Pathological kindness has become one of the greatest threats to civilization.
My good friend is a social worker in LA and sees first hand how life in the streets is for the thousands of homeless and addicts. She said to me recently, “It’s anything BUT kind.” Our times has an odd definition of kind. Great essay!
I loved this. Forwarded to many! Thank you. 🌳
I don't disagree, and I favor anything that works....at the same time, it's lefties' inability to set appropriate boundaries and say No to their own tribe that enables the kindness-based vulnerability to begin with.
This was great although I'd argue that discussing the what the world "altruism" refers to is semantics. Maybe it's more altruistic to not be kind in the scenario you discuss in the essay.
For the wise, "do unto others as you would have them do unto you," has always included tough love for the self. It doesn't work without truth and making amends.
A good article, it seems what you are pointing to, as did Rand, is tit-for-tat. The game theory strategy that creates best outcomes, including cooperation between non related actors, in an iterative game (such as societal interaction).
Treat people with kindness, if they respond with the same then continue. If they take advantage then respond with kind (sameness not kindness).
I understand "do unto others as you would have others do unto you" in the same way. As tit-for-tat.
I have moral agency, but I'm also flawed as all humans are. If I act like an a*hole then I hope people would tell me so. That is the moral thing to do. How else do I become a better person?
To interpret "do unto others" as always be kind is to act in denial of your own flaws. It is the ego projecting what is uncomfortable about the self and fantasising that one should only be treated with kindness. It is abdication of moral agency.
Isn't it the same as the psychological theory of setting boundaries? Why would one create yet another abstraction over it?
There's a lot of good stuff in here, let me say: especially regarding weaponised victimhood and passive aggression.
But I believe your axioms, like most post industrial-revolution westerners (including Rand), have been somewhat hacked by the hypnotic suggestion that they can only be parasites if they're poor or less powerful. If they're so poor or weak they wouldn't be very good parasites now, would they?
We literally KNOW the rich say that you can't get rich working and that making your money earn for you is the only way to real wealth.
And we also know if we analyze it a tiny bit more deeply that when your money is earning for you, that means another's sowing has become your reaping. It's physically impossible for money to be productive, despite the orthodox economic narrative about capital being an input (it is a claim on the output of others in material reality if you strip the social constructs aside). You're SOOOOO close to putting your finger on it, but you can't help regressing in to the primitive "Suck up, punch down" instinct: