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.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
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."
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @briandavidearp @limerickless and
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.
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @briandavidearp @limerickless and
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?
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
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.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @limerickless @briandavidearp and
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?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
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
-
-
Replying to @briandavidearp @limerickless and
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)
0 replies 0 retweets 1 likeThanks. 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.