Note: There was no highlighted section of the video for me, so I just watched chapters 8, 9, 10, and 11.
"An expansion of empathy" is what Hunt calls the period in late 1700's. This proposition suggests that there existed a deficiency of empathy prior to this period. It seems evident to me that empathy has always existed within us, as humans are biologically empathetic creatures, but perhaps we began to act more upon this empathy during the period which Hunt describes. She also brings up the quote from Jefferson (love him) who said that fiction produces a desire for moral obligation more effectively than history. But is this not dangerous? If fiction has the power to encourage moral obligation towards a certain good, this process can be abused through rhetoric.
More on the topic of human rights, Hunt describes that reading authors like Richardson and Rousseau thrust the reader into a new perspective that cultivated empathy, necessary for the advancement of human rights. It is my personal view is that human rights arose from the writings on natural law from St. Augustine, St. Aquinas, and Locke. Hunt would likely argue that these works are not as efficient at cultivating empathy as they do not make the emotional appeal she talks about. But it seems to me that while the use of emotion to cultivate empathy may bring about a sort of short-term empathy, I'm not convinced. After the emotional experience of reading such a book wears off, what are we left with? I think we all have had the experience of a book that changes the way we think about something, but after a while the initial reaction wears off. I prefer to see human rights as an objective science, devoid of emotion. But I cannot speak for everyone. Perhaps it may be necessary for some people to be emotionally shocked into supporting human rights.