Empathy and Breaking Free from Fixed Perspectives

Abstract

Political deliberation often begins with moral or political disagreement. Individuals take part in deliberation with different experiences, moral beliefs, and worldviews. In moments of disagreement, empathy appears both promising and problematic. It seems to offer a way of moving beyond one’s own perspective, yet it also raises a question: how can empathy contribute to mutual understanding between individuals in deliberative settings? This thesis examines that question by exploring the role of empathy in deliberative democracy. To understand empathy, it is important to turn to Adam Smith and David Hume, who developed early accounts of sympathy, a concept closely related to what is now often understood as empathy. From this starting point, the thesis connects empathy to communicative capabilities within deliberation, especially the role of personal stories. Yet empathy cannot simply be treated as a solid case. Critics warn that empathy may be selective and biased, leading individuals to care more about those who appear similar to oneself. Within deliberative democracy, this may create the tendency for empathy to distort the consideration of the perspectives of others. This thesis argues that empathy can enhance mutual understanding within deliberation, but only under specific conditions.