When Friedrich Nietzsche questioned the virtue of empathy, he did it as part of a broad attack on Christianity as a moral system devised by the weak (a slave morality) that makes no sense to those with actual power who subscribe to “a master morality.” This is why it doesn’t surprise me to see a rich and powerful man, and avowed atheist, like Elon Musk attack empathy as the “fundamental weakness of Western civilization.”

But, like Amanda Marcotte, I am a bit surprised to see this idea promoted by religious leaders like Albert Mohler, the head of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, or supposedly devout Christians like Vice-President J.D. Vance. Maybe “surprise” isn’t quite the right word, but it’s much harder to see how their worldviews holds together.

The Washington Post has an entire article published on Friday that is devoted to Vance’s clash with Pope Francis over the subject of empathy. It naturally delves into the historical teachings of the Catholic Church and its most influential theologians including St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas. As a lapsed Protestant, these teachings have never had much direct influence on my ethical thinking, and I’m kind of stubbornly preferential to the main source which is the writings of the Old and New Testaments.

I’m not entirely indifferent to or dismissive of Nietzsche’s writings which I studied extensively in my college days but I do see them as fundamentally ill-suited to any kind of approving Christian interpretation. As far as I am concerned, there’s a debate to be had about whether concern for the poor, weak and needy should be handled primarily by the state or by religious organizations, but the idea that offering them a hand is weak or emasculating or suicidal seems entirely outside the history and scope of Judeo-Christian ethical teaching. In others words, Nietzschean Christianity is an abomination and ought to be simply impossible.

One thing to keep in mind is that Nietzsche went so far as to attack philanthropy. In the most extreme form of this he wrote in The Antichrist:

What is good? — All that heightens the feeling of power, the will to power, power itself in man. What is bad? — All that proceeds from weakness. What is happiness? — The feeling that power increases — that a resistance is overcome.

Not contentment, but more power, not peace at all, but war; not virtue, but proficiency (virtue in the Renaissance style, virth, virtue free of moralic acid.) The weak and ill-constituted shall perish: first principle of our philanthropy. And one shall help them to do so. What is more harmful than any vice? — Active sympathy for the ill-constituted and weak — Christianity ….

It’s just my opinion, but I think Nietzsche got so caught up with contrasting moral systems of the strong and weak, and condemning the latter, that he threw many things besides the baby out with bathwater. I can find resentment as a motivator for a lot of ostensibly moral guidance and behavior without concluding that benevolence, charity and compassion are suspect traits, let alone signs of weakness.

In any case, I am happy to debate these things. But one thing I really can’t stomach is supposed Christians strutting around spewing cruel Nietzschean ethics as a justification for their Christian chauvinism and bigotry.