Empathy: What Elon Musk gets wrong

“The fundamental weakness of Western Civilisation is empathy." – Elon Musk

“They never cared about us." – A striking response by a black South African on X to the Solidarity Movement's visit to the White House

IN a recent interview on The Joe Rogan Experience, Elon Musk discussed his views on empathy within so-called Western Civilisation. He refers to what he calls the “exploitation of empathy" and qualifies his position with, “although empathy is inherently good, it can be manipulated or weaponised". He makes the philosophical argument that this weaponisation not only strips individuals of personal agency and accountability, but discourages them from being critical. His repeated mantra that “freedom of speech includes all speech that is not illegal" is part of his moral rebellion against this “armed empathy".

Let me play my cards straightaway: Musk's judgment of what is good for humanity is at odds with the liberal democratic and compassionate social values ​​of Europe, and his understanding of empathy corresponds fully with the militarised political culture of America. And, for most of us, Musk's opinion about empathy quite rightly has a dash of fascism to it.

But, contrary to our instincts, I think he definitely hit a mark on empathy. Empathy is a presumed moralism with questionable motivations and drastic consequences for societies that have become dependent on the financial support and economic aid packages of liberal-democratic political economies. Likewise, the idea of ​​“safe spaces" for minorities at American universities is an accursed empathy, as is the right not to be offended. These are all phenomena that claim the codification of empathy but should rather be rejected.

If I sound like I'm trying to find some justification for the 'DOGE butcher', let me provide some context first. Musk refers to himself as “on the spectrum". The term is not a medical diagnosis in itself but is often used informally to refer to someone's so-called neuro-divergence.

The term is mainly used to indicate that an individual has autism spectrum disorder (ASD), a neurological condition that affects social interaction, communication and behaviour. Some people on the spectrum show intense focus on specific subjects, such as technology, music, art or math. Some have verbal challenges, while others can be extremely articulate but struggle to express themselves properly. Literal interpretation often comes easier to them and they have difficulty understanding sarcasm or irony.

While the term or expression “on the spectrum" is commonly used, it is important to be sensitive to the complex world in which these people find themselves. Some prefer to be described as “autistic", while others favour “person with autism". As with personal pronouns for trans people, the best approach is to ask how the person self-identifies.

Familiar complexity

For Musk, it is a complexity he should be familiar with, as it has brought him infinite sorrow. His son, Xavier Alexander Musk, legally changed her name and gender identity to Vivian Jenna Wilson (her mother's last name). When she made the official request to change her name, she stated that she no longer wanted to be associated with her father “in any way, shape or form".

But while I leave sympathetic room for Musk's understanding of himself as “on the spectrum", I still wish to hold him accountable for his opinions and actions. Musk was accused of making, during a celebration of US President Donald Trump's second inauguration on 20 January 2025, a gesture that could be interpreted as a Nazi or fascist Roman salute. Musk dismissed the accusations as politicised attacks and wrote on his social media platform: “The ‘everyone is Hitler' attack is sooo tired." For many commentators, the fact that he never explicitly denied the allegations was a kind of confirmation of their suspicions that he was attracted to far-right interpretations of empathy, justice and political power.

However, Musk's salute also has context, as does his criticism of “empathy". And this context gives us an indication of his understanding of the relationship between people and humanity, as well as how far political power reaches. The commander-in-chief of DOGE has already on several occasions expressed his support for far-right pressure groups and political parties in Europe. In January 2025, during an AfD (Alternative for Germany) campaign, he gave a virtual speech and urged Germans to put the “guilt of the past" behind them. The AfD started as a Eurosceptic party but after the 2015 migrant crisis moved towards far-right populism.

This 2015 crisis resulted from the then German chancellor, Angela Merkel's, controversial decision to suspend the Dublin Regulation for Syrian refugees. This regulation required that asylum seekers must apply for protective residence in the first EU country they arrive in. Its scrapping encouraged migrants to flee to Germany in the expectation that they would be more easily accepted there. The sudden influx of migrants had left many Germans with imagined and also real fears.

The AfD's leaders are known for their anti-Islam, anti-immigration and German nationalist rhetoric. Certain factions within the AfD, in particular Der Flügel (“The Wing"), were classified as extremists by the German intelligence services. Given Musk's ideological preference for the AfD, it is not difficult for some of his critics to understand the drive with which he dismantled USAid (United States Agency for International Development). The sceptical conservatism of the German middle class and the xenophobia of the Trump administration are emotionally related.

Collateral damage

The 6 million Jews that Heinrich Himmler (1900–1945), Reichsführer of the Schutzstaffel, sent to their graves under Adolf Hitler, finds comparison with what is happening in Sudan, Southern Africa and South America. More so now that the Trump administration's DOGE commander decided to write off the millions of people who depended on USAid for nutrition and healthcare as collateral damage in the West's misplaced attempts at empathy.

