The moral superiority complex on the left and the damage it creates.

We live in a time when empathy is celebrated as one of the highest virtues. Politicians, educators, activists, and corporations all emphasize the importance of “leading with empathy.” On the surface, this seems like an unquestionably good thing.

But there’s a troubling dynamic hiding underneath: empathy is often applied selectively. Compassion is extended toward one group — usually a community perceived as marginalized or in need — while being withheld from those who disagree, raise objections, or simply belong to a different group.

This tension is what I call The Selective Empathy Paradox.

What Is the Selective Empathy Paradox?

At its core, the paradox describes a situation where:

• Empathy is expressed toward people viewed as victims, disadvantaged, or marginalized.
• Empathy is denied (or inverted into hostility) toward those who raise concerns, disagree, or are seen as part of an “opposing” group.

The result? Movements and initiatives built on empathy often end up looking cold, dismissive, or even cruel to outsiders.

Supportive Writing

Paul Bloom’s Critique

In Against Empathy (2016), psychologist Paul Bloom argues that empathy is not always the moral force we imagine. Because it’s selective, it can distort judgment — making us care intensely for one group while ignoring the suffering of others.

Nietzsche’s Ressentiment

Long before Bloom, philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche described a related concept: ressentiment. In On the Genealogy of Morals (1887), Nietzsche explained how suppressed anger and frustration can transform into moral condemnation. People unable to act directly against power may create systems of morality that glorify weakness and vilify strength.

Both Bloom and Nietzsche show us the same danger: empathy, when filtered through resentment or superiority, can lose its moral grounding.

How It Plays Out in Real Life

People often frame their actions as motivated by empathy (e.g., protecting a marginalized group, helping the disadvantaged, fighting injustice). Yet when others raise objections, express discomfort, or claim harm, those concerns are frequently dismissed, sometimes harshly.

Think about how often social or political movements frame themselves around empathy — “protecting the vulnerable,” “fighting injustice,” “giving voice to the marginalized.”

Yet, when objections surface, empathy often disappears. Instead of engagement, critics may face ridicule, dismissal, or outright hostility.

Examples:

• Protests against cleaning up Washington, D.C., where little empathy is shown for law-abiding citizens suffering from high crime in their neighborhoods.
• Celebration of children dying in a Texas flood, based on the assumption that their parents were conservatives.

High-Profile Examples of the Selective Empathy Paradox

The Selective Empathy Paradox becomes most visible in moments of public tragedy—when empathy should be easiest to apply, yet often collapses under ideological judgment.

Charlie Kirk

Following the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, segments of online discourse responded not with grief or restraint, but with celebration and mockery. His death was framed by some as a moral victory rather than a human loss. Expressions of sympathy were dismissed, and calls for basic compassion were often ridiculed as undeserved—conditional upon political alignment.

In this case, empathy was not absent; it was selectively withheld. Kirk was first reduced to a symbol, and once categorized as morally illegitimate, his death became psychologically permissible to applaud.

Health Insurance CEO

A similar reaction followed the killing of a prominent health insurance CEO. Rather than universal condemnation of violence, large portions of social media discourse justified or celebrated the act, framing it as righteous anger against corporate healthcare. Jokes and moral rationalizations replaced empathy, as the individual was subsumed into a broader narrative of systemic blame.

Here, participation in a flawed system was treated as sufficient grounds to revoke basic human concern—revealing how quickly empathy disappears when someone is assigned the role of villain.

Henry Kissinger

After the death of former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, social media was inundated with celebratory posts, jokes, and expressions of relief. These reactions were often defended as moral reckoning rather than cruelty, justified by his historical legacy and controversial decisions.

Regardless of one’s assessment of his career, the response illustrated a recurring pattern: once moral judgment is rendered, empathy is reframed as weakness, and celebration of death becomes an acceptable signal of virtue.

COVID-19: Unvaccinated Individuals

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the deaths of unvaccinated individuals were frequently mocked online through viral posts and so-called “award” threads. This occurred even in spaces that openly promoted compassion, solidarity, and concern for public health.

Suffering was treated not as tragedy, but as deserved consequence—revealing how moral certainty can override empathy entirely when individuals are perceived as responsible for their own misfortune.

Police Officers Killed in the Line of Duty

Similar dynamics have appeared following the deaths of police officers killed while on duty. In some ideological spaces, officers were treated primarily as symbols of systemic oppression rather than as individuals, resulting in indifference, mockery, or even celebration.

