Is Empathy Conditional?
In the wake of Charlie Kirk’s murder, I am left with judgment, grief, and desperation.
For some, the grief is nonexistent. For some, the grief is for the person they admired. For me, the grief and judgment take particular form in the recognition that our country has reached a level of vitriol where some respond to tragedy with celebration, while others rush to cast blame on a collective “you.”
I’ve seen posts that say, “I feel empathy for his family because they didn’t deserve this, but not for him.” Others say, “He showed no empathy for people like me, so why should I extend it to him?” or “Some lives just don’t deserve my compassion.” This is selective empathy-a willingness to extend understanding or dignity only to those we deem worthy.
Selective Empathy as a Protective Instinct
Selective empathy is deeply human. It’s easier to put ourselves in someone else’s shoes when we’ve felt seen by them, or when their story resembles our own. When harm has touched us personally, or when rhetoric feels like a direct attack, empathy for “the other side” can feel nearly impossible.
Reaction is easier than reflection. Our brains are wired to defend, to protect, to keep us safe. So, it’s natural that empathy narrows when we feel under threat. We need that instinct sometimes to keep ourselves from flooding with emotion or getting taken advantage of. There is a ton of space for the healthy instinct of selective empathy to move around.
Here is the hard truth: if empathy becomes entirely conditional-if it only flows toward those who agree with us or comfort us-then we reinforce the very cycles of hatred, blame, and division that perpetuate harm.
What Could Expansive Empathy Look Like?
This isn’t about excusing violence or pretending there aren’t real consequences for harmful words and actions. It is about asking:
What happens if those of us with the capacity, or with the willingness to grow our capacity, choose to extend empathy even when it isn’t “deserved”?
What might shift if we created space for the humanity of someone who denies ours?
What would the world look like if empathy were expansive rather than selective? Could expansive empathy become a practice that reached across lines of ideology or pain?
I imagine a world where empathy isn’t limited to our “in-group.” We could create a world where empathy doesn’t erase accountability, and accountability doesn’t erase empathy. Both can coexist. This isn’t everyone’s job to take on that emotional labor. This vision is for those ready to take on that labor on others' behalf, for those of us looking around desperately saying “where do we go from here?”
Peacemaking With Expansive Empathy
The opportunity for peacemaking lies in the space between silence and shouting. It requires a pause between reaction and reflection. It asks us to embrace both justice and compassion. To welcome both truth-telling and bridge-building.
Conflict resolution strategies can help us here, whether in personal relationships, in conflict resolution in the workplace, or online. These are practices that remind us peacekeeping is not the same as peacemaking.
Peacekeeping maintains a fragile quiet, avoiding confrontation.
Peacemaking faces conflict honestly and then works to restore the relationship and dignity on both sides.
That’s the broader calling: to move toward expansive empathy, something harder and braver. An empathy that stretches us.
A Path Forward
I don’t pretend to have the answer. I do believe I have an answer-a path forward worth exploring together. With this in mind, my desperation transforms to hope.
If you’re ready to take the next step in your own journey of healing and reconciliation, I invite you to download the first chapter of my new peacemaking book for free.
Let’s imagine together what it looks like to choose empathy as a practice that transforms us rather than a condition.
