1. In two healthy paragraphs, summarize the piece AND show (with framed quotes and paraphrase from the text) what you believe to be the author’s three main points/arguments. Support with textual evidence and include your own initial response to the material.

Bloom’s three main arguments are that empathy, empathy is stronger when we know the person, empathy is stronger when its one specific person, and it is harder to empathize with everyone because there are so many people who deserve it. Empathy is stronger when we know them personally because it is easier to think about it from their view. “Although we might intellectually believe that the suffering of our neighbor is just as awful as the suffering of someone living in another country, it’s far easier to empathize with those who are close to us, those who are similar to us, and those we see as more attractive or vulnerable and less scary.” This means people can empathize with their neighbor more than with a stranger because it is hard to think about their view when you do not know that person.

Empathy is also stronger if it is only one or two people. Bloom says, “Imagine learning that a faulty vaccine has caused Rebecca Smith, an adorable eight-year-old, to get extremely sick. If you watch her suffering and listen to her and her family, the empathy will flow, and you’ll want to act. But suppose that stopping the vaccine program will cause, say, a dozen random children to die.” Obviously, you would not want all of the other children to die, but it is easier to connect with one child than connecting with all of the others. It is also not possible to empathize with everyone who deserves it because there are so many people. According to Bloom, “The real problem is that we don’t have enough empathy for other people. We should empathize with the children and families of Newtown, but we should also empathize with the children and families in Chicago. While we’re at it, we should empathize with billions of other people around the world…” Bloom is saying that there are tons of people who deserve to have empathy from people and deserve to be in a different position, but that would not be possible for a lot of people.

2. Do you agree with Bloom’s main arguments? Why or why not?

I agree with Bloom’s main arguments because it is definitely true that you cannot think about something in a view that you have never experienced. Also when you get more details about something like one specific person, you get more connected to that person or family, compared to if you are thinking about ten or more people.

3. In what ways does Bloom challenge your initial understanding or perception regarding empathy?

When I thought of empathy, I thought of thinking of everyone more in general, but Bloom says that you can only empathize with one or two people. I think this makes more sense than thinking about empathy as more general because the more details or the fewer people you are thinking about, the more you can feel connected to that person.

4. Find one claim Bloom makes that evoked a strong response. Paste the direct quote from his piece, then write a few sentences in which you challenge OR support his claim in your own words and experience(s).

“Further, spotlights only illuminate what they are pointed at, so empathy reflects our biases.” This means if you only look at one side, you will feel empathy to the one that you are told to. I agree with this because there are two sides to a lot of stories and if you only listen to one side, it is likely you will agree with just one side, even if that side is in the wrong.