Jerks and empathy

As always, this was triggered by reading an article:

https://aeon.co/essays/so-you-re-surrounded-by-idiots-guess-who-the-real-jerk-is
 This article describes 'jerks' as people who 'culpably fail to appreciate the perspectives of others around them, treating them as tools to be manipulated or idiots to be dealt with rather than as moral and epistemic peers'. Jerks cannot appreciate how they might be wrong and others right, and others' wants don't register as of interest to a jerk. The author contrasts this with a 'sweetheart', who is giving, generous and merciful, before explaining that everyone is a bit of both with some examples of normal behaviour. He even provides a good explanation of why there are more jerks higher up any perceived social hierarchy. Much of what he says is an accurate characterization of a certain type of person.
 But the author goes wrong when he starts to split mercy and 'hard moralising principle' as opposites, with mercy and sympathy being essential to morality. And his derision for caring about moral or political principles, because this takes the place of genuine concern for people, is both ridiculous and offensive.
 Finally, there is a sharp distinction between hypocritical disrespect for other people (faceless fools are always shambling along, late for meetings, but I am late because I am too important and busy) and hard moralising principle (Being late is rude, I make lots of effort never to be late but no-one makes the same effort for me).
The author's constant references to 'self-rationalization' strike me as a sneaky way of imitating the old argument that 'if it doesn't agree with the Church, it must be unholy and deceitful, and the more persuasive it is the better evidence that is that it is the work of the devil'. You cannot beat such arguments; if you win, your persuasiveness proves you wrong, but if you lose, you've lost.
I understand his feelings on this. His 'sweethearts' can be pictured as nice, gentle people who do good as they see it, whereas jerks maintain their hard principles that are impossible because they flout them and are hypocritical.
But he assumes that it is impossible to live up to strong principles. If that is really the case, he is saying that original sin exists, since we can never be truly moral beings. I disagree. Many people have hard principles because they get very close to following them all the time and see that most people don't bother.
He suggests that it is a symptom of a jerk to think 'these people queuing in the post office are a mass of fools; why should I wait while they bumble with their requests'. And I know some examples I'd agree are jerks. But if someone holds up the queue when a counter is free, or, after waiting for 10 minutes only starts counting out small change when the clerk asks for payment, a harm has been committed. It is a symptom of a jerk not to consider others, by the author's own definition, and that includes the people behind you.  Those people are right to be annoyed by the jerks in front.
Similarly, when I get held up on the Tube, as I often am, I am frustrated by the way that people spread out to fill the corridors, at how people (even strangers) will walk at the same speed side by side, blocking the path for anyone who wants to get past, and at how people who walk extremely slowly nonetheless make a lot of effort to be first off the train... just to hold up the rest of us. Yes, even fast-moving people take up space and it takes time for fast-moving people to get through bottlenecks. But it's the thoughtlessness of others that makes me think of them as worthless idiots, and I'm very accepting of people who get in the way, but know what they've done and apologize. Everyone makes mistakes, or trips over etc. occasionally. I don't think that makes me either a hypocritical jerk or a merciful sweetheart. It just means he has misunderstood who the jerks really are. As the author puts it, 'entering a subway is an exercise in nudging past dumb schmoes'. But he thinks that the jerk has such a thought; I posit that the thought is about jerks.
 All around us people are thoughtless in myriad small ways. Pedestrians step in front of cyclists assuming that they'll go around but not thinking about who has right of way or about whether a cyclist would prefer to cycle on the smooth road rather than go over the rough patch left for him. Commuters idle along station corridors without thinking if someone behind might like to move faster into the gap ahead. Cars cut cyclists up in case the cyclist will slow them down. Cyclists jump lights, scaring pedestrians and risking accidents. Colleagues are late for meetings. Colleagues don't wash up in the kitchen. The list of small annoyances is endless.
 It isn't right and proper to be a merciful sweetheart and accept and forgive these transgressions. These are the actions of jerks, and we need to call them out, not be shamed into thinking we are jerks if we care about them. The author implies that we all do this, so we should accept others doing it. I disagree. I don't do these things, and when someone finds another example of rudeness that I do do, I will be ashamed and appalled... but you can be sure I will quietly work hard to change myself. If being a jerk is a bad thing, as he thinks, then we shouldn't accept it because we are all jerks. We should fight it, and be friends to each other by pointing it out.
 This brings me nicely back to 'hard moralising principle'. The author pictures a world where everyone is a bit jerkish and has given up on principles. Instead we're all a bit kind, generous and empathetic whilst also being thoughtless and rude, because kindness and empathy are targetted feelings. You aren't kind to someone you're not even thinking about.
 But the true heart of morality, in direct contrast to the author's assertion, and the belief of many philosophers, is not mercy and empathy. It is precisely in hard principle. Morality takes effort. You need to think about others and show concern for them. It is not enough to see me with my disabled mother and offer to help her reach goods in the shop. What matters is that you don't block the wheelchair's path when we're behind you, because a wheelchair can't squeeze past a thoughtless person.
Snape might have not been very empathetic when he abused Harry Potter for not doing well in his mind-protection tutorials, but his principles were absolutely right. Harry needed to do those lessons, and his apathy cost Sirius his life. Snape could have saved that life if Harry had been less of a jerk. 
 Jerks might be hypocritical, but they're half-way towards being moral because at least they think about principles. People who thoughtlessly rely on kindness and empathy are indeed foolish idiots. We have brains in order to think, but people prefer not to bother. Those people deserve to be called idiots.

I know that personal relationships appeal more to conservatives, and principles more to progressives. But even conservatives must agree that grand systems can build complex consequences from many small units or interactions. That's the basis of calculus and free markets, after all, neither of which are particularly left-wing. Principles are what save us from a chaotic mass of injustice and protect people from harm. It's not a morally culpable failing to care about them, nor morally laudable always to extend mercy for those who break them. Mercy, by definition, must accept that a penalty is expected, and that means that the penalty must usually be applied, or there is no mercy; just injustice. Mercy is for the powerful, who can get away with it. Enjoining individuals to be merciful is a manipulative way of asking them to accept injustices done to them... and believe it's right for them to do so. When that message starts to go to the poor and powerless, and is used to protect systematic suffering, it becomes not only an intellectual mistake, but an insidious way to make the world a nastier place.

We need less individual mercy and reliance on empathy, and a lot more hard moralising principle and the thought that goes behind it. And if that makes me a jerk, then so what? I'm a jerk. I don't look at things from the perspective of the person in my mind at the moment, or act on my immediate empathy... because I am thinking of everyone's perspective, and that requires wider principles. If seeing more perspectives is better, then principles are best of all.

c.f autism, politeness, courtesy,
https://aeon.co/opinions/what-every-dictator-knows-young-men-are-natural-fanatics?utm_source=pocket&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=pockethits