That is, no consistent system of axioms whose theorems can be listed by an effective procedure is capable of proving all truths about moral actions. Either moral systems are complete, or they are consistent. Consistency and completeness are requirements for optimization, so the idea of moral optimization is dead on arrival for me. It's simply not possible, and like the author one will drive themselves to insanity over trying.
Edit: I made an unfortunately error in the original version - accidentally mixing up consistent with inconsistent. My apologies for the confusion.
That's a good way to phrase it, and something I agree with. I'd heard the phrase "epistemological modesty" a while back, and it goes nicely with this - I think a great deal of harm is done in this world by people looking at other people suffering and either convincing themselves or being convinced that there's a greater systemic reason why those people need to suffer. Epistemological modesty suggests whatever grand designs we're contemplating are likely wrong, moral incompletionism suggests they can never be fully right, and both together suggest it's immoral to ignore suffering today because of some imagined future for some other people.
> moral incompletionism suggests they can never be fully right
Yes. My conclusions are twofold.
1. Attempting to create a complete and consistent moral framework is a fools errand. There will always be either moral gaps (cases that are outside the moral framework's ability to judge), or moral inconsistencies (cases where we have two incompatible moral conclusions).
2. Attempting to render a moral framework invalid by either pointing out its incompleteness or its inconsistency is not meaningful - since all moral frameworks are susceptible to one or both of these flaws. Therefore our justification for deciding the virtues of a moral framework cannot be that it is consistent nor complete - rather it has to be something else entirely.
We have to accept that there are unknowable or conflicting moral facts and each of these results in moral ambiguity either by absence or excess. This is independent of any particular moral framework (Yes even yours dear reader).
> I think a great deal of harm is done in this world by people looking at other people suffering and either convincing themselves or being convinced that there's a greater systemic reason why those people need to suffer.
Oh wow, this puts words to an insight I've had and lived by for a long time.
I think I'm not just a moral incompletist but also a moral inconsistentist.
My take on the trolley problem is that while it's "best" in some sense to throw the lever, it's not wrong not to. And generally the goal should be "tend towards greater than zero" instead of "maximize morality points". Missed opportunities for moral behavior count as 0 and carry that neutral emotional valence instead of being a negative thing to agonize over.
Those are not moral systems, they're sentences with undefined meaning. "Good" and "bad" need to be defined, they can't exist independently, like some intrinsic property of the universe (say, like the fine-structure constant). One could say that's the essential purpose of any moral system: to define what "good" and "bad" mean.
> Either moral systems are complete, or they are inconsistent.
That is interesting. I will be meditating if I can fully subscribe… maybe, but still not sure. What I can say, is that when I was 20 I thought I could clearly say what was right or wrong, then when I was 30, I had to change everything, then with 40… so yeah…
Good point. People tend to say we mellow with age, I think it's that we have more experience that can help us grow more wise. For myself, in my mid-20s, I became a Christian and fell into the trap of religious perfectionism. In my mid-30s I began to see some cracks in what I was being told. (skipping forward) I now understand, in my mid-60s, that God doesn't demand perfectionism, but effort. When I fail, I just get back up and continue to believe that I'll do better next time, knowing there will likely be several more next times.
I like this as a joke, but if your moral questions involve natural numbers in any way and your moral framework does not accommodate Peano arithmetic, then it is incomplete. :)
Belief systems generally lack properties of identity to prove anything by logic or rational method.
The first thing you need to prove anything is an objective unique definition, which isn't generally possible in the realm of the mind for all people, because we generally lack knowing or sufficient perception, making comparisons subjective.
There could be optimization towards minimizing objectively destructive acts (evil), and the blindness associated with evil people , through rational objective practices and measures. Evil people being those who commit evil acts while blinding themselves in acts of self-violation, to the consequences of their actions; repeating them.
Quite a lot of people today are no longer capable and fall to delusion because they were indoctrinated with false education and frameworks of thinking following a critical turn.
