Empathy Is Kryptonite to Our Oligarchic Overlords
Elon Musk claims empathy is a bug in Western civilization. In fact, the problem is a little more… loaded.
“The fundamental weakness of Western civilization is empathy, the empathy exploit. There it’s they’re exploiting a bug in Western civilization, which is the empathy response.” – Elon Musk, the richest man in the world, February 28, 2025
“Human morality is unthinkable without empathy.” – Frans de Waal, primatologist and ethologist
Remember that time the richest man in the world was peddling a theory justifying his obscene wealth? No? It occurred last month, from within the friendly confines of an interview with credulous podcast host, Joe Rogan, where Musk essentially tried to cancel empathy.
Per CNN’s report, Musk says “he believes in empathy and ‘you should care about other people,’” but, he also thinks empathy has been weaponized and that it is being used to destroy society.
What does that have to do with justifying his wealth? Let me explain.
I’ve been thinking about Musk’s statement for a few weeks, feeling like I had to respond in some way, since empathy is one of the things I have chosen to write about.
After too many days and nights considering the purpose behind Musk’s remarks, his rationale, what it says about (his) morality and ethics, and more importantly, hours of pondering, with no success, a way to find a satisfying and digestible approach to my response, I started from a deep sleep last week with the answer distilled to a bright, singular point.
Empathy is a check on Musk’s ambition. It’s as simple as that.
If Musk stopped to feel, think about, and internalize the human repercussions of his actions, or if more of us, in a demonstration of empathy, demanded he consider those repercussions, it would create an impediment to his relentless quest for massive amounts of wealth and power.
To obtain what he desires, Musk needs to not care about the people he will be hurting; he needs to experience no empathy. More importantly, he needs us to feel no empathy. He needs us to not care.
There comes a point in each of our lives when we are faced with choosing between our desires (id) and our morality (superego). As children, we must learn to navigate difficult scenarios where the things we want for ourselves inevitably put us in conflict with others and create opportunities to act purely from self-interest, and, at times, with malice.
“They have a toy I want.”
“I desire my friend’s girlfriend.”
Parents, teachers, and other adult role models help us learn to make these choices responsibly. As we reach adulthood, we develop our own internal ability to mediate between our desires and our morality, to decide if obtaining our individual wants is something we are willing to pursue, even if doing so may cause disadvantage or harm to others, or cross lines of ethics and morality. We learn that self-interest is not always the best interest.
When these conflicts shift from the individual (micro) level to the broader, societal (macro) level, we have to decide whether to satisfy our own wishes (or our group’s wishes) or to make a more pro-social choice, one that benefits the broader society, even as it may disadvantage some individuals (an example of this would be billionaires who are willing to pay their fair share of taxes).
It’s a somewhat similar line of thought to the ethical and moral dilemma posed by the trolley problem,1 or the adage, often uttered by Star Trek’s Mr. Spock, “the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.” These considerations are complex and seldom offer a simple answer, but Musk’s choice seems clear.
Ambition and desire win. His self-interest triumphs.
Still, I wanted to dig deeper into the validity of Musk’s claims. For instance, was empathy always good, or could it be harmful? Can a person, or a culture, possess too much empathy? And, is it actually possible to weaponize empathy?
I started by exploring the definitions of empathy and considering what Musk and those of his ilk refer to when they cite the shortcomings of empathy. This led me to a 2015 article by Roman Krznarik, published in the New Humanist, which points out:
“For a start, they place almost all their attention on just one kind of empathy, what psychologists call 'affective' empathy. This refers to our ability to mirror or share other people’s emotions: if you see anguish on a child’s face you too might feel anguish, just as you might wince when you see someone getting their finger trapped in a door. But there is another, less emotionally-charged kind of empathy that they conveniently dismiss, known as 'cognitive' or 'perspective-taking' empathy, which concerns imagining what it is like to be another person, with their different viewpoints, beliefs, hopes, fears and experiences.”
In considering the affective type of empathy, my initial instinct was to believe it was not possible for one to feel too much empathy. However, as a helping professional, I soon recognized, yes, there are times when a person can be over-empathetic, instances when one cannot shut off their feelings of affective empathy. These experiences often lead to significant distress in helping professionals, including vicarious trauma (secondary traumatic stress) and burnout.
These conditions of excessive affective empathy are harmful; however, they are not due to a failure or “bug” in the basic human empathetic response. Rather, they are due to an inability to regulate that response.
The remedy in these situations is not to disable or remove the empathetic response, but to engage in practices that “turn down” or apply a filter to one’s intense feelings of empathy. So, while our feelings of affective empathy can perhaps be “too loud,” I would argue a person’s experience of high levels of empathy is not the cause of their urgent distress; rather, it is the lack of a “volume control” for their empathy that causes the problem.
I’ll turn to the issue of cognitive (perspective-taking) empathy, shortly. But first, I want to consider Musk’s claim that empathy can be weaponized, as viewed through the construct of affective empathy, the empathy to which I presume Musk refers in his statement.
