January 26, 2005
The Compassionator
There is this balloon. It is not a bad balloon really. But then, it has this quirky tendency to go get puffed up with hot air. The more air one blows into it, the more puffed up it becomes.
We humans are not like this balloon though. The balloon has a nifty thing going for it - the more puffed up it is, the more it resists further hot air.
With us humans on the other hand - the more puffed up and conceited a human is - the more he invites hot air, and even more puffed up he becomes.
Some conceits are particularly vulnerable to this vicious cycle. Particularly those that have to do with self-views and self-judgements.
This post is about a prime case of the latter - ethical conceit. Morals and ethics are some things that entail looking to the conscience "inside". This basic seed results in a vicious cycle that teaches viciousness to other sundry cycles.
Now, what is this ethical conceit and wherefrom come its cycles and why are they vicious?
'All of the world's biggest evils could be laid at the feet of well-intentioned men' - old Chinese saying.
Meet our protagonist - The Compassionator. The compassionator is an astute fellow. Right at the outset he observes he is more compassionate than many. And he wants to act out his compassion - more so since according to him others lack as much compassion as him. Unfortunately, acting out compassion towards others entails you know what's best for others, and this is a very hard problem. But in his fervor, our compassionator prefers to well - gloss over this fact. He knows doing yada is compassionate and by golly he's gonna do it.
Now, one good thing about the environment around us, is that it gives us feedback.
For example - you suddenly stand up, and shout in the middle of a theatre, then the shoes/rotten tomatoes/knives that you receive is your feedback.
To get back to our compassionator, he does what he thinks is compassionate. This results in feedback - which like so many things comes in two flavors: postive and negative. Positive feedback obviously reinforces the ethical conceit of our compassionate person. He nods approvingly at himself, and sighs, wishing more of the coldhearted humanity was like him.
But then - with negative feedback - our compassionator is unruffled. He is unruffled because he is aided by an old instructor of humanity. Evolution.
One has to pity poor Homo Sapiens. Not just because of his funny technical name, but also because he has had to suffer a long period of evolving. During all this hectic evolving, he had to face rapidly changing perceptions and ideas. The poor guy at some point decided that stability is good and went ahead and evolved for his brain something called cognitive inertia. Whenever he faced something which conflicted with his ideas and explanations and/or resulted in contradictions - he did not change his ideas easily. Oh no - when faced with what is called "cognitive dissonance" - he prefered to alter the perceptions of the facts themselves.
Apparently, this allowed him to tide over the many complicated perceptions of the world while holding onto simple ideas and explanations like big tooth tiger bad, big man in the sky good, etc.
To come back from our evolution lesson, the compassionator, when faced with negative feedback resulting from misplaced compassion, essentially faces cognitive dissonance. But then, what he has to do is simple - he just presumes more compassion is needed, or others need to be more compassionate, or that the feedback wasn't that bad after all come to think of it.
The upshot is a spiralling ethical conceit.
Our much-loved marxists are a prime example of this. With their ethical fervor and staunch belief in their flawed moral high grounds, they end up doing more harm than maliciously possible.
As C.S. Lewis had astutely remarked - Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their consciences.
The fringe of support for Rohan Pinto, even when he confessed to plagiarism, by some compassionate bloggers is another example.
That Chinese philosopher dude had it right - if there ever was a scourge on mankind, it is ethical conceit.
We humans are not like this balloon though. The balloon has a nifty thing going for it - the more puffed up it is, the more it resists further hot air.
With us humans on the other hand - the more puffed up and conceited a human is - the more he invites hot air, and even more puffed up he becomes.
Some conceits are particularly vulnerable to this vicious cycle. Particularly those that have to do with self-views and self-judgements.
This post is about a prime case of the latter - ethical conceit. Morals and ethics are some things that entail looking to the conscience "inside". This basic seed results in a vicious cycle that teaches viciousness to other sundry cycles.
Now, what is this ethical conceit and wherefrom come its cycles and why are they vicious?
'All of the world's biggest evils could be laid at the feet of well-intentioned men' - old Chinese saying.
Meet our protagonist - The Compassionator. The compassionator is an astute fellow. Right at the outset he observes he is more compassionate than many. And he wants to act out his compassion - more so since according to him others lack as much compassion as him. Unfortunately, acting out compassion towards others entails you know what's best for others, and this is a very hard problem. But in his fervor, our compassionator prefers to well - gloss over this fact. He knows doing yada is compassionate and by golly he's gonna do it.