When the insane are running an insane asylum, everyone in there dies from starvation, its just a matter of time waiting for the right circumstances.
If you spend all your time worrying about how to be a good person, chances are you're not being a good person. Just go do nice things. Volunteer somewhere. Be of service. And stop worrying so much
Last Saturday, myself and two other firefighters managed to find a woman lost in a maze of 40+ miles of trails. Her hip had dislocated, she could not move. The temperatures were in the upper 20s (F) (-3C or so) with serious windchill amidst 35mph/56kph wind gusts. It was extremely dark. We stayed with her and tried to keep her as warm as possible until a UTV arrived to extricate her. I was home by 01:00, after 4hrs outside under the stars.
In the end we didn't really do much at all, but it felt like one of the most meaningful nights of my entire life.
Wouldn’t she have died from exposure if you hadn’t found her?
There’s a beautiful quote from a 2019 episode of the podcast The Anthropocene Reviewed, Auld Lang Syne. John Green recounts some advice he got while in college and working as a chaplain at a children’s hospital: “Don’t just do something. Stand there.”
That is a epic story. What gear were you in, were you in structural gear or something else? Just the thought of hiking in my structural gear gives me blisters.
100% ... In my life, I accepted a while back that I don't have to solve world hunger or cure cancer in order to be a good person - just be as courteous to others as I can; focus on the little things. For example, I always park my car in the back of parking lots (or otherwise far away) because I'm perfectly capable of walking, while others might struggle. Is that gonna get me a Nobel prize? Certainly not. But I like to think that, sometimes, maybe once per year, a person who struggles with mobility, like an elderly person or someone with an injury, is gonna struggle just a little bit less because I parked out back. No one's gonna build a statue of me for this, but if it helps just one person, that's a good thing. And it's really not that difficult for me to walk an extra 50 yards. LOL
"Do no harm" is a far better precept than "be courteous". Lots of harm has been done by courteous people that I'm sure were perfectly lovely to their inner circle and local neighborhood.
I selfishly park in the back because I hate circling the lot looking for a spot. It may/nor be more time efficient on average, but I do not have to deal with that frustration just to save a few steps.
And in your case, there's probably going to be other people that park somewhere they shouldn't, but... that's their choice and ultimately their moral burden. Like not returning shopping trolleys.
I'm crippled and have a handicap tag for my car, but I'll still park in the back, depending on the store. Trying to get out of handicap spots at Target, Trader Joes, or Costco is always a nightmare because people have no patience.
This is a good habit for any able bodied person to get into. Not only can it help out someone who needs a closer spot, it doesn't even cost you time on average since you're less likely to be held up by traffic getting in or out of the spot. Plus adding a little more walking into the day is healthy.
I always shake my head at healthy people who block the traffic lane for minutes waiting for someone to load groceries and free up a specific spot, when there are dozens of open spots 40 ft away. Their laziness isn't even saving them any time or aggravation.
Why is it that only "doing nice things" or "volunteering your time" makes you a good person? Does a traffic engineer not better the lives of others? What about a farmer? Where does the food served in a soup kitchen come from if not from the sweat of the farmer's brow? The shelter over everyone's head only exists because truckers transported the materials. Simply existing in a way that isn't purely self-serving is often enough to be hugely helpful to others.
Note that this is a bit of a straw man argument because the person you replied to didn't say "only" doing nice things makes you a good person. These are also ways to be a good person. The other is being a farmer, but only if you treat your staff and land and/or animals with respect and longevity in mind instead of capitalist exploitative min/maxing.
"Do no evil" is a good adage to live by, instead of "be a good person". In a lot of cases, doing nothing is the way to be a good person.
I'm somewhat certain that people who worry about whether they're good people are usually better than people who don't think much about it.
I've not met many people who thoughtfully engage with the question of how to live a moral life, only to just not put any of it into practice. I've met plenty of people who barely think about it, and don't consider it a question of much interest.
However, those that say / claim / behave like they are good people can be called out for hypocrisy, e.g. some people of the clergy, politicians, celebrities etc.
The root of why that doesn't work is because you're mostly thinking about yourself still. "am >>I<< a good person?". Good people spend more time thinking about others, how to make them feel better, how to help. Obviously there's a balance to be had, as you can end up burning out from never taking your own needs into consideration.
But if you volunteer someone with the goal of being nice, are you actually being nice or just trying to accrue brownie points? I mean to the beneficiaries of your work it honestly doesn't matter what your motivation is.
i think its the opposite. if you do actions that you consider to be good without considering how to be good more effectively, you probably just like the feeling of thinking of yourself as a good person more than actually being a good person
doing good is less about how happy it makes you feel and more about, well, how much you do good
> Maybe it's me, but I don't think being a good person really requires that much thought.
It doesn't, but some especially sadistic people want to make it so, and similarly chastise & ostracize you for not following their diktats to ( (the letter XOR the spirit) AND (the letter XNOR the spirit) ).
Cynically, the more you think about being a good person, the more superior you can feel to others who don't think about it as much. This interpretation fits with explanations for Trump's win, that intellectuals like Vox readers have become detached from common concerns and also smug.
I always tell my daughter to be a kind person because there is currently an oversupply of assholes. I try to compliment someone on something whenever I go out and about. I like your hair, I like your shirt, etc. It's the simple things.
The author and their anecdotes seem like compulsive behavior/thinking. They'll hopefully get over it once life beats them down a bit more. Just be good to people, don't over think it.
> I always tell my daughter to be a kind person because there is currently an oversupply of assholes.
I'm sorry to hear that. I don't want to come across as harsh, but your approach/wording seems condescending, egotistical, and ultimately an empty way to live. Wise people learn by observing others (as the saying goes), but allowing others to dictate who you are reflects a lack of character IMO.
I'm guessing from your reply that you don't think its important to emphasise kindness as part of supporting your childrens' growth. If that is the case, what do you emphasise if anything?
"Being a good person" has been a theme in my entire adult life. I'm a member of an organization that stresses personal improvement (amongst other things).
"Being a good person" can vary, by culture and context.
For example, some cultures prescribe brusqueness, and direct communication, while other cultures want us to always "beat around the bush," before coming to the point. Think New York City, versus Richmond, Virginia.
These are just communication styles, but they can be interpreted as attacking, or dishonesty. In either case, it's entirely possible for someone to label the other as "not-nice," when the opposite may actually be the case.
I have found that fundamental Empathy, and reducing my own self-centeredness helps. Accepting others, and always looking for the good, before the bad, has helped me.
And, as has been pointed out, the older I get, the less simple my relationships are, with others.
> For example, some cultures prescribe brusqueness, and direct communication, while other cultures want us to always "beat around the bush," before coming to the point. Think New York City, versus Richmond, Virginia.
I've been accused of having "pathological empathy" before [1], and to this day I refuse to accept that empathy is a weakness.
Being able to fairly easily put myself in someone else's shoes is pretty much the only thing I actually like about myself. I feel like part of what defines us as a species is learning how to understand people who do not deserve us to understand them.
In 2023 my iPhone was stolen (story is parent to the linked comment). They eventually caught the kid who stole the phone, and I refused to press charges. Pretty much everyone thought I was dumb for doing that, but I didn't see it that way; I didn't see any good coming from throwing a 17 year old kid into jail, and I remember how stupid I was when I was 17.
I doubt he's going to have some Les Misérables moment and turn his life around, but I would hope that if I were caught for something stupid when I was 17 someone else would have extended me the same benefit of the doubt. I don't regret it.
It is not. But also, empathy is not the same thing as kindness.
Empathy, as you mentioned, is the ability to put oneself in someone else's shoes. To imagine what is like to be other.
Fraudsters, cheaters, psycopaths. All of these are great empaths. They understand others in a deep level. But they're not kind, they are ruthless.
> I feel like part of what defines us as a species is learning how to understand people who do not deserve us to understand them.
