The ethics of innerness

Why empathy, responsibility and truth are interconnected

 

 

 

 

​

​

 

Introduction – Innerness as a moral dimension

What makes a person truly trustworthy? Not merely in the sense of being predictable, but in that deeper sense of the word: someone in whose presence you feel an inner calm, because something in them resonates as genuine.

 

Perhaps that is what we mean when we speak of integrity, authenticity or purity. And perhaps the source of all these qualities lies in innerness.

 

In a world dominated by strategy, appearances and surface-level communication, innerness has quietly receded into the background. We tend to think of it as a private matter — an inner chamber of emotions we can open or close at will. Yet innerness is not a decorative backdrop to our lives. It is the seat of conscience, of felt presence, of the capacity for empathy and moral discernment.  It's not something we possess, but something that flows through us.

 

A source rather than an object.

 

The German philosopher Hannah Arendt once wrote that evil in the world often does not stem from radical wickedness, but from an incapacity to think. What she meant was the inability to engage in inner dialogue, to reflect, to truly feel what it means to be human among other humans. Whoever never turns inward cannot truly encounter another.

 

Likewise, the philosopher Byung-Chul Han shows in his analyses of the achievement society how the disappearance of innerness leads to psychological and social exhaustion. When human beings start to see themselves merely as projects to be managed, they lose not only their depth but also their ethical orientation. What remains is a polished self — efficient, visible, but without a soul.

 

And this touches the heart of the matter: an ethics without roots in innerness becomes nothing more than a system of norms and rules. It does not connect, it makes no space and it does not listen. True morality only emerges when we allow ourselves to be moved — when we let the other affect us and feel the responsibility to respond.

 

That requires courage, because innerness makes us vulnerable. It opens us to pain, to guilt, to shame and to truth. Yet without it, we cannot feel empathy, bear responsibility or live truthfully. Without innerness, we become hollow shells — functioning but unreliable, present but never truly near.

 

In this essay, I want to explore what innerness means in a moral sense — beyond mystical abstraction, toward innerness as an existential reality. As the ground of empathy. As the soil from which responsibility grows. As the source of truth — not as dogma, but as a lived presence in the dialogue between self and other.

​

​

​

Empathy as a gateway to the inner world of the Other

Empathy is more than the ability to imagine what another person feels. It is a movement inward — not only within yourself, but also toward the other. It is the willingness to be moved, not just by what the other shows on the surface, but by what is felt beneath it: the unspoken, the vulnerable, the silent places where language has not yet found its way.

 

In a culture where connection is often reduced to quick words, opinions, and images, empathy is easily confused with sympathy or understanding. Yet true empathy does not seek to explain or to fix. The empathic person remains present — even when things become uncomfortable, even when it hurts.

 

Empathy is not a bridge of control, but a ground of trust.

 

The philosopher Martin Buber described this as a meeting between two subjects — I and Thou — in which the other is not reduced to an object or a function. In genuine empathy, the other is not used to affirm oneself, but is approached with openness to what lives within them. This requires the letting go of projections and a form of listening that goes beyond the ears — a listening with the soul.

  

But what happens when that access is denied? When the other reveals no inner world, only behaviour? When what reaches you is not vulnerability but defence — control, strategy, masquerade? When your subjectivity is met not with presence, but with silence, projection or coldness?

 

Then empathy begins to drift. Because empathy is relational; it needs another who is present — not as a mirror, but as an inner world. In relationships where that innerness is absent, an asymmetry arises. You feel while the other remains closed. You move while the other freezes.

 

And slowly, you begin to empty out.

 

I have known that experience — in relationships where my sensitivity was read as weakness, my depth as complexity, my longing as burden. I reached out again and again, but found no ground, no inner response — only strategy, reflection and silence, sometimes even a subtle form of contempt.  And still I stayed. Because the hunger for recognition makes empathy stubborn; you keep hoping that if you just feel enough, the other will one day open.

 

Yet empathy also requires boundaries. Not every form of closedness can be opened, not every absence can be endured. Sometimes the most empathic thing you can do is to step back — not out of coldness, but out of self-care. Because you know that your innerness is sacred and that it need not remain endlessly available, especially to those who cannot see it.

 

 

 

Responsibility as a response to what moves you

True responsibility does not begin with rules or duties, but with being moved. It begins at the moment something enters your inner world — a glance, a word, a silence — and stirs something within you. It is not a calculation or a moral script, but a felt knowing: this matters, and I must respond.

​

That is where moral action begins. You do not act because you are supposed to, but because you cannot do otherwise. You resonate with what you perceive. Your inner world is not closed off from that of the other. You are a response.

 

The philosopher Emmanuel Levinas called this the ethics of the Other. The Other calls you forth — not with arguments, but with presence, with the vulnerability of their face. The face does not ask, will you help me? It makes a moral appeal. In that appeal, you awaken as a subject capable of responsibility.