Now, one good thing about the environment around us, is that it gives us feedback.
For example - you suddenly stand up, and shout in the middle of a theatre, then the shoes/rotten tomatoes/knives that you receive is your feedback.
To get back to our compassionator, he does what he thinks is compassionate. This results in feedback - which like so many things comes in two flavors: postive and negative. Positive feedback obviously reinforces the ethical conceit of our compassionate person. He nods approvingly at himself, and sighs, wishing more of the coldhearted humanity was like him.
But then - with negative feedback - our compassionator is unruffled. He is unruffled because he is aided by an old instructor of humanity. Evolution.
One has to pity poor Homo Sapiens. Not just because of his funny technical name, but also because he has had to suffer a long period of evolving. During all this hectic evolving, he had to face rapidly changing perceptions and ideas. The poor guy at some point decided that stability is good and went ahead and evolved for his brain something called cognitive inertia. Whenever he faced something which conflicted with his ideas and explanations and/or resulted in contradictions - he did not change his ideas easily. Oh no - when faced with what is called "cognitive dissonance" - he prefered to alter the perceptions of the facts themselves.
Apparently, this allowed him to tide over the many complicated perceptions of the world while holding onto simple ideas and explanations like big tooth tiger bad, big man in the sky good, etc.
To come back from our evolution lesson, the compassionator, when faced with negative feedback resulting from misplaced compassion, essentially faces cognitive dissonance. But then, what he has to do is simple - he just presumes more compassion is needed, or others need to be more compassionate, or that the feedback wasn't that bad after all come to think of it.
The upshot is a spiralling ethical conceit.
Our much-loved marxists are a prime example of this. With their ethical fervor and staunch belief in their flawed moral high grounds, they end up doing more harm than maliciously possible.
As C.S. Lewis had astutely remarked - Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their consciences.
The fringe of support for Rohan Pinto, even when he confessed to plagiarism, by some compassionate bloggers is another example.
That Chinese philosopher dude had it right - if there ever was a scourge on mankind, it is ethical conceit.
COMMENTS:
<< Home
Hmm, that support for Rohan Pinto is weird. I mean, I'm very surprised that someone can call his copying-posts-without-attribution an 'honest mistake'. Especially since Mr. Pinto seems to be suing for peace, rather than apologizing.
Nevertheless, it seems wrong in my world to dis on compassion. Thus, I am forced to find problems with your definition of compassionate :)
Perhaps "compassion" accompanied by "ethical conceit" is not true compassion? Perhaps the truly compassionate care little about doing the right thing, that the only thing they do care about about is alleviating pain? Certainly, under this definition, there are few things that qualify as compassionate. A friend of mine (no webpage, sadly) once claimed that there were few things that he could see were truly a good action for someone else -- he said, he could not see that anything, besides giving food to a starving could be counted as truly good. I would not go quite that far: perhaps, living in Pittsburgh makes me see that shelter to the cold is also a good action :)
But certainly, it is hard to say that about any economic system. But an economic system that rewards one for causing physical pain to others... I don't see how that could be called truly a good action either.
Nevertheless, it seems wrong in my world to dis on compassion. Thus, I am forced to find problems with your definition of compassionate :)
Perhaps "compassion" accompanied by "ethical conceit" is not true compassion? Perhaps the truly compassionate care little about doing the right thing, that the only thing they do care about about is alleviating pain? Certainly, under this definition, there are few things that qualify as compassionate. A friend of mine (no webpage, sadly) once claimed that there were few things that he could see were truly a good action for someone else -- he said, he could not see that anything, besides giving food to a starving could be counted as truly good. I would not go quite that far: perhaps, living in Pittsburgh makes me see that shelter to the cold is also a good action :)
But certainly, it is hard to say that about any economic system. But an economic system that rewards one for causing physical pain to others... I don't see how that could be called truly a good action either.
(to be a little clearer)
I should have added that I see three major questions: (whether you intended 0 or 3 or 22 :):
- What is compassion?
- Does it exist in reality, or is it merely an idea?
- If it does exist, does it exist beyond basic necessities of life?
I should have added that I see three major questions: (whether you intended 0 or 3 or 22 :):
- What is compassion?
- Does it exist in reality, or is it merely an idea?
- If it does exist, does it exist beyond basic necessities of life?