Here you are talking about kindness. I think similarly.
I also believe this is correlated with creativity and collaboration skills. To me, there is something about the inner act of kind understanding that seems to be a _prerequisite_ for advanced communication. Totally out of my ass, I'm no psychologist.
> I would hope that if I were caught for something stupid when I was 17 someone else would have extended me the same benefit of the doubt
Not only you understood that, but you were able to communicate something to the kid that is remarkably uncommunicable. The kind act is also a kind message, you _meant it_ as a message somehow. Not all empaths want or can do that.
>I've been accused of having "pathological empathy" before [1], and to this day I refuse to accept that empathy is a weakness.
To put it in a different context, the psychologist Paul Bloom wrote an interesting book titled "Against Empathy." He makes a distinction between "emotional empathy" and "cognitive empathy". He is an advocate of the latter, while acknowledging that the former can lead to many sub-optimal outcomes.
Those with a lot of introspection can do this, and it can be a benefit to yourself and others when used correctly.
In my opinion, you were dumb for doing that, but I can't say I haven't done something similar. Given my experience, I wouldn't do this again.
My experience involved a crazed homeowner in their 40s shooting at me standing on the public sidewalk for taking pictures of the neighborhood for a realtor, this was around 2009. They thought I worked for their mortgage lender who was foreclosing.
The wood fence took most of the damage, but there were kids playing in the paved cul-de-sac right behind where I was standing. No serious injuries, thankfully, and the police confiscated the firearm. I didn't press charges, because I empathized as my family had people who lost their entire retirements in the fallout from the market and that was real fresh.
I would press charges today having had that experience (and others). Very few people change themselves unless they are forced to through isolated introspection or negative circumstance. Being young, or stupid, or a victim, isn't a defensible justification. Its letting them off the hook for their actions without consequence.
I really resonate with this sentiment and want to share a similar story.
Where I live, supermarkets have a reception where you can leave your belongings while you're shopping. The employee in charge gives you a numbered card that matches the drawer in which they stored your things (all of this is handled by the employee) and off you go. No keys or anything, only a drawer with a card.
A few months ago I left my backpack at a one of these. 20 minutes later, as I was about to leave, I went to return the card in order to retrieve my stuff and to my surprise they gave me someone else's backpack.
I kindly asked what happened and after the manager had gone to check the CCTV footage they told me they gave my backpack to another customer. The problem? The numbered card didn't match the drawer and no one had realised. And there I was with the stranger's backpack and no way to contact him.
I agreed to wait until this man came back to return my stuff so we could switch backpacks (he had to; his work ID was on his backpack). I went home, told my family what happened, and they asked me what I told the supermarket staff. "Nothing, I'm just gonna wait" I said, and they rambled on about how I should have yelled at them and made a scene and maybe even made them fire the employee that grabbed my backpack.
I didn't do any of that because I precisely didn't want them to fire the poor minimum wage worker. Besides, I understood all of this happened because the system of numbered card/open drawer is completely broken. It wasn't relly the employee's fault; although it was his mistake not checking the numbers not matching. Yelling wouldn't have fixed anything.
I got my backpack back the next morning. No one was fired. The supermarket manager didn't even apologize for the inconvenience though, but ok.
Do they throw 17 yos in jail, where you live? If so, do they do that over stealing a phone? If so... maybe it would be more moral in stepping into a political career and try to change some laws?
> I didn't see any good coming from throwing a 17 year old kid into jail, and I remember how stupid I was when I was 17.
For example, being forced to confront the consequences of their actions at 17 when the punishment is lesser and likely to include diversion or similar might have prevented them from committing a similar crime when older and receiving a harsher penalty — which in your empathy, you ensured would happen by refusing to punish them. Their practice and willingness to use force, as described in your referenced comment, indicates this isn’t their first time committing such a crime. By normalizing that crime wouldn’t be punished, you created a worse situation.