Again, my first instinct was, “no, you can’t weaponize empathy.” But, after some thought, I realized this question, too, can be answered in the affirmative. However, I don’t believe “weaponizing empathy” is what Musk seems to believe it is: the process of using (allowing) empathy to deter one from achieving their ambitions and desires at any cost (ultimate self-interest).
Instead, I see the weaponization of empathy as a tactic used in the emotional manipulation of another for personal gain. Whether it’s a distressed lover claiming they’ll kill themselves if their partner leaves, or a petulant child who says they will never again speak to the parent who enforces a set bedtime, the intent is the same: to use (or “weaponize”) the other person’s emotions and feelings of empathy to gain control of a situation. This requires not only extreme self-interest, but also, a lack of regard for the interests of the other person(s) in this scenario.2
And, regarding Musk’s claim that empathy is a “bug” in Western civilization? I’d argue empathy is the exact opposite of a bug in the system; it’s the specific piece of the human condition that allows us to develop and maintain complex societies. We depend on empathy; it allows the human species to flourish.
I asked ChatGpt to provide a list of the ways empathy contributes positively to human civilization. Here’s what it had to say:
• Cooperation and Altruism:
Empathy encourages individuals to consider the needs and perspectives of others, leading to more cooperative behaviors and altruistic acts.
• Social Cohesion:
The ability to empathize with others strengthens social bonds and creates a sense of community, making societies more cohesive and resilient.
• Problem-Solving and Decision-Making:
Empathy allows individuals to understand the root causes of problems and to develop solutions that address the needs of everyone involved, leading to better decision-making.
• Tolerance and Acceptance:
Empathy promotes understanding and acceptance of people who are different, fostering a more inclusive and tolerant society.
• Moral Development:
Empathy is a key component of moral development, helping individuals to understand right and wrong and to act with compassion and justice.
• Advancement of Human Rights and Social Justice:
Empathy can be a powerful force for social and political change, driving movements for human rights and social justice.
• Evolutionary Advantage:
The ability to empathize may have given our ancestors an evolutionary advantage by promoting cooperation and survival within their communities.
• Building Relationships:
Empathy is the foundation for building strong, healthy relationships, which are essential for human well-being and societal stability.
• Promoting Pro-social Behavior:
Empathy can lead to people helping others, showing compassion, and generally acting in ways that benefit society (OpenAI, 2025).
Even acknowledging the potential for AI to return information that is less than accurate, that’s quite a list. I think it provides enough evidence to support the claim that empathy is not a bug in civilization, but rather a necessary ingredient in the development and success of a fair and just society.
Returning to the concept of cognitive, perspective-taking empathy, I believe this form of empathy is essential to both our individual and societal ability to seek peace, resolve differences, and process and learn from new and different cultures and experiences.
Musk is keen to spread humanity, first to Mars, then across the far-flung stars. Imagine how our first encounter with an alien species will go, operating from Musk’s conclusion that empathy—be it affective or cognitive empathy—is a bug in civilization’s operating system, as opposed to an essential element.
Actually, you don’t need to imagine that encounter. Instead, just look at the history of Western civilization, the society Musk specifically claims to be infested by the empathy bug.
European-influenced civilization—dating back to Ancient Greece and Rome, continuing through the Middle Ages, the Renaissance, Enlightenment, the arrival and expansion of Europeans across the Americas, and onward to the present day—has repeatedly experienced periods of hostility to new and different peoples, cultures, ideas, and beliefs, either in alternation with, or more often in direct conflict with, periods of cooperation, acceptance, the expansion of humanistic ideals, and a desire for peace and stability among neighbors.
I would argue the latter periods are the optimal state for societal functioning; those times when our outlook on the world and our actions are focused on understanding, compassion, and the well-being of all people, as opposed to the well-being of the chosen few.
As such, it is not empathy that is the bug in Western civilization, but the lack of empathy. A failure of empathy—the condition that allows hostile societal conditions to prevail—is the true defect in society.
Lack of empathy, as well as the unscrupulous leveraging of one’s empathy and emotion in a way that brings harm or disadvantage to another (the actual weaponization of empathy), are the circumstances that reinforce division in our society, further our tribal instincts, and create conditions that allow the dehumanization and extermination of people who are unlike the self-appointed “in-group.” It makes permissible the “us vs. them” mindset.
I see human empathy as a net positive. It protects us from our worst impulses and benefits society by encouraging people to engage in pro-social behaviors—behaviors that allow complex human societies to flourish.
Do you know what is NOT a pro-social behavior? The accumulation of massive amounts of personal and corporate wealth for means other than the common good.
Consider this: the amount of money Musk has LOST over the first two+ months of 2025 could solve many of the world’s problems. On March 10, Newsweek published an article (citing Bloomberg) that notes, “Musk's net worth has dropped by $103 billion this year to date [emphasis added], […] Despite this dramatic loss, Musk remains the wealthiest person globally, with an estimated fortune of $330 billion as of March 9, 2025.”
