‘Always remember that to argue, and win, is to break down the reality of the person you are arguing against. It is painful to lose your reality, so be kind, even if you are right.’ Murakami quoted in this interesting post - via @briandavidearphttps://jamesclear.com/why-facts-dont-change-minds …
Perhaps - so, let's say someone holds a truly evil view. And you successfully dissuade them of it. You're saying, why should I now be kind to this person when I could rather stuff my success in the person's face? What good would that do?
-
-
So let’s say you’re arguing with a genocidal monster, and you successfully convince them that genocide is wrong. That’s only one aspect of their reality. And maybe they’re sad that they’re wrong. Maybe they remain racist and sexist and anti-Semitic etc. Why be kind?
-
Sure - I mean, if you want to literally come up with cartoon monster examples then maybe we get a different analysis. I thought the post was meant to be a practical guide to common real life cases in a polarized world.
-
In order to make progress in ethics, we have to understand the limits of general statements about kindness. There are many people with evil views: homophobes, misogynists, racists, anti-semites, &c. I suggest not putting your head in the sand. Nothing I have said is cartoonish.
-
I'm not sure I understand your view. You believe that there are many genocidal monsters who are also homophobic, misogynistic, racist, and anti-semitic, who could be successfully dissuaded of their belief that genocide is not wrong, while leaving all those other beliefs intact?
-
Then, having been persuaded of the wrongness of this one belief of theirs, somehow in isolation of all those other evil beliefs, the most morally productive next step (in, e.g., getting them to change those other evil views) would be to make sure not to be kind to them?
-
You are focused only on what is productive, as if this were the alpha and omega of ethical conduct. It isn’t. Some reactions are morally justified, even if they are not themselves productive of better consequences than alternatives. /1
-
I'm focused on what is productive because the article was about the pragmatics of belief formation and change (i.e., the context of this discussion), not because I was advancing a general moral theory by way of a tweet.
-
And I’m focused on the “always remember” sentence quoted in the initial tweet. That sentence, as I see it, is false. The quicker we recognize its falsehood, the easier it becomes to move on to other matters. But sticking to a falsehood doesn’t help anything.
- 6 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.