You can see similar unfolding at scale in major US cities, where crime (particularly theft) skyrocketed — and intensified, eg the recent subway burnings in NYC. Without enforcing norms, they break down.
A good heuristic for me is “what happens when everybody behaves that way?” In this case, it leads to society degrading.
> I'm a member of an organization that stresses personal improvement (amongst other things).
Do you mind if I ask what kind of organization? I’ve struggled to find active groups focused on values/principles instead of hobbies. Or maybe by organization, you mean work?
some religious communities may be what you are looking for. unfortunately not all of them. some just tell you that you should improve but leave you to figure out how all on your own.
> they can be interpreted as attacking, or weakness
I think a more constructive way to look at it is one style puts a higher cost on wasting time than and the other style puts a higher cost on appearing unsympathetic. I call it "country style" (putting more value on appearing empathetic than being time-efficient) and "city style" (the opposite). People who grow up in one environment or the other often have trouble transitioning to the other simply because they don't understand that there are different quality metrics in play.
The Great(est) Command(ment) is to love God with all our being, and then to love our neighbors as ourself, not more, not less.
Being kind, generous, forgiving, helpful, and compassionate are some of the ways we can love people, and should, in order to be a good person who reaps happiness in their life. God does not force us to do this, and freely allows us to choose each virtue's corresponding vice, if we wish, instead.
God would, however, prefer us to treat each other well and form loving societies, but our ignorance of what good even is, as well as or selfishnesses that rebel against lovingly curious attitudes and behaviors, are preventing our moving towards such positive self-evolution.
We all have the choice to embark on becoming filled with love towards each other; a person does not need God's help to choose to be good by embracing a more virtuous life that cares for others, but the Creator just might be essential for our becoming actually transformed into a really, really good person. In fact, connecting with the Ultimate Loner just might be an integral part of what is possible in the human experience.
And I'm using "just might" as a big ol' hint that that is actually the truth of our reality, which is exactly what it is, my friends.
The choice to seek, learn, and believe the truth is everyone's human right. We each exercise that right every moment of every day, for good or ill, in loving care or selfish callousness.
I was raised very loosely Lutheran (Christian). We barely went to church and stopped entirely after I was confirmed. I practice it exactly 0% now and have never in my adult life.
However I feel like something got cooked into me, and maybe even my parents, that gives me a bit of guidance here. I can't explain it but I feel like I have a foundation that is preventing me from feeling the empty nihilism that plagues a lot of folks.
Christianity teaches we are all children of God, brothers and sisters with equal dignity and respect and heirs to a heavenly kingdom.
We reject the Trolley problem. We reject the idea of starving sailors on a deserted island should draw lots and eat one of their own.
To argue otherwise is to agree with what we decried about ancient societies. Sacrificing children/prisoners/slaves to Moloch for own benefit is the sure path to hell.
Readit News
That is, no consistent system of axioms whose theorems can be listed by an effective procedure is capable of proving all truths about moral actions. Either moral systems are complete, or they are consistent. Consistency and completeness are requirements for optimization, so the idea of moral optimization is dead on arrival for me. It's simply not possible, and like the author one will drive themselves to insanity over trying.
Edit: I made an unfortunately error in the original version - accidentally mixing up consistent with inconsistent. My apologies for the confusion.
Yes. My conclusions are twofold.
1. Attempting to create a complete and consistent moral framework is a fools errand. There will always be either moral gaps (cases that are outside the moral framework's ability to judge), or moral inconsistencies (cases where we have two incompatible moral conclusions).
2. Attempting to render a moral framework invalid by either pointing out its incompleteness or its inconsistency is not meaningful - since all moral frameworks are susceptible to one or both of these flaws. Therefore our justification for deciding the virtues of a moral framework cannot be that it is consistent nor complete - rather it has to be something else entirely.
We have to accept that there are unknowable or conflicting moral facts and each of these results in moral ambiguity either by absence or excess. This is independent of any particular moral framework (Yes even yours dear reader).
Is that the "just world hypothesis" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_fallacy ?
