“It is innumerate,” he continues, “favoring the one over the many. “Empathy is biased, pushing us in the direction of parochialism and racism,” he writes. Empathy, he argues, is “a poor moral guide” in almost all realms of life, whether it’s public policy, private charity or interpersonal relationships.

Bloom, a psychology professor at Yale, is having none of it. (Imagine how it feels to live in a universe of systematic and serial injustice directed at you imagine how it feels to work in a profession that continually puts you in harm’s way.) Empathy is what is invoked, on both sides, in confrontations between the police and African-Americans.

In politics, practically no higher value exists than being empathetic: Think of the words “I feel your pain” coming from Bill Clinton through a strategically gnawed lip. He notes that there are no less than 1,500 books listed on Amazon with “empathy” in the title or subtitle. Bloom’s view should be gently led to the abattoir. “Against Empathy” is an invigorating, relevant and often very funny re-evaluation of empathy, one of our culture’s most ubiquitous sacred cows, which in Mr. Look past the book’s occasional loop-the-loops and intellectual fillips. And it’s a bit too clotted with caveats to be a seamless read, which is a shame, because it could have been, with more shaping. Its wingspan is too wide to be a simple guide to philanthropy, but parts of it could be that as well. Paul Bloom’s new book, “Against Empathy: The Case for Rational Compassion,” is too highbrow to be a self-help or parenting manual, but parts of it could be.

The case against empathy