have seen that the Theory of Mind indeed is capable of such simulations, that
is, we can empathize with ourselves in a hypothetical scenario. More specif-
ically, we will rely on our memories of being recipients of the same (or a
sufficiently similar) action and run a simulation of that situation based on our
memories. This ability, however, comes at a price: when mentalizing about
past or future events, we are biased toward considering ourcurrentmental
states as input conditions (Goldman & Shanton, 2016). Consequently, moral
actions that we select in terms of the Golden Rule will tend to be actions of
which we would like to be recipients at the moment. In general, however, the
Golden Rule does not emphasize perspective taking, that is, the consideration
of other people’s needs that are different from ours.
In the New Testament we canfind some clear examples of empathy with a
stronger component of perspective taking than what is found in the Golden
Rule. For example, Paul famously declares in 1 Corinthians 9:21,“To those
outside the law I became as one outside the law”(τοῖςἀνόμοιςὡςἄνομος,
1 Cor. 9:21, NRSV). There are many ways to interpret this confessional passage,
picturing Paul as aflatterer, demagogue, apologetic Pharisee, con artist, or
political chameleon (cf. Rudolph, 2011, pp. 110–49). Yet one of the plausible
interpretations at hand is that Paul became capable of putting himself into the
shoes of the Gentile followers of Christ. Elsewhere I argued (Czachesz, 2011c;
cf. Duling, 2013) that Paul’s social networks put him into the position of an
inter-group broker, with the consequence of developing aflexible cognitive
repertoire. Applying this insight to the use of empathy, we can conclude that
Paul associated with people from different ethnic and cultural backgrounds
and learned to take their perspectives while picking up their emotional states.
By integrating different cognitive patterns into his own thinking, he was able
to make sense of different cultural and religious perspectives to respond
empathically to the needs of Christ followers with diverse backgrounds.
While Paul’s personal contribution was important, the development of a new
kind of perspective taking in the Jesus movement was not only a matter of
individual genius. The expansion of the movement meant that missionaries were
exposed to novel cognitive patterns, which some of them might have accommo-
dated and used better than others. The Lukan phrasing of the Pauline stance is
less eloquent but conveys a similar message. At the so-called“apostolic council”
narrated in Acts 15, James requires that“we should not trouble (μὴπαρενοχλεῖν)
those Gentiles who are turning to God”(Acts 15:19), appreciating the fact that
culturally different groups of the Christ followers might have different needs. The
interesting question arises as to whether the same moral standard still applies to
everyone after incorporating perspective taking into empathy consistently. An
appreciation of different cultural and individual perspectives makes it impossible
to translate religious values into simplistic ethical recipes.
Although empathy has been seen as a key to moral behavior in Western
philosophy, criticism against empathy-based morality has been growing in
Morality 171