Compassion - in thought - is an empathy towards the suffering of others. This exists in reality.
Compassion - in action - is a more subtle creature.
e.g. you might give money to a beggar, but what if that just feeds his drinking habit and further incapacitates him? The action is not compassionate, because you did not think your actions through.
This is especially a problem, because compassion in thought is essentially an empathy - that is you feel the suffering yourself.
So you favor doing some action as it makes you
feel better. Typically, these actions are not well-thought out, and can hardly be called compassionate actions.
Compassion - in action - is a more subtle creature.
e.g. you might give money to a beggar, but what if that just feeds his drinking habit and further incapacitates him? The action is not compassionate, because you did not think your actions through.
This is especially a problem, because compassion in thought is essentially an empathy - that is you feel the suffering yourself.
So you favor doing some action as it makes you
feel better. Typically, these actions are not well-thought out, and can hardly be called compassionate actions.
Pradeep, we have had many long arguments in the past, but this time I can't think of a single point to disagree with, and much to marvel at. Outstanding post!
I agree with Amit. Excellent post. The world unfortunately isn't a compassionate place anymore.
A line I had heard when told about the "good" tyrants..can't recall who said it - "When you tell me what is good for me, you do me most harm".
Patrix
ipatrix.com
A line I had heard when told about the "good" tyrants..can't recall who said it - "When you tell me what is good for me, you do me most harm".
Patrix
ipatrix.com
# posted by
: 11:07 AM
: 11:07 AM
If you argue that any action taken out of "compassion" is an action to relieve one's own suffering, as one empathizes with the suffering party, then it no longer becomes compassion, since it is relieving one's own suffering.
Unless I misunderstand your definition of compassion and/or empathy. Feel free to correct me. :)
And as for your example, few people feel compassion toward obviously drunk folks. On the other hand, a starving child is an entirely different category...
(I didn't think these questions had one-line answers, BTW :)
Unless I misunderstand your definition of compassion and/or empathy. Feel free to correct me. :)
And as for your example, few people feel compassion toward obviously drunk folks. On the other hand, a starving child is an entirely different category...
(I didn't think these questions had one-line answers, BTW :)
Hi Pradeep,
Excellent post. What you are saying is really a part of a more general case of people acting out complete, conviction that they are right, be it ethical, moral, religious or for other reason.
I do not agree with the conclusion though. What you describe is not restricted to compassionate people. A capitalist can be every bit as rigidly convinced about the benefits of free markets as a communist can be about land reform. Any debate has its share of people who are convinced that they are right, and what you describe is equally applicable to all of them, whether they are compassionate or not. Sometimes these people are in the majority, sometimes in the minority, more often on both sides.
With specific reference to Dilip's post, I think you missed his point. Dilip is not defending Rohan's plagiarism (he clearly states that it is wrong), but is commenting on blog style mob justice. These are two very different things and Rohan's confession (actually, it was an apology, not a confession) does nothing to change that.
Excellent post. What you are saying is really a part of a more general case of people acting out complete, conviction that they are right, be it ethical, moral, religious or for other reason.
I do not agree with the conclusion though. What you describe is not restricted to compassionate people. A capitalist can be every bit as rigidly convinced about the benefits of free markets as a communist can be about land reform. Any debate has its share of people who are convinced that they are right, and what you describe is equally applicable to all of them, whether they are compassionate or not. Sometimes these people are in the majority, sometimes in the minority, more often on both sides.
With specific reference to Dilip's post, I think you missed his point. Dilip is not defending Rohan's plagiarism (he clearly states that it is wrong), but is commenting on blog style mob justice. These are two very different things and Rohan's confession (actually, it was an apology, not a confession) does nothing to change that.
K, you're not seeing the point itself, missing it is vacuous eh? :)
I'm not saying Dilip is defending plagiarism. Defending plagiarism is as bad as plagiarism itself - and I hope Dilip's values aren't that warped. Trust me - if I'd thought so, not only mine but many others' reactions would be much harsher.
My charge is lesser - of brimming with compassion for the plagiarist and further - asking that others be compassionate too. Quite naturally, this exhausts his quota of compassion - so he has no choice but to be quite uncharitable when it comes to Shanti and Amit and others.
What you call mob justice was a fairly civilized response. As explained quite clearly in Amit's post here, Rohan was emailed, the entire thing was discussed and analyzed by many bloggers for a day - and then people posted their indignation on their respective blogs.
What less do you expect?
