In Gaucho Poetry, Borges points out that there isn't a single camel in the Quran. And he justifies this by saying that for the "writers" and readers of the Quran, camels were a natural and obvious element, and that's why they were absent.

A forger or a Western writer would fill the Quran with camels because, always following Borges, the camel is for them an almost fantastic element: it isn't part of their daily lives, it's not an element that's part of their lives, hence they need to name it constantly.

The same, I believe, happens with empathy. The more they point to it, name it, and brandish it, the less present it is in the real and concrete life of the person who invokes it.
Just as an Arab doesn't live talking about camels, the empathic person doesn't speak of empathy.
If I talk about camels, it's because there are no camels. If I talk about empathy, it's because that word fascinates me because it's exotic: it doesn't belong to my everyday existence.
Let's empathize. There's no need to talk so much about camels as if we were the moral champions of the desert. The ethical champions of life.