教學方法、提供資源或推動系統性改變。同理心雖是實質關懷的基礎，但仍需輔以意向性與後續行動才能發揮效用。
On a broader scale, empathy often falls short in addressing systemic problems. For instance, a teacher may empathize with a student struggling due to poverty but cannot address the root causes without systemic reforms. Empathy is also inherently biased, as people tend to empathize more with those similar to them, potentially leading to favoritism. Additionally, excessive emotional empathy can result in burnout, especially in caregiving roles. Strategic empathy, while goal-oriented, can raise ethical concerns if used manipulatively, prioritizing short-term outcomes over genuine care.
此外，同理心在更廣泛的層面上也有其侷限性。它往往無法解決系統性問題。例如，教師可能對貧困學子抱有同理心，但若缺乏系統性的改變，便無法從根源上解決問題。同理心本身也會有所偏頗，人們往往容易對與自己相似的人產生共鳴，從而有所偏袒。再者，過度依賴情感型同理心或將導致職業倦怠，尤其是在照護類工作中，長期投入情感可能會降低效能。而策略型同理心雖以目標為導向，卻可能因其目的性而引發倫理問題，如將短期利益置於真心關愛之上。
While empathy is essential, it is insufficient to resolve complex social and interpersonal challenges. Its limitations—partial understanding, bias, and inaction—highlight the need to pair it with critical reflection, intentional action, and systemic change. Only through such integration can empathy evolve from a passive emotion to a transformative force for connection and justice.
雖然同理心至關重要，但卻無法完美解決社會與人際上的複雜挑戰。同理心的侷限性——包括部分理解、偏頗與缺乏行動——凸顯了同理心與批判性反思、意向性行動、系統性改變相結合的重要性。唯有如此，同理心才能從被動的情感轉化為促進社會關係與公平正義的革新力量。
資料來源
Baron-Cohen, S. (2012). The science of evil: On empathy and the origins of cruelty. Basic books.
Batson, C. D. (2014). The altruism question: Toward a social-psychological answer. Psychology Press.
Bloom, P. (2017). Against empathy: The case for rational compassion. Random House.
Eisenberg, N., & Strayer, J. (Eds.). (1990). Empathy and its development. CUP Archive.
Figley, C. R. (2013). Compassion fatigue: Coping with secondary traumatic stress disorder in those who treat the traumatized. Routledge.
Levinas, E. (1979). Totality and infinity: An essay on exteriority (Vol. 1). Springer Science & Business Media.
Noddings, N. (1986). Caring: A feminine approach to ethics and moral education.
Shum, P. (2012). Edith Stein and the problem of empathy: Locating ascription and a structural relation to picture consciousness. Journal of the British Society for Phenomenology, 43(2), 178-194.
圖片出處: https://www.drmitchkeil.com/uncategorized/what-is-empathy/