Eg, DIE as a justification for systemic antisemitism in employment and education.
I think I'm not just a moral incompletist but also a moral inconsistentist.
My take on the trolley problem is that while it's "best" in some sense to throw the lever, it's not wrong not to. And generally the goal should be "tend towards greater than zero" instead of "maximize morality points". Missed opportunities for moral behavior count as 0 and carry that neutral emotional valence instead of being a negative thing to agonize over.
So you mean "incomplete or inconsistent"? It sounds like this is what you meant.
Then I disagree. Two examples of a complete and consistent (and computable) moral system:
* everything is good
* everything is evil
That is interesting. I will be meditating if I can fully subscribe… maybe, but still not sure. What I can say, is that when I was 20 I thought I could clearly say what was right or wrong, then when I was 30, I had to change everything, then with 40… so yeah…
The first thing you need to prove anything is an objective unique definition, which isn't generally possible in the realm of the mind for all people, because we generally lack knowing or sufficient perception, making comparisons subjective.
There could be optimization towards minimizing objectively destructive acts (evil), and the blindness associated with evil people , through rational objective practices and measures. Evil people being those who commit evil acts while blinding themselves in acts of self-violation, to the consequences of their actions; repeating them.
Quite a lot of people today are no longer capable and fall to delusion because they were indoctrinated with false education and frameworks of thinking following a critical turn.
When the insane are running an insane asylum, everyone in there dies from starvation, its just a matter of time waiting for the right circumstances.
In the end we didn't really do much at all, but it felt like one of the most meaningful nights of my entire life.
There’s a beautiful quote from a 2019 episode of the podcast The Anthropocene Reviewed, Auld Lang Syne. John Green recounts some advice he got while in college and working as a chaplain at a children’s hospital: “Don’t just do something. Stand there.”
(Edit to correct spelling: Nobel, not Noble. LOL)
I always shake my head at healthy people who block the traffic lane for minutes waiting for someone to load groceries and free up a specific spot, when there are dozens of open spots 40 ft away. Their laziness isn't even saving them any time or aggravation.
You’re basically saying the same thing. “Doing nice things” just gets you in the mindset of helping others, which many people don’t actively do.
And obviously it’s possible to be a bad person who still works in a job that does some good in the world.
"Do no evil" is a good adage to live by, instead of "be a good person". In a lot of cases, doing nothing is the way to be a good person.
I've not met many people who thoughtfully engage with the question of how to live a moral life, only to just not put any of it into practice. I've met plenty of people who barely think about it, and don't consider it a question of much interest.
So no, I don't think this is where a lot of EAs go wrong.
doing good is less about how happy it makes you feel and more about, well, how much you do good
It doesn't, but some especially sadistic people want to make it so, and similarly chastise & ostracize you for not following their diktats to ( (the letter XOR the spirit) AND (the letter XNOR the spirit) ).
The author and their anecdotes seem like compulsive behavior/thinking. They'll hopefully get over it once life beats them down a bit more. Just be good to people, don't over think it.
My grandpa used to say, "There are more horses' asses than there are horses."
Looks like there's a history around that quote: https://quoteinvestigator.com/2024/11/15/horses-ass/
And if you can't do that, just ask people how are they doing.
I say always that, and also of stupids, and the 2 are extremely difficult to tell apart.
I'm sorry to hear that. I don't want to come across as harsh, but your approach/wording seems condescending, egotistical, and ultimately an empty way to live. Wise people learn by observing others (as the saying goes), but allowing others to dictate who you are reflects a lack of character IMO.
>I don't want to come across as harsh
Found one!
Deleted Comment
"Being a good person" can vary, by culture and context.
For example, some cultures prescribe brusqueness, and direct communication, while other cultures want us to always "beat around the bush," before coming to the point. Think New York City, versus Richmond, Virginia.
These are just communication styles, but they can be interpreted as attacking, or dishonesty. In either case, it's entirely possible for someone to label the other as "not-nice," when the opposite may actually be the case.
