• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

Would you rather be complimented as fair or compassionate?

MyDoorsAreOpen

MyDoorsAreOpen

Bluelight Crew
Joined
Aug 20, 2003
Messages
8,549
I have my doubts that this can be settled objectively by debate, because it has a lot to do with personal temperment, preferences, individual life experiences, and taste, which are all very subjective.

I think most of us who haven't jettisoned morality altogether would agree that fairness and compassion are both important. I think it's also true that in most situations, the two are not in conflict. But from what I've observed, the situations where they are in conflict are some of the most divisive moments between people, and groups of people. To some, being fair is the only way, because being compassionate to a fault inherently involves bias, since no one can be compassionate to everyone, thus setting a precedent for anyone to be as biased as they want on any issue. To others, being compassionate is the way to go, because aiming for fairness in a world where life is not fair is ultimately futile, and sets a precedent for meting out suffering. It also sets a precedent for stereotyping situations and people, rather than treating every person as a unique individual and every situation as a unique case.

Interestingly, this is one of the key components separating "thinkers" (fairness) and "feelers" (compassion) on the Myers-Briggs Temperment Indicator. If you ever want a quick and fairly reliable indicator of whether someone is more rational or more emotional, ask them if they agree or disagree with this statement:


People who'll let themselves be exploited deserve to be exploited.​
 
People who'll let themselves be exploited deserve to be exploited.
Click to expand...

If it's something one person can change then yes. If it's something on a grander scale like a society then no.
 
How could you know what to be compassionate about with out first understanding what is fair?

Passion is less thoughtful then compassion, IMO, passion is rage and lust, love and hate.


"People who'll let themselves be exploited deserve to be exploited."

lol this is extremely vague...

to what extents?

Such a harsh conclusion does need both fairness and compassion, with out either such a belief would do nothing but begin to derive and feed the passions of others, encouraging the want for more exploitation.
 
^indeed, mister T. ;)

mdoa, what prevents one from being compassionate to all? is it simply the time and resource restriction? i really don't see the conflict you do. please elaborate.

generally speaking, one has greater longer term impact on an individual by creating a fairer society, even if by doing so you you prioritise it over their individual short term needs. a law of nature is "life is unfair", imo to be fair and unbiased is to be the epitome of human civility.

People who'll let themselves be exploited deserve to be exploited.
Click to expand...
i agree with shrooms.
 
we have an ability to be fair, to not exercise this ability, we fail.
the same can also be said of compassion, actually.

to spare the life of a convicted murderer may not seem fair to the family of the victim, but that sense of fairness is emotive in nature, rather than rational or just.

so, and unfair society may last, but it lasts on exploitation. this fails as a civil society.
also a society who kills criminals acknowledges an inability to address certain elements it allows to emerge. this society also fails in its duty to its citizens.

a gauge of both is simply to assess how a society treats its worst off.
 
Fair. I think that compassion is more of an emotion that we can only control to some degree. You can't force yourself to be compassionate about someone/something. Being fair though, that is more about making the correct choices to based on good judgement, character, knowledge, and making the correct choices despite your emotions at times.
 
Tommyboy said:
Fair. I think that compassion is more of an emotion that we can only control to some degree. You can't force yourself to be compassionate about someone/something. Being fair though, that is more about making the correct choices to based on good judgement, character, knowledge, and making the correct choices despite your emotions at times.
Click to expand...

I think it was Sam Harris who listed the example that people are more inclined to save one child from starving rather than a group of twelve. So there is that limit, but fairness should be a manifestation of compassion through knowledge. You may only want to give fifty cents a day to save one child but if your society could save all twelve through collective action then that should be enough incentive to go ahead and save the twelve. It still satisfies your compassion while arriving at "fairness". Exploiting the willing just satisfies immediate desires, typically void of compassion.
 
To be fair is to consistently take the same actions when a situation presents itself. To be compassionate, you make exceptions when a situation presents itself. The problem with compassion is knowing when to draw the line.
 
really been thinking this over, and setting aside the "technical measures" [i.e. meyers-briggs, etc] i'm unable to make sense of it - compassion and fairness almost have to be intertwined ... how could either be understood / acted upon without the presence of the other to inspire it ?
i suppose it's certainly possible, but beyond my scope of comprehension - i consider myself to be a thinker at times but always a feeler..

although i have to say tude, you make a good point :)
 
^you can say that about anything really. "it's only an apple if you think it's an apple".
 
Well, fair requires diplomacy and sometimes even salesmanship.

Fair to whom? "All animals are equal-but some are more equal than others." Fairness or compassion as deciding other people's rights gets very subjective. When "judges" present their judgment they want to say its rooted in facts, the law, or solid principals.MBTI wise I'm heavily T as opposed to F in , but I'd want deciders to have the ability to fudge things by compassionate urges. I do need deciders to articulate the in play factors that compelled their decision. If compassionate reasons are unexplained or transferred into weak mental excuses to cover for the decider's feeling based conviction. I start to have problems.

Saying "In the interest of justice" or "in the interest of fairness" requires some explanation. If things get decided without the deciders explaining it seems arbitrary or partial.

Complimented for--- I'd pick fair as opposed to compassionate as its a little less arbitrary. But I would like compassionate leeway in being fair.
 
I'd rather just be both & do without the compliments.


Also I believe we are usually only capable of compassion & fairness when well fed & watered.
There are situations in which we will not recognise the need for compassion or see injustice.
To cultivate an expansion of the ability to recognise ones blind spots in these areas would be preferable to congratulation.

Keep smiling :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top