THE LIMITS OF EMPATHY: JUSTICE, MORALITY, AND PSYCHOLOGICAL COMPLEXITY IN AGATHA CHRISTIE’S MURDER ON THE ORIENT EXPRESS

Abstract

This paper explores the role of empathy in Agatha Christie’s Murder on the Orient Express (1934), emphasizing its intricate relationship with moral reasoning and justice. The analysis primarily draws on the theoretical insights of Norma Deitch Feshbach, while also incorporating the perspectives of Jean Decety and of D. L. Paulhus and K. M. Williams, in order to capture the multifaceted dimensions of empathy. The novel presents empathy on both the individual and the collective level, shaping characters’ motivations and influencing readers’ perceptions. Hercule Poirot’s investigative success relies on cognitive empathy—his capacity to understand the emotions of suspects without affective involvement—yet his ultimate moral dilemma reveals the presence of affective empathy. This inner conflict highlights the tension between legal justice and human compassion. The collective empathy of the twelve conspirators, bound by shared grief over Daisy Armstrong’s murder, demonstrates how emotional connectedness can legitimize morally ambiguous actions. Their calculated orchestration of the crime reflects Machiavellian tendencies, as they suppress affective empathy to achieve their aim. The intersection of empathy with traits of the Dark Triad—narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy—adds psychological depth to the narrative, illustrating how cognitive empathy can serve both understanding and manipulation. By examining Poirot’s ethical conflict, the conspirators’ collective response, and the novel’s effect on readerly empathy, this study argues that Murder on the Orient Express transcends the traditional detective genre. Christie portrays empathy not as a purely compassionate force but as a complex, morally ambivalent phenomenon that shapes human behavior and challenges readers to reconsider the boundaries of justice and the ethical implications of empathy.