‘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 …
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.
-
The author of that quote was, pretty clearly, not advancing a general moral theory to be applied strictly via the universal qualifier to all situations. In any event,"Always remember" is modifying the "breaking down reality" claim; it is not clear it is modifying "be kind."
-
And anyway, when someone is not writing a formal piece of philosophy but is rather trying to communicate a somewhat nuanced idea that might very well advance a more virtuous approach to disputation generally, it rather misses the mark to fire back "WHAT ABOUT X" claims.
-
As far as I can tell, your view is that it's important to stress that, when arguing with a genocidal monster/racist/anti-semite, breaking down their worldview is good; the pain they may feel is morally irrelevant (or perhaps good?); and being unkind to them is justified. Yes?
-
No, the pain is not morally irrelevant. Whether it is good or bad or neither depends on the situation. See, nuance. Not being kind can be justified, yes, especially when the abandoned belief is only one of a constellation of horrors.
-
Yes, depending on the particulars of a case, almost any reaction can be justified. But the spirit of the author's message I thought was clear and the intended scope of the exhortation seemed to be cases of a more typical & pragmatic nature, not constellations of horrors.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
I think to make progress in ethics we should try to understand the point of what someone is arguing: if someone makes a pragmatic claim about a role for kindness in changing others' reality, to say "But what about genocidal monsters??" feels to me, unproductive.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
& what makes you think that a person with lots of evil views who has been convinced to abandon one will be happy about it? Maybe he will be resentful and angry, and think of your kindness as supercilious and superior. He should, if reasonable, respect your continued indignation.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.