It's astounding that a trait normally considered admirable -- one usually sought out in choosing personal relationships, colleagues and associates -- is now seen as synonymous with being emotional and partisan, as though being empathetic makes one less rational and reasonable.

How is this in any way, shape, or form, astounding? Empathy involves feeling, not reason. How could one possibly exercise it without (a) being emotional, and (b) impairing one's capacity to reason? That's like being astounded at the prospect that having a TV installed in the dashboard could possibly make someone a more dangerous driver.

Astounding!!!

Just because empathy is seen as a positive quality in personal relationships, colleagues, and associates, does not necessarily mean that it is a universally positive quality. I, for one, am astounded that a mental health professional like yourself doesn't see that.

At the heart of the misunderstanding are erroneous assumptions that stripping empathy from decision-making will necessarily improve the quality of the decision, and that one has the ability to consciously control his or her feelings of empathy.

No, one cannot extinguish one's feelings. But one certainly can control them, or at least consciously decide whether to lead with one's head or one's heart. In fact, I would argue that this capacity of ours - to delay gratification, and subdue or feelings to our reason - is what civilization itself, and the very notion of civilized behavior, is based upon.

And yes, there are certain tasks, and certain professions that revolve around those tasks, for which an emphasis on reason, and not feeling or empathy, is necessary. Accounting is one of those tasks. Scientific research is another. Interpreting and applying the law, as written, is another.

Anyone familiar with modern psychology is aware of the concept of emotional intelligence -- that good decisions combine reason and awareness of one's feelings.

In the case of a judge, the decision in question - whether or not something will or will not be illegal - has already been made. Making that decision is not the job of the judge. His job is simply to flesh out the nuance and implications of the decision. This limited arena for actual, original decision making is made even more limited by the imperative that whatever original decisions a judge does make must all be informed by precedent.

We limit the judge's capacity for original decision making in this way because, as Samuel Smith said earlier, a judge is not supposed to care who wins. The restrictions we apply to it are essentially a kind of mental trick that is specifically designed to distance the judge's feelings and empathy from his task at hand. However, it is incumbent upon the judge himself to follow through with applying them to his decisions, and to actually lead, to the best of his ability, with his head and not his heart. This is why empathy, though a valuable quality in a friend or leader, is not the first thing you should look for in a judge.

Though not exactly a scientific term, this difficulty or revulsion in pushing the man off the footbridge is often referred to as the "ick factor," a reflection that certain behavior is intrinsically disgusting or revolting, irrespective of whether it is reasonable.

The "ick factor" is the very reason we have laws in the first place - to force rationally necessary behavior in those situations when our feelings would tell us otherwise. And it is the very reason why we need reasonable - and not necessarily empathetic - people to serve as judges to make sure that they are universally and impartially applied, regardless of anyone's "ick factor."

...and there is limited space in our present consciousness to accomodate them both. I agree with the author that most practical decisions, ideally, are best made when feeling informs reason. However, there are tasks for which a primary emphasis on reason is necessary. In these situations - and interpretation of law as written is one of these situation - feeling can in fact get in the way and cloud perception, as our consciousness is limited in its capacity.

Once again, as a mental health professional, I am surprised that Robert Burton doesn't recognize this.

No, I am not confusing empathy with sympathy. Both of them are aspects of our emotive capacity, and as I said previously, feeling and thinking are two different functions that can, at times, be at odds with each other, given the limited capacity of our consciousness. This notion is age old. If you have ever been depressed, you would understand.

As I have previously said, I agree with Mr. Burton that a well integrated, well balanced person is someone who has found a way to accomodate both in his everyday life. However, I also think that a well integrated and well balanced person is one who is able to emphasize one over the other when it is necessary to do so, and who knows his capacity and his limits in this regard. Judicial analysis is primarily a thinking and reasoning task, involving the application of principles and the fleshing out of their implications. Empathy, while usually a personal virtue, is not necessarily a professional virtue in this case.