You see that is what this post is about.
There is a THICK line between compassion and naivette.
Only ethical conceit can blur this line.
Though you'd like to think so - you're not being compassionate, you're only being naive.
I'm not saying Dilip is defending plagiarism. Defending plagiarism is as bad as plagiarism itself - and I hope Dilip's values aren't that warped. Trust me - if I'd thought so, not only mine but many others' reactions would be much harsher.
My charge is lesser - of brimming with compassion for the plagiarist and further - asking that others be compassionate too. Quite naturally, this exhausts his quota of compassion - so he has no choice but to be quite uncharitable when it comes to Shanti and Amit and others.
What you call mob justice was a fairly civilized response. As explained quite clearly in Amit's post here, Rohan was emailed, the entire thing was discussed and analyzed by many bloggers for a day - and then people posted their indignation on their respective blogs.
What less do you expect?
You see that is what this post is about.
There is a THICK line between compassion and naivette.
Only ethical conceit can blur this line.
Though you'd like to think so - you're not being compassionate, you're only being naive.
Pradeep, I guess I still don't understand you fully. From what I understand, you're point is that Rohan has confessed to a crime, yet Dilip supports him (even after he has confessed) due to an overblown sense of ethical conceit. Is that right?
K - that's what I'm sayin yes.
Note that supporting/showing him misplaced compassion is different from defending plagiarism, which I do not allege. The fact that you thought so itself shows the negative side of misplaced compassion doesn't it? :)
I actually share your distrust and wariness of "mob justice" - but I'd disagree that mob mentality was prevalent in this case. During the private email discussions between many bloggers - only after a long discussion that lasted a day and after everybody was in agreement was the decision to publicly post about it made.
Another thing to note is that the "crime" was something bloggers are very vulnerable to. If the response to this had been light, the consequences would have been severe.
I'm not criticizing compassion. I respect and recognize Dilip's and your's greater capacity for compassion. What I'm criticizing is acting out misplaced compassion while being driven by the inevitable ethical conceit.
Note that supporting/showing him misplaced compassion is different from defending plagiarism, which I do not allege. The fact that you thought so itself shows the negative side of misplaced compassion doesn't it? :)
I actually share your distrust and wariness of "mob justice" - but I'd disagree that mob mentality was prevalent in this case. During the private email discussions between many bloggers - only after a long discussion that lasted a day and after everybody was in agreement was the decision to publicly post about it made.
Another thing to note is that the "crime" was something bloggers are very vulnerable to. If the response to this had been light, the consequences would have been severe.
I'm not criticizing compassion. I respect and recognize Dilip's and your's greater capacity for compassion. What I'm criticizing is acting out misplaced compassion while being driven by the inevitable ethical conceit.
Actually, what on earth are you saying man? Can you try to write a little less foggily next time? We mortals could use slightly less allsuion and illusion and more simple direct speech. Thank you very much.
Govind J
Govind J
# posted by
: 2:22 AM
: 2:22 AM
Actually, I made a greater attempt to understand your prose. Hard, but I tried. See, from as far as I can tell, nobody is going soft on the plagiarism. Got that? I don't understand why you are pretending that's the case. The point is, there was no sign of anything further -- the fraud stuff. No sign at all. So it was objectionable that he was attacked for that.
Govind.
Govind.
# posted by
: 7:42 AM
: 7:42 AM
We mortals could use slightly less allsuion and illusion...Govind, if Gods started writing for mortals, who'd be writing for the Gods?
Hey Seven Into Six, I came here via a late look at Ravi Kiran's Blog Mela, and I have to agree with Govind. If Ravi Kiran had any sense, he would have nixed this entry of yours -- it is that impenetrable. (I'm going to post this on his blog too).
But I suppose your point is that people who take a stand on ethics can cause damage? If that is so, your entire writeup can be summed up by saying: "I have no use for ethics and values. So I'll make fun of those who do."
Isn't that right, Forty-Two? (That's the result of Seven Into Six, in case you were puzzled).
- Preeta Mehra
Post a Comment
But I suppose your point is that people who take a stand on ethics can cause damage? If that is so, your entire writeup can be summed up by saying: "I have no use for ethics and values. So I'll make fun of those who do."
Isn't that right, Forty-Two? (That's the result of Seven Into Six, in case you were puzzled).
- Preeta Mehra
# posted by
: 11:15 PM
: 11:15 PM << Home
