Setting the Scene
My previous Substack which explored Care, inspired by the work of Alison Gopnik and in particular The Gardener and the Carpenter, was a first discussion in a short series of posts that consider Care, Compassion and Rupert Wegerif’s Dialogic Pedagogies. In this second Substack, I explore Martha Nussbaum’s thinking on Compassion.
As with Care, I will discuss Compassion through lens fn education. Later, I will bring Dialogic Pedagogies to these reflections and consider how they can help us shape and design a future for education with people at its heart, navigating an exponential technological, AI and volatile world. What could these discussions bring to a future of education and learning that won’t overly focus on the rigidity of curricula towards the demonstration of knowledge acquisition in assessment?
Instead, how can these authors’ thinking inform an education future that fully connects to the needs and challenges of the world? How can we develop educational models that don’t lose sight of the culture and history that have shaped us, recognizing the richness of humanity, rather than imprinting models of Western-dominated thinking and rationales adopted to develop education as we know it today? And how can education harness the deep relational nature of learning, human cognition and dialogue, rather than evolve into an increasingly transactional entity, optimised by metrics and data points, instead of the people and their stories behind them?
This second instalment, focused on Martha Nussbaum’s thinking on Compassion, a distinct human cognitive attribute and emotion, and how her philosophical writings may help us to envision the future for education.
Introducing Martha Nussbaum
Martha Nussbaum (b. 1947) is one of today’s most influential American philosophers. A renowned ethicist and legal scholar, Nussbaum is the Ernst Freund Distinguished Service Professor of Law and Ethics at the University of Chicago, where she is engaged in both the Philosophy and Law departments. She still holds office hours and is very active in the local community.
Nussbaum’s prolific philosophical writings[1] extend beyond the domains of Law and Ethics. They go back to her study of Ancient Greek and Roman philosophy, feminist philosophy, political philosophy, the arts and ethics, as well as writings on the plight of animals. Key influences in her philosophical thinking are the Ancient Greeks, in particular Aristotle and the Stoics. The French philosopher Rousseau has equally inspired her work.
Nussbaum’s groundbreaking work on the philosophy of emotions is treated in several published works. These examine the nature and role of emotions, whether desirable or not. They discuss the importance of emotions, not solely in terms of the individual, but also for the development of public policy and legal judgement.
This interest in the role of emotion is deeply discussed in the seminal book Upheavals of Thought: The Intelligence of Emotions, published in 2001. In this work, the author considers the nature of emotions: their extensive range, functioning and importance for human flourishing, and focuses specifically on love and Compassion.
It is Nussbaum’s interest in Compassion and its importance for human flourishing that has inspired this discussion in the context of the Care, Compassion and Dialogic Pedagogies triad. Her lens on Compassion is wide as well as telescopic, reaching beyond the nature of this discussion, which does not consider public policy and legal judgement. The author’s lens exposes Compassion in a light that may surprise, positioning this human trait as a cognitive attribute informed by the depth of her philosophical thinking and prowess.
Nussbaum’s Compassion
When Nussbaum discusses Compassion, she does not consider Compassion as a simple emotion that can be classified as affect. On the contrary, Compassion, to Nussbaum represents a highly complex emotional response in the form of evaluative judgement that belongs to the realm of cognition. It is an extension of one’s flourishing towards the Other, realised through understanding the Other and their suffering.
Nussbaum’s Compassion is a human cognitive attribute that comprises three distinctive and fundamental properties that relate to human suffering. Understanding these is central to understanding the philosopher’s meaning of Compassion, which harks back to the Ancient Greeks.
Compassion consists of a triad of necessary conditions. All three relate to the cognitive awareness of suffering:
Eudaimonistic Judgement, at times also called the Judgement of Similar Possibilities.
The Judgement of Seriousness or the belief that suffering is serious rather than trivial.
The Judgement of Non-Desert or the belief that the suffering isn’t the result of the sufferer’s own fault.
Eudaimonistic Judgement or
Judgement of Similar Possibilities
The first property of Compassion is Eudaimonistic[2] Judgement or the judgement of similar possibilities. To Nussbaum, all emotions are eudaimonistic judgements. They are evaluations made from the standpoint of one’s own flourishing or goals.
The term eudaimonistic stems from the Greek eudaemonia, often translated as human flourishing. Nussbaum’s use of the term edaimonistic judgement reveals her deep connection to Stoicism[3] and Aristotelian philosophy. It was Aristotle who defined eudaimonism as an ethical framework centred on eudaimonia.
Eudaimonia refers to a fulfilling life, not one that is granted to you, but one that is achieved through self-realisation, agency and living in tune with one’s true values and purpose. It fosters personal growth and moral virtue that aim beyond instant gratification or temporary pleasure and seek deeper satisfaction that leads to a richer and more meaningful life experience.
Relating eudaimonistic judgement to Compassion in Nussbaum philosophy cannot be understood without considering the judgement of similar possibilities and the link to human suffering, through the flourishing-based evaluation applied to another person’s suffering.
