As a historian, empathy is recommended; moral judgement is sometimes frowned upon as a weak substitute for historical judgment. You need to understand the past on its own terms; place people in their context. In this way, you get a more accurate view of humanity. That's the professional consensus. But as you suggest, it can push ethics to the margin; and that can tilt skepticism into cynicism. Empathy can promote understanding but it cannot substitute for judgment. Thanks for a thought provoking piece.