Musk also conducted a live online interview with AfD co-leader Alice Weidel, describing her as “very reasonable" afterwards. There is nothing strange about the fact that Musk encouraged Germans to vote for the AfD. By the way, in February 2025, during the International Security Conference in Munich, US Vice President JD Vance also met with Weidel. The suspicion that the Trump administration is riddled with right-wing, climate change and vaccine sceptics is not unfounded, but we know they care about “incomers" because they tell us so. Perceptions that Musk and the Trump administration are imposing a right-wing conservative view of life and the world are not unfounded.

During the spring of 2024, an intelligent young honours student delivered an academic paper - “Artificial Intelligence: Encoding the Philosophy of Empathy into Business Models" - at the North-West University in South Africa. Someone in the audience asked a very valid question: “What is the difference between empathy and compassion?" Afterwards, during a conversation with the student, we agreed that the distinction between these concepts would have a fundamental impact on his theory.

I referred him to the book Against Empathy: The Case for Rational Compassion (2016), written by Paul Bloom, a famous psychologist and professor at Yale University. I thought Bloom's take that the concept “empathy" had intellectual and operational roots that were harmful to relationships between people – and humanity – was a very good argument, and I still think so. In a naive way, empathy is reminiscent of a concern for your fellow man, but as a glue between communities, empathy often manifests itself in patronage and paternalism.

Bloom defines empathy as “emotional mirroring", rather than a pursuit of objective understanding. His primary concern for empathy is the focus on “immediate suffering" rather than the pursuit of understanding. He promotes what he calls “effective compassion" (compassion) and argues that empathy too often leads to irrational and even harmful moral decisions. Although widely regarded as a positive and essential human quality, empathy is a “problematic emotional disposition", an “unwarranted" moralism. And, when the concept is politicised, it often leads to politically, but especially economically, senseless decisions.

In contrast to empathy, compassion involves you understanding the other's suffering from a more distant perspective, which makes it possible to provide help effectively. Bloom argues that compassion enables people to make better moral decisions based on a combination of caring and rational thinking, rather than on patronising emotional imitation. Bloom advocates “rational compassion" as an alternative to “political empathy" because it “encourages proactive, effective help, rather than the bias of political policies and economic decisions that presupposes empathy".

USAid, the option of rational compassion

With regards to USAid, the aid to poor countries must make rational sense to both parties and the outcomes must be verified for the impact and difference they make. Bloom describes compassion as a more rational, deliberate and sustainable form of care that emphasises care for the well-being of others without being emotionally overwhelmed by the needy's circumstances and their plight.

Among other things, USAid initially had the goal of abusing empathy (in Musk's understanding of empathy) and entrenching America's sphere of influence on unstable continents. Bloom would argue that if the motivation for USAid were compassion, rather than empathy, the Trump administration and Musk's DOGE would not have reached the point of suspending it in March 2025, callously and without due consideration. USAid is a classic example of diplomatic policy based on empathy in the absence of rational compassion.

Bloom would also argue that while USAid's suspension intends to re-evaluate and improve the effectiveness of foreign aid, the immediate end of empathy for vulnerable populations does immeasurable harm. A more compassionate and rational approach would have included a phased review process, and maintaining essential services during the evaluation to mitigate adverse effects on those dependent on US aid programmes. Bloom's theory advocates decisions based on reason, evidence and impartial care rather than political interests packaged as empathy. Musk is right, empathy as a binding material between rich and poor countries will always entail the probability of unilateral action, as with DOGE, but I wonder if the militarised political culture of America is capable of Bloom's rational compassion.

Rights violations and Afrikaner victims

Had Bloom published his book in 2025, he could have referred to Trump and Musk's empathy for South Africa's farmers and Afrikaners. A misplaced empathy that also found its way into AfriForum and Solidarity's compassion for Afrikaners, yet qualified empathy with black South Africans. The dividing line between “insiders" and “outsiders" is very pertinent in South Africa's social and political relations.

The Trump administration's response is likely to be primarily driven by loaded narratives of “white victimhood" which promote a biased empathetic response rather than a balanced assessment of the broader social realities in South Africa. Rational compassion would require examining the structural inequalities experienced by marginalised groups in South Africa (such as black South Africans) alongside Afrikaner concerns. All South Africans live under the ANC's clumsy and corrupt management, not just white people.

AfriForum and Solidarity often claim that their sympathy and empathy include black South Africans, but Bloom will argue that it is precisely the absence of rational compassion that leads Kallie Kriel and Jaco Kleynhans to choose to leave the drastic consequences of their exaggerations (Afrikaners as victims of human rights violations) in the hands of Trump's unpredictable sense of power and Musk's lack of compassion.

But now that empathy has been exposed for the lack of a shared humanity that it is, where will our compassion for one another come from? The world and humanity are swinging towards the intolerance of a right-wing and mistrustful understanding of each other.

The irony is that Thomas Matthew Crooks, Trump's would-be assassin, wanted to take one person's life, which might have saved thousands of people's lives. It requires empathy to ask the question and compassion to refrain from pondering the answer.

♦ VWB ♦

BE PART OF THE CONVERSATION: Go to the bottom of this page to share your opinion. We look forward to hearing from you.