I have found that fundamental Empathy, and reducing my own self-centeredness helps. Accepting others, and always looking for the good, before the bad, has helped me.
And, as has been pointed out, the older I get, the less simple my relationships are, with others.
Askers vs. Guessers - a fun spectrum to think about, once you realize it exists: https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2010/05/askers-...
[0] https://ask.metafilter.com/55153/Whats-the-middle-ground-bet...
Being able to fairly easily put myself in someone else's shoes is pretty much the only thing I actually like about myself. I feel like part of what defines us as a species is learning how to understand people who do not deserve us to understand them.
In 2023 my iPhone was stolen (story is parent to the linked comment). They eventually caught the kid who stole the phone, and I refused to press charges. Pretty much everyone thought I was dumb for doing that, but I didn't see it that way; I didn't see any good coming from throwing a 17 year old kid into jail, and I remember how stupid I was when I was 17.
I doubt he's going to have some Les Misérables moment and turn his life around, but I would hope that if I were caught for something stupid when I was 17 someone else would have extended me the same benefit of the doubt. I don't regret it.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38906469
It is not. But also, empathy is not the same thing as kindness.
Empathy, as you mentioned, is the ability to put oneself in someone else's shoes. To imagine what is like to be other.
Fraudsters, cheaters, psycopaths. All of these are great empaths. They understand others in a deep level. But they're not kind, they are ruthless.
> I feel like part of what defines us as a species is learning how to understand people who do not deserve us to understand them.
Here you are talking about kindness. I think similarly.
I also believe this is correlated with creativity and collaboration skills. To me, there is something about the inner act of kind understanding that seems to be a _prerequisite_ for advanced communication. Totally out of my ass, I'm no psychologist.
> I would hope that if I were caught for something stupid when I was 17 someone else would have extended me the same benefit of the doubt
Not only you understood that, but you were able to communicate something to the kid that is remarkably uncommunicable. The kind act is also a kind message, you _meant it_ as a message somehow. Not all empaths want or can do that.
It's really important for me to feel empathy for others. It is not the same as weakness.
I was always told that it's really important to understand our enemies, and that often includes admitting that they are human, and have human motives.
That's not the same as being weak.
I've also been told "If you want to understand rats, talk to an exterminator."
To put it in a different context, the psychologist Paul Bloom wrote an interesting book titled "Against Empathy." He makes a distinction between "emotional empathy" and "cognitive empathy". He is an advocate of the latter, while acknowledging that the former can lead to many sub-optimal outcomes.
In my opinion, you were dumb for doing that, but I can't say I haven't done something similar. Given my experience, I wouldn't do this again.
My experience involved a crazed homeowner in their 40s shooting at me standing on the public sidewalk for taking pictures of the neighborhood for a realtor, this was around 2009. They thought I worked for their mortgage lender who was foreclosing.
The wood fence took most of the damage, but there were kids playing in the paved cul-de-sac right behind where I was standing. No serious injuries, thankfully, and the police confiscated the firearm. I didn't press charges, because I empathized as my family had people who lost their entire retirements in the fallout from the market and that was real fresh.
I would press charges today having had that experience (and others). Very few people change themselves unless they are forced to through isolated introspection or negative circumstance. Being young, or stupid, or a victim, isn't a defensible justification. Its letting them off the hook for their actions without consequence.
Where I live, supermarkets have a reception where you can leave your belongings while you're shopping. The employee in charge gives you a numbered card that matches the drawer in which they stored your things (all of this is handled by the employee) and off you go. No keys or anything, only a drawer with a card.
A few months ago I left my backpack at a one of these. 20 minutes later, as I was about to leave, I went to return the card in order to retrieve my stuff and to my surprise they gave me someone else's backpack.
I kindly asked what happened and after the manager had gone to check the CCTV footage they told me they gave my backpack to another customer. The problem? The numbered card didn't match the drawer and no one had realised. And there I was with the stranger's backpack and no way to contact him.
