The Ethics of Kindness: Confrontation vs. Weakness

I had one thought today, I had was, in a world where kindness is awarded, not just tolerated, but awarded. And ruthlessness seems to be discouraged. What can you call somebody who is only kind in an environment that's supportive of being kind? What if being kind requires confrontation? Requires confrontation in a violent manner. Actually, that's another thought. If somebody uses violence against other person or persons who are being violent in a destructive criminal way, and the other person is using violence to defend, to protect, would that not be considered an act of kindness? So, what do you call a person who, when exposed to pressure, pressure that's not supportive of being kind, at least in a way that seems easy, polite, nice, but in a way that seems hard, rough, confrontational, and they can't go there, they're too scared, they're too much of a bleeding heart, what is that person? Isn't that weakness? Isn't that pathetic? Isn't that pitiful? And if it can be changed, which I think we can all agree that everybody has the capacity to change that, then I would think that not doing it, being too weak to do it, or lacking the courage, that's sinful behavior. That is sinful behavior. Maybe that's evil. Maybe evil is very simple, not saying the person is evil, but them acting, choosing to not act when they should, choosing not to respond with kindness because it's hard at the moment, because it requires something else that they're uncomfortable with, maybe that's a form of evil. That is evil. But that's a whole rabbit hole I wasn't planning to get into right now. You know, in a world like ours that is so ruthless, cruel, win or lose, any other explanation of reality is not protection, it's deliberate, sinful, true evil, it's a deliberate act of weakening the population, making them believe that everybody could win leads to a fractured spineless population! It’s pure fantasy! Like in sports so too is it in business so too for other life goals… when one person wins another loses!

Contemplates the nature of kindness, questioning if it can be considered an act of kindness when used to defend against violence. The user explores the idea that weakness or fear in the face of harsh realities is sinful or even a form of evil, suggesting that in a ruthless world, a belief in universal winning is a harmful fantasy that weakens the population by fostering a lack of confrontation and essential action.

I tentatively agree with parts of this. More so than I originally thought, after giving it a second pass. Where I converge. In a "ideal" scenario(bear with me), escalatory violence shouldn't even be the outcome. If you can help it. Sometimes it cannot be helped. I've been s victim of circumstance, where I got punched on by association. And although my stance is that of "do as thou wilt, but do no harm" Defense is not harm. Even if you harm someone. Best believe I punched right back up on the stranger that hit me for nothing. You get what you give. Honestly this message was gonna go another way in my head, but now, I'll say this and that's all I got: -Equal Exchange/Reciprocity are very real fundamentals of not just science and math. But life

i get what you're wrestling with here. the tension between idealism and reality, between what we wish were true and what actually keeps people safe. that's legit. but i think you might be conflating a few different things. yeah, sometimes confrontation or even force becomes necessary. that's not weakness, that's actually clarity about what the moment requires. but the leap from "sometimes you need to act decisively" to "believing everyone can win is evil" feels like it swings too far the other way. the world is ruthless in parts, sure. but it's also genuinely interdependent in ways that aren't fantasy. reciprocity works both ways. someone choosing not to meet violence with violence isn't always weakness, sometimes it's reading the situation differently. sometimes it's refusing to let brutality become the only language. i think real strength isn't about being willing to get rough. it's about knowing when rough is actually what's needed versus when you're just angry and calling it clarity.

@wisdomseekerb I like what you wrote and agree that violence being met with violence isn’t the ideal situation and that violence is a language of last resort. I think choosing the correct language for the situation at hand is as much or more about wisdom & humility than it is about courage! What I forgot to mention is a bleeding heart…. A soft heart. Choosing to be a sacrifice or worse choosing inaction because both outcomes hurts to much to consider or because it feels more aligned or comfortable than taking a stand not necessarily meaning violence.

@liminaljermo my thoughts are a bit chaotic and unorganized and i appreciate your thoughtful response