For Aristotle, this is the belief that what causes the Other’s suffering could happen to me. In other words, Compassion is evoked because I recognise myself in the Other’s vulnerability.
Nussbaum goes further and argues that Compassion doesn’t need to depend on the recognition of resemblance between my circumstances and those of the sufferer. Feeling Compassion for someone whose life is completely different from mine is entirely possible, as long as I can make their good part of my own scheme of values and goals. To her, the test is not whether this could happen to me but whether the person’s flourishing matters to my own. This shifts Compassion well beyond the people we deem to be like us, to the Other.
As such, it is a fundamental characteristic of Compassion, an emotion rooted in cognition and the understanding of the Other’s suffering.
Compassion, however is more than eudaimonistic judgement or judgement of similar possibilities alone. It is complemented by the second judgement in its triad, the judgement of seriousness.
Judgement of Seriousness
Nussbaum also calls this judgement the Judgement of Size. It refers to the belief that someone’s loss is not trivial but can be genuinely significant. Compassion in this judgement is straightforward. It does not refer to being pitied for the loss of a paperclip or toothbrush. Observing someone’s genuine loss requires for it to be experienced as a serious setback to the Other; one that stifles the capacity to flourish.
In Nussbaum’s framework this judgement needs to co-exist with the Other two judgements: i.e. the judgements of Similar Possibilities and Non-desert, for Compassion to occur.
Once more inspired by Aristotle, the philosopher takes her argument further. She highlights that for something to count as serious is not always for the one experiencing the setback to decide on its seriousness. She raises the argument that people who have lived through for a long time, may no longer experience this as a loss. People adjust to their circumstances and stop being conscious of the magnitude of what they are missing; they may never have been conscious of it at all.
The philosopher brings us a strong message. She argues that Compassion must reach beyond this. Recognising the suffering of only those who complain about it ignores exactly those people who have been downtrodden and suffer most.
This still begs the question of whether recognised suffering also attributes fault to that suffering. This is the question that Nussbaum responds to in her argument on the Judgement of Non-Desert.
Judgement of Non-Desert
The third judgement in Nussbaum’s framework highlights the attribution of fault in suffering. When confronted by someone’s suffering, an easy and often fairly immediate reaction is to apportion blame to the person experiencing suffering and significant setback. Rather than exploring the cause of suffering, the belief that a person is at fault ignores the cognitive experience of Compassion and negates this judgement, vital for Compassion to be experienced and recognised.
Nussbaum is clear that the attribution of fault weakens the Compassion for suffering of the Other. Here too, she relies on the Greek giant Aristotle. Over two thousand years ago, he already built this in his definition of pity, highlighting that suffering is not deserved. She carries Aristotle’s definition forward and argues that for Compassion to exist, suffering can’t be considered as something a person inflicts on themselves.
Three Evaluative Judgements for Emotional Response
Martha Nussbaum’s Compassion does rely on an emotional response that demands cognition of three evaluative judgements. These judgements, a triad for Nussbaum’s cognitive framework of Compassion highlight how the awareness of the Other and the Other’s suffering is fundamental for Compassion.
What if these evaluative judgements could inform the future of education?
The Future of Education Informed by Compassion
Throughout the world, current predominant education systems are increasingly transactional in nature. They rely on teachers engaged in imparting knowledge, through set curricula. Knowledge is expected to be acquired, and its acquisition is expected to be translated into performance in standardised tests, not translated into application.
The rise of technology in education and the spread of AI in the classroom, if moulded on current systems and their expectations, are amplifying the predefined expected outcomes. Yet the future of our world is not best served by such systems that are metrics-driven, leaving learners ill-equipped. Even as personalised learning becomes more widely adopted, supported by sophisticated technologies, the fundamentals of today’s education remain the same; the expected objectives do not change. The pressure on learners and teachers in the current paradigm increases, heightening the procedural and reductive nature of education as dashboards and data points take over.
Where is Compassion in such a system? Where is the awareness of the Other, the Other’s challenges, difficulties and even suffering whether through situations at school, in post-school education, or at home?
This question doesn’t arise in today’s education provision, which is too concerned with measurement, statistics and outcomes connected to the system’s predefinition of knowledge and its acquisition.
Martha Nussbaum, the philosopher, doesn’t diminish the importance of knowledge, nor do I. But in Upheavals of Thought and Not for Profit, she also questions how knowledge is achieved and to what purpose.
Shouldn’t Nussbaum’s Compassion play a role in designing education’s future for human flourishing: eudaimonia?
Compassion, AI and Human Flourishing
The proliferation of AI and its opportunities as well as challenges for education remains complex, as the technology’s guardrails are increasingly questioned. Yet, the question of guardrails is not confined to the alignment problem that is currently being observed in AI agents going rogue. The question is more fundamental than that, and that is most definitely the case when it comes to education as a foundation for building thriving societies.