Once again, ideological categorization displaced human concern. The individual vanished; the symbol remained.

The Pattern Beneath the Examples

Across all of these cases, the mechanism is the same.
Once a person is placed into the “wrong” moral category, empathy is no longer viewed as a virtue—it is treated as an error. Condemnation becomes psychologically rewarding, and cruelty is reframed as moral clarity.

The psychological mechanics behind moral categorization and identity-based alignment are examined more systematically in A Manual to Brainwash a Subset of the Population – The Mechanics of Ideological Capture and Macro-Cult Construction.

This is the Selective Empathy Paradox in action: compassion extended upward toward favored groups, and withdrawn entirely from those deemed unworthy.

The Core Problem: Moral Superiority

At the heart of the paradox lies perceived moral superiority — the belief that one’s own views, actions, and values are inherently more virtuous than others’.

This mindset produces three key effects:

1. Egoistic empathy: Compassion becomes a badge of honor, a way to signal status, rather than a genuine act of humility.
2. Dismissive comparisons: Those with different views are labeled as immoral, fragile, or ignorant.
3. Psychological payoff: Condemning others provides an ego boost, reinforcing the idea that “I am better.”

It feels good in the short term but slowly corrodes genuine empathy and social unity.

The Science Behind It

Social Psychology

• Social Comparison Theory (Festinger, 1954): We measure our worth by comparing ourselves to others. Empathy, when used to put ourselves “above” others, becomes another way to protect our self-image.
• Self-Enhancement Bias: People naturally exaggerate their own virtues. Selective empathy fuels this by making us feel more moral than those we disagree with.

Brain Chemistry

• Dopamine & reward pathways: Winning a moral argument or feeling “above” others activates the brain’s reward system, producing a literal high.
• Serotonin: Higher social status increases serotonin, reinforcing dominance and confidence. Empathy, used as superiority, taps into this same loop.

In other words: selective empathy isn’t just cultural — it’s addictive.

Why It’s Harmful

The dangers of the paradox ripple outward:

• False virtue: It produces the illusion of being more moral, but only by excluding others.
• Shut-down dialogue: Opponents are branded as immoral, making conversation impossible.
• Polarization: “Us versus them” thinking grows stronger.
• Moral blindness: Movements lose the ability to see the harm their own actions cause.

The Deep Irony

The irony couldn’t be sharper:

• Movements grounded in empathy risk looking unempathetic to anyone who doesn’t conform.
• Demonizing others for differing views is the opposite of moral virtue.
• The backlash often undermines the very goals of the movement — sometimes even harming the people it sought to protect.

Everyday Examples of the Paradox

1. Diversity & Inclusion Programs

• Empathy expressed: Trainings aim to protect marginalized employees from bias.
• Empathy withheld: Those who feel stereotyped or shamed during training are dismissed as “fragile” or “resistant.”

2. Public Health Mandates

• Empathy expressed: COVID-19 restrictions framed as protecting the vulnerable.
• Empathy withheld: Citizens worried about lost income, isolation, or mental health were mocked as “selfish” or “anti-science.”

3. Educational Reforms

• Empathy expressed: Curricula seek to validate the experiences of minority and LGBTQ+ students.
• Empathy withheld: Parents and students whose faith or traditions conflict with the lessons are labeled “intolerant” or “backward.”

4. Reverse Racism in Policies and Rhetoric

• Empathy expressed: Policies like affirmative action or affinity groups aim to uplift historically oppressed communities.
• Empathy withheld: White or Asian individuals who feel excluded or disadvantaged are told their concerns don’t matter because of “privilege” — ignoring the fact that many are also poor and disadvantaged.

Conclusion: Toward True Empathy

The Selective Empathy Paradox isn’t about the absence of empathy, but about its uneven application.

When empathy becomes a tool of superiority rather than a bridge of understanding, it:

• Inflates the ego.
• Fuels division.
• Undermines the very principles it claims to uphold.

True empathy requires humility. It means being willing to listen, even when we disagree. It means recognizing suffering — even in those we see as opponents. And it means resisting the temptation to weaponize compassion as a way of proving ourselves “better.”

If empathy is to heal rather than divide, it must be practiced universally — not selectively.

Continue Exploring

If this analysis of selective empathy resonated, you may also want to read:

• The Cost of Silence: How Fear, Shame, and Conformity Shape Modern Society
• You Are Not Free
• Elites, Population Control, and the Myth of Self-Governance