 

But this is not a vague sensitivity, not a matter of feeling everything and carrying it all. Responsibility also requires discernment. Being moved does not always mean you must act. Sometimes the right response is to refrain — not to intervene, not to fix, not to fill in. Sometimes responsibility means refusing to join the destructive dynamic of the other, even when you are affected by it.

 

In relationships where empathy is one-sided, responsibility often becomes distorted. You begin to feel responsible for the other instead of responsible to the other. You carry them instead of answering to their humanity. The difference may seem subtle, but it is essential.

 

In my own life, I have often felt responsible for the feelings of others. When someone showed pain, I would immediately move into care. When someone denied their pain, I would carry it for them. When the other lacked shame, I would feel it on their behalf. My inner world responded to everything I sensed, but somewhere in that movement, I lost myself.

I reacted, but I did not truly answer — because I forgot myself as the source of the answer.

 

Only later did I learn that real responsibility is rooted in inner truth. You can only respond to the other with integrity when you are connected to yourself — to what you feel, what you know, what you perceive and what you can and cannot carry. Otherwise, empathy becomes over-identification and responsibility turns into self-loss.

 

In that sense, responsibility is never an abstract category. It is relational, embodied and sensitive — always intertwined with truth: the truth of your experience, the truth of the situation and the truth of what you can offer without abandoning yourself.

 

 

 

Truth as lived integrity — inner and relational

Truth. The word itself sounds absolute, as if it were something that simply is — clear, stable, unambiguous. Yet anyone who lives with open eyes knows that truth is rarely that simple. It has layers, voices and shades of meaning. And still, there is something in us that recognises it instantly. It doesn’t reside in words alone, but in tone, in presence, in the way someone speaks, pauses or chooses.

 

Truth is felt. Always. 

 

Real truth is not just factual accuracy; it is lived. It flows from a place where mind and heart, body and language, feeling and conscience meet. It is congruence — not merely what is said, but that what is said aligns with who one is.

 

The psychologist Carl Rogers called this congruence: the moment when the Self that is experienced and the Self that is expressed coincide. When that happens, trust emerges. A person becomes transparent — not in a way that exposes them to misuse, but in the sense that you can see through them and recognise coherence.

 

And that, today, is rare. Because truth demands courage. It asks that you do not suppress your inner world, disguise it or arrange it strategically. It asks that you face your pain, acknowledge your shame, take responsibility and resist the impulse to hide behind certainty. Truth requires visibility — even when that visibility feels uncomfortable.

​

In relationships where this truth is absent, alienation arises. You sense that what's said does not match what's felt. You encounter words without soul. A subtle dissonance seeps in — between behaviour and intention, between what someone radiates and what they mean, between words and deeds.

 

And this dissonance corrodes something fundamental: trust.

 

I have experienced this personally — in a relationship where everything I felt was denied, inverted or neutralised. It did not always happen through blatant lies, but through strategic language, deflection, blame-shifting and projection. The truth was constantly veiled by a mist of confusion and that confusion began to erode my inner knowing, until I could barely trust myself.

 

Yet truth lives in the body — in intuition, in gut feeling, in the small shivers that run through us. When we dare to listen to these subtle signals, even when they unsettle us, we begin to reclaim reliability — both toward ourselves and toward others. You do not suddenly become perfect or invulnerable, but you become authentic.

 

Truth, then, is never merely personal; it is relational. It lives in conversation, in encounter, in the way what you express resonates with who you are. It has nothing to do with being right and everything to do with being honest.

 

Not as a strategy, but as a way of being.

 

 

​

Conclusion: Innerness as the foundation of a humane ethics

In a world where it's becoming increasingly difficult to discern what is true, whom to trust and what genuinely does good, the moral compass seems to falter. We flood one another with opinions, images, ideas and convictions — yet rarely do we listen to what lies beneath them: the source from which we speak. The inner ground from which we act, choose, stay silent or love.

 

Perhaps this is the deepest crisis of our time — the loss of innerness as a moral space.

Not innerness as private emotion or self-absorbed introspection, but as a fundamental human capacity: the ability to be moved, to reflect, to bear responsibility and to remain faithful to what resonates within as true.

 

Because empathy without innerness becomes overstimulation.
Responsibility without innerness becomes duty.
Truth without innerness becomes doctrine.

​

It is innerness that gives these words meaning — that anchors them in lived experience.

Innerness is no luxury; it is the quiet engine of every human ethics. Without it, morality becomes hollow, relationships superficial and our speaking and acting empty. But with it, something remarkable happens: a presence arises that invites others to descend into themselves as well. A ground where truth can breathe. A space where connection becomes possible — real, vulnerable and alive.

 

I believe this is what we need. Not more rules, but deeper presence. Not louder opinions, but gentler nearness. Not perfection, but trustworthiness. And I believe that every person is capable of this — if only we dare to grow still. If we dare to listen to what emerges within. If we no longer hide our inner world out of fear or shame, but learn to see it as our most powerful moral compass.

 

For a person without innerness can simulate everything — except sincerity.
And it is precisely there that our hope resides.