I agreed to wait until this man came back to return my stuff so we could switch backpacks (he had to; his work ID was on his backpack). I went home, told my family what happened, and they asked me what I told the supermarket staff. "Nothing, I'm just gonna wait" I said, and they rambled on about how I should have yelled at them and made a scene and maybe even made them fire the employee that grabbed my backpack.
I didn't do any of that because I precisely didn't want them to fire the poor minimum wage worker. Besides, I understood all of this happened because the system of numbered card/open drawer is completely broken. It wasn't relly the employee's fault; although it was his mistake not checking the numbers not matching. Yelling wouldn't have fixed anything.
I got my backpack back the next morning. No one was fired. The supermarket manager didn't even apologize for the inconvenience though, but ok.
Be kind.
Do they throw 17 yos in jail, where you live? If so, do they do that over stealing a phone? If so... maybe it would be more moral in stepping into a political career and try to change some laws?
> I didn't see any good coming from throwing a 17 year old kid into jail, and I remember how stupid I was when I was 17.
For example, being forced to confront the consequences of their actions at 17 when the punishment is lesser and likely to include diversion or similar might have prevented them from committing a similar crime when older and receiving a harsher penalty — which in your empathy, you ensured would happen by refusing to punish them. Their practice and willingness to use force, as described in your referenced comment, indicates this isn’t their first time committing such a crime. By normalizing that crime wouldn’t be punished, you created a worse situation.
You can see similar unfolding at scale in major US cities, where crime (particularly theft) skyrocketed — and intensified, eg the recent subway burnings in NYC. Without enforcing norms, they break down.
A good heuristic for me is “what happens when everybody behaves that way?” In this case, it leads to society degrading.
Do you mind if I ask what kind of organization? I’ve struggled to find active groups focused on values/principles instead of hobbies. Or maybe by organization, you mean work?
I think a more constructive way to look at it is one style puts a higher cost on wasting time than and the other style puts a higher cost on appearing unsympathetic. I call it "country style" (putting more value on appearing empathetic than being time-efficient) and "city style" (the opposite). People who grow up in one environment or the other often have trouble transitioning to the other simply because they don't understand that there are different quality metrics in play.
I live in New York, and have a friend from Atlanta. He has that "meandering" style, where it can take him a while, to get to the point.
I swapped "weakness" for "dishonesty," because that's what a lot of New Yorkers think of that style.
He's a really decent chap, but he seems to get a lot of New Yorkers pissed at him.
Being kind, generous, forgiving, helpful, and compassionate are some of the ways we can love people, and should, in order to be a good person who reaps happiness in their life. God does not force us to do this, and freely allows us to choose each virtue's corresponding vice, if we wish, instead.
God would, however, prefer us to treat each other well and form loving societies, but our ignorance of what good even is, as well as or selfishnesses that rebel against lovingly curious attitudes and behaviors, are preventing our moving towards such positive self-evolution.
We all have the choice to embark on becoming filled with love towards each other; a person does not need God's help to choose to be good by embracing a more virtuous life that cares for others, but the Creator just might be essential for our becoming actually transformed into a really, really good person. In fact, connecting with the Ultimate Loner just might be an integral part of what is possible in the human experience.
And I'm using "just might" as a big ol' hint that that is actually the truth of our reality, which is exactly what it is, my friends.
The choice to seek, learn, and believe the truth is everyone's human right. We each exercise that right every moment of every day, for good or ill, in loving care or selfish callousness.
However I feel like something got cooked into me, and maybe even my parents, that gives me a bit of guidance here. I can't explain it but I feel like I have a foundation that is preventing me from feeling the empty nihilism that plagues a lot of folks.
We reject the Trolley problem. We reject the idea of starving sailors on a deserted island should draw lots and eat one of their own.
To argue otherwise is to agree with what we decried about ancient societies. Sacrificing children/prisoners/slaves to Moloch for own benefit is the sure path to hell.
Dead Comment