I think his point is relatively obvious: Empathy is not a substitute for analysis of moral consequences (societal consequences). Understanding how someone feels

I think his point is relatively obvious: Empathy is not a substitute for analysis of moral consequences (societal consequences). Understanding how someone feels should not guide the way we evaluate their actions or decisions, the trite example being rather evil people in history genuinely believed what they were doing was good - if you just "looked from their shoes" you might altogether miss the evilness of what they were doing. Many people claim that without empathy there would be moral chaos. They are equivalent to people who claim that without religion there would be moral chaos. Empathy is not the basis of morality.