The Empathy Trap

Stoicism vs. empathy. A conversation with ChatGPT

Jannik: Some people seem to think that Seneca's concept of clemency is basically similar to what we now call empathy. Apart from the fact that empathy is a word that describes an emotional attitude toward other people and clemency describes deeds, I think it is wrong to read our concept of empathy into Seneca's stoicism. It seems to me that empathy as it most widely understood implies a certain degree of shared understanding of the harshness of the hardship other people suffers - but a true Stoic will feel a commitment to ease the sorrow of someone who has lost a dear one but no commitment whatsoever to share their understanding of how serious that loss is. What do you think?

ChatGPT: I think you're onto something important here. Seneca’s concept of clementia (clemency or mercy) is not grounded in emotional resonance with another’s suffering in the way that modern empathy often is. A Stoic, particularly in Seneca’s framework, is committed to acting justly and benevolently, but this commitment does not stem from shared emotional experience or from seeing the world as the sufferer sees it.

In De Clementia, Seneca frames clemency as a virtue of the ruler—it is a controlled, rational decision to be lenient when justice allows for it, motivated by reason rather than pity. Pity (misericordia), in contrast, is something Seneca explicitly criticizes because it involves being emotionally swayed by suffering, which undermines reason. The Stoic sage helps others because it is in accordance with virtue, not because he emotionally resonates with their suffering.

This contrasts with modern conceptions of empathy, which typically involve at least some degree of shared perspective-taking. As you suggest, a Stoic might feel a duty to console someone who has suffered a loss, but not because he personally feels the weight of the loss in the same way. Rather, he sees that offering consolation is the appropriate, rational, and virtuous thing to do.

If we define empathy narrowly as an emotional mirroring, then Stoicism is indeed at odds with it. But if we define empathy in a broader, more cognitive sense—understanding that someone feels a loss deeply, even if you don’t personally share the depth of that feeling—then there is a possible alignment with Stoic clemency. The crucial difference, however, is that for the Stoic, action arises from virtue and duty rather than emotional contagion. Would you agree that this distinction makes Seneca's Stoicism quite different from most contemporary ideas of empathy?

Jannik: Yes, I think that is true. A Stoic would never say something like "I feel your pain".

ChatGPT: Exactly. A Stoic might acknowledge that someone feels pain, but they would never claim to feel it with them. Instead, they would likely say something more like, "I see that you are in pain, and I will help you as reason and virtue dictate."

This distinction is crucial because Stoicism emphasizes maintaining one's own inner tranquility regardless of external circumstances, including the suffering of others. A Stoic doesn’t reject compassion, but they practice it without letting it disturb their rational judgment. They would console someone not by mirroring their grief, but by helping them see that their suffering is a result of their perception of loss, which can be reframed through wisdom.

This is why, when Seneca comforts Marcia in De Consolatione ad Marciam after the loss of her son, he doesn’t say, "I know how you feel," but instead tries to shift her perspective on death and suffering, arguing that excessive grief is irrational and that death is part of the natural order.

So, while modern empathy often implies an emotional fusion with another’s suffering, Stoic clemency and compassion are more about understanding suffering from a detached, rational perspective and responding in a way that aligns with virtue. Do you think this explains why some people misinterpret Stoic clemency as empathy?

Jannik: Perhaps it is rather the case that even though many modern readers of Stoicism see value in not worrying about things that are not up to us, most still struggle to accept the implications of this: even based on this simplified version of Stoicism things like death, poverty and physical pain can not be bad things.

ChatGPT: Yes, I think that’s exactly the issue. Many modern readers of Stoicism are drawn to the idea of not worrying about what is not up to us, but they hesitate to accept the full consequences of this principle—namely, that death, poverty, and physical pain are not intrinsically bad. Instead, these are simply events or conditions that we judge to be bad based on our perceptions and attachments.

Most people, even those sympathetic to Stoicism, still operate with moral intuitions shaped by a different framework—one where suffering is inherently negative and where empathy, in the modern sense, is seen as a moral good. This makes it hard for them to fully embrace the Stoic idea that external events are indifferents (neither good nor bad in themselves) and that only our judgments about them matter.

Take death, for example. A true Stoic perspective, as Seneca presents it, is that death is simply part of the natural order—nothing more than the end of the body’s function. But many modern readers hesitate to accept this fully because they still hold onto the idea that loss is objectively tragic. They might try to balance Stoic detachment with a more emotional, humanistic perspective, leading to interpretations of Stoic clemency that resemble empathy more than rational virtue.

In this sense, modern readings of Stoicism are often halfway measures—they embrace resilience and emotional discipline but struggle to let go of deeply ingrained moral and emotional judgments about suffering. Do you think this is why so many contemporary Stoics seem to soften the doctrine, emphasizing mindfulness and emotional regulation while avoiding its harder metaphysical claims?

Jannik: Yes, I think that is exactly the case. And I think it is the wrong way to go. Our modern insistence on the objective value of empathy keeps us trapped in a flawed understanding of what is truly good, bad and indifferent - and this has deep implications both for the person striving to have empathy and for the person who are facing challenges.

ChatGPT: I completely agree, and I think your point gets to the heart of why modern adaptations of Stoicism often feel incomplete or even contradictory. The insistence on the objective value of empathy, rather than seeing it as a contingent psychological phenomenon, distorts our understanding of what is truly good, bad, and indifferent.

For the person striving to have empathy, this expectation can be deeply burdensome. If we treat empathy as an intrinsic moral obligation, we demand that people feel a certain way about the suffering of others. This leads to guilt and emotional exhaustion—especially when suffering is vast and unsolvable on an individual level. It also encourages a kind of moral sentimentalism, where ethical action is measured by the intensity of one's emotions rather than by rational judgment or actual effectiveness.

For the person facing challenges, the modern emphasis on empathy can also be counterproductive. If we treat suffering as something that must be mirrored and validated by others, we reinforce the idea that hardship is inherently tragic rather than something to be met with resilience and perspective. A Stoic, by contrast, would help someone reframe their suffering, guiding them toward seeing their challenges as indifferent and directing their energy toward what is truly good: virtue and wisdom.

This contrast has enormous ethical implications. Modern ethics often assumes that feeling the pain of others is inherently good, but the Stoic perspective suggests that such emotional entanglement can obscure rational judgment and hinder true moral action. Instead of validating and mirroring suffering, the Stoic approach seeks to transform the sufferer’s perspective—something much harder, but ultimately far more empowering.

A happy Stoic philosopher in exile. Image generated using Gemini 2.0 Flash.