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.
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.
-
-
I can't tell if we're having a useful exchange or just kind of talking past each other. I hope not the latter, but, in any event, I wish you all the best - have to head to sleep now.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Ok, last tweet, I promise. We are talking generally about convincing others that they are wrong. Many of these cases will involve arguing against evil views, some held by vicious people. So what I am talking about is not untypical. Ok, enough. Thanks, this was productive, I hope.
-
Interesting conversation and interesting article. Can I ask you both: is this quote offering essentially the same message as "Love thine enemy", and if so, would you say that JC was motivated by pragmatism or by concern for one's opponent's feelings?
-
I had thought about the "Love thine enemy" connection as well & that is what I had in mind by 'deep kindness' ... I think insofar as injunction is properly understood it is a very meaningful, moral notion
-
Thanks Brian. I too had assumed that. Now wondering whether JC the insurgent and revolutionary might have been more of a pragmatist than we give him credit for. Did he advocate turning the other cheek because it was kind or because it is the way to win the conflict? (cf. Ghandi)
End of conversation
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.