Musk could choose to do many things with his vast fortune. He could feed the hungry, build hospitals to treat the sick, provide shelter for the unhoused, or contribute to the repair of old and failing infrastructure world-wide. Instead, he’s used his wealth to buy a controlling seat at the Big Boys’ Table, allowing him unparalleled influence over the mechanisms of U.S. government, which he has turned to his own distinct advantage.
If you know anything about superhero pop culture, you know Superman gets his power from Earth’s yellow sun, and his power diminishes in the presence of Kryptonite.3 You’d also recognize that Elon Musk is more Lex Luthor than Superman, so, I don’t have a perfect analogy here. But I’m guessing even those who aren’t superhero fans can recognize where I’m going. Musk gets his power from something not yellow, but green. And, as surely as Kryptonite diminishes Superman’s power, Musk’s bane is empathy. He basically told us so.
(Also, seriously, have you not noticed there are cartoonish, evil, billionaire “geniuses” brazenly trying to take over the country? Life imitates art. But, I digress.)
To me, it doesn’t seem the danger to Western civilization is the weaponization of Musk’s Kryptonite, empathy, as he claims it to be. Rather, it is the weaponization of wealth—which the richest man in the world is using to bend our nation to his will—that is the true danger to our society.
References:
Cameron, H. (March 10, 2025). Elon Musk Net Worth Has Dropped by Over $100 Billion So Far This Year. Newsweek. https://www.newsweek.com/elon-musk-net-worth-drops-100-billion-2025-2042084
Krznaric, R. (November 30, 2015). Is empathy the hidden motor of human history? New Humanist. https://newhumanist.org.uk/articles/4962/is-empathy-the-hidden-motor-of-human-history
Merriam-Webster. (n.d.) Next Stop: ‘Trolley Problem.’ Retrieved March 18, 2025 from https://www.merriam-webster.com/wordplay/trolley-problem-moral-philosophy-ethics
OpenAI. (2025). ChatGPT (March 9 version) [Large language model]. https://chat.openai.com
Wolf, Z. B. (March 5, 2005). Elon Musk wants to save Western civilization from empathy. CNN. https://www.cnn.com/2025/03/05/politics/elon-musk-rogan-interview-empathy-doge/index.html
This Week’s Moment of Unconditional Love
Each week, my newest essay will be accompanied by an animal photo. I hope it will warm your heart and promote feelings of love and affection. And, while my wife and I share our home with four furry friends, there are only so many photos we have of them (OK, so it’s like, a thousand photos, but you don’t want to see all of them). As such, I encourage you to share endearing photos of the sources of unconditional love in your lives. Include the name of your animal pal(s) and any brief fun facts you’d like to share about them. I’ll work those photos into the weekly mix. You can email photos to me at jeffreyafeldman2015@outlook.com.
Special Announcement: Next week, our Moment of Unconditional Love will feature the first of two special guests, Roscoe and Scarlett, two fabulous Saint Bernards, courtesy of Words over Swords reader and long-time friend, Sarah W. Thanks, Sarah!
“The ‘trolley problem’ is a thought experiment in ethics about a fictional scenario in which an onlooker has the choice to save 5 people in danger of being hit by a trolley, by diverting the trolley to kill just 1 person. The term is often used more loosely with regard to any choice that seemingly has a trade-off between what is good and what sacrifices are ‘acceptable,’ if at all” (Merriam-Webster, n.d.).
Please don’t go all Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs on me. It would take a whole separate essay to discuss the implications of a person’s physical, intellectual, emotional, and spiritual/moral needs on their ability to make these types of decisions, not to mention the impact trauma can have on this decision-making process. So, we won’t go there, at least not right now. Thanks. 🙏💛
I have no reference for the Superman lore. My brain is just crammed full of random, semi-useless, superhero facts.
I loved reading your take on this issue. You are so right. Empathy is a bug in the system because it’s a bug in Elons system. It counteracts the goal of unchecked wealth at all costs, and a return to “masculine” ways of aggression and domination of others. The reality is aggression and domination are effective at creating wealth in the short term and terrible at creating wealth in the long. Using empathy to make decisions like using wealth to reduce hunger may not do good for today’s stock price but will build steadily into that stock price over a long period as more people are brought into the marketplace. A rising tide lifts all boats. Therefore, empathy can produce wealth too.
Harvard philosopher Michael Sandel coined the perfect term for what's happening in our increasingly stratified society: "skyboxification." It describes the phenomenon where the wealthy isolate themselves from the rest of society in climate-controlled luxury boxes high above the common seats at ballparks.
As Sandel notes, "At a time of rising inequality, the marketization of everything means that people of affluence and people of modest means lead increasingly separate lives. We live and work and shop and play in different places. Our children go to different schools."
This separation isn't accidental. It's deliberate insulation from the lived experiences of others. When the ultra-wealthy like Musk create these distance-keeping bubbles—private jets, gated communities, exclusive schools, concierge healthcare, and yes, actual skyboxes—they're doing more than just enjoying luxury. They're systematically removing themselves from the shared experiences that cultivate empathy.