In the AI debate, human flourishing has become a ubiquitous term. Having adopted the term as if it were new, we may well have forgotten its origin going back as far as the Ancient Greeks in Western societies. No doubt other cultures and societies will have their own language and cultural expression of what human flourishing looks like, and what Compassion looks like. We can’t ignore this human attribute, nor should we overlook the desire for human flourishing surpassing culture and language.
The debate around human flourishing in an AI world has predominantly focused on responsible use, epistemic agency, ethics, relationship with AI and mental health, and not least, the need for guardrails. Yet, within this debate we may have ignored the essential values and dynamics of human relationship: those of Compassion, Care and dialogue. These are not transactional; they are relational.
Nussbaum’s Compassion, the cognitive awareness of the Other’s suffering and thriving, should be considered as foundational to the redesign of education. This will serve learners and their teachers for tomorrow’s world which they will share with a form of computational intelligence that is exponential, not human, and may well exceed that of humans. It is the values and dynamics of Compassion that the human flourishing debate should embrace.
Towards the Compassionate Classroom
Our world in which AI’s role is only growing requires a new approach to the future design of education. This would focus on people and the inter-relational aspects of learning and teaching, making room for the Compassionate classroom.
In the Compassionate classroom, where teacher and learners co-design learning in human and non-human collaboration, Nussbaum’s evaluative judgements (eudaimonistic, seriousness, non-desert) would be fundamental to design for education built on, and building, the capabilities for these judgements to support human flourishing.
Whilst Compassion may equip learners and teachers with these judgements, their potential can remain unrealised; this is where Care comes in.
Binding Compassion and Care
Nussbaum’s Compassion and Gopnik’s Care may not seem straightforward partners.
Nussbaum highlights human flourishing as being dependent on a judgement of the Other’s flourishing. Her Compassion is a cognitive response to the Other’s vulnerability and awareness of what could go wrong with the Other.
Alison Gopnik’s Care, the subject of her book The Gardener and the Carpenter, focuses on the potential of the person and what they might become if they are given the agency to explore. It resides in the realm of the individual and the potential to realise, rather than in a set outcome.
I would argue that what binds both is the capabilities approach, pioneered by Amartya Sen and developed further by Nussbaum. Her approach allows for nurturing the awareness of what is needed for one’s own flourishing, understanding the flourishing of the Other, as well as realising one’s potential. Building capabilities and realising potential happen through exploration and awareness.
Towards Dialogue
Designing a future for education relies on challenging its transactional and metrics-driven nature. This would make way for an inter-relational approach that does not negate the importance of knowledge. It would position knowledge as fundamental to asking the right questions, not just to giving the right answers. Reaching beyond our traditional definition of knowledge imparted in education, this approach would give Compassion and Care a central place.
In this design, Compassion brings the awareness of the Other, while Care nurtures potential. This leaves the introduction of a third foundation for the future design of education, Dialogic Pedagogies. These would not only be strengthened by Compassion and Care, but would also strengthen them.
What Dialogic Pedagogies mean for the future design of education will be explored in the third post in this series.
Reflections
This series of explorations is inspired by Western philosophers and academic experts. It would be easy to ignore the importance of context and culture-relevance when reading these explorations. The finger could be pointed at the series for proposing a WEIRD[4] (Western, Educated, Industrialised, Rich, Democratic) scaffold for the future of learning and education. I believe that this is not the case and that the inspiration, topics and reflections on what education could look like for the future are relevant to variation in culture and context. Nussbaum argues that capabilities are universal yet can be realised differently in different places. Likewise, the ideas expressed in this series carry across cultures, respecting local interpretation.
In an era of striving for human flourishing, requiring post-colonial approaches to education, the emphasis on culture-relevance and context cannot be overstated. It is in this spirit that these explorations have been and are being written.
Further Reading
Aristotle (2017) Politics: a new translation. Translated by C.D.C. Reeve. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing Company.
Aristotle (2023) Nicomachean ethics. 2nd edn. Translated by C.D.C. Reeve. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing Company.
Gopnik, A. (2016) The gardener and the carpenter: what the new science of child development tells us about the relationship between parents and children. London: The Bodley Head.
Nussbaum, M.C. (1997) Cultivating humanity: a classical defense of reform in liberal education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Nussbaum, M.C. (2000) Women and human development: the capabilities approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nussbaum, M.C. (2001a) The fragility of goodness: luck and ethics in Greek tragedy and philosophy. Rev. edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nussbaum, M.C. (2001b) Upheavals of thought: the intelligence of emotions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wegerif, R. (2025) Rethinking educational theory: education as expanding dialogue. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
[1] Reading list in Further Reading at the end of this post.
[2] Eudaimon: Stems from the Greek eu (good) and daimōn (spirit), translating to having a good state of being, referred to as Human Flourishing.
[3] Ancient Greek or Hellenistic philosophy (3rd century BD) that teaches self-control, rational thinking and acceptance of what is outside one’s control.
[4] Henrich, Heine, 2010