4 ms·

> Public policy and morality should be the domain of reason, evidence, freedom, experience, and compassion. First of all, compassion is a very unreasonable thi

> Public policy and morality should be the domain of reason, evidence, freedom, experience, and compassion. First of all, compassion is a very unreasonable thing. Objectively people who don’t have compassion do better in life. I believe a lot of CEO’s and politicians lack compassion. Also compassion, makes me feel bad more often. Because I have compassion, I felt bad reading about the mother whose children died. If I did not have compassion, it would not bother me. Now, reading the thrust of the article, it seems the author wants to keep one unreasonable thing (compassion) and throw out another unreasonable thing(religion). However, I do not see any example of principles that can show why one should be favored and another discarded, especially when for many people, their religious duty is what motivates compassion. However, if you decide to throw out compassion and just stick to reading and evidence, I think you eventually end up with the morality of Thanos.

pdonis 6y ago
> Objectively people who don’t have compassion do better in life. Depends on your definition of "do better". > it seems the author wants to keep one unreasonable thing (compassion) and throw out another unreasonable thing(religion) The author is not saying we should throw out religion. She is arguing against "superstition and tradition" in areas where they have failed to solve problems that science has solved. Nor is she advocating for compassion without reason. Compassion is not there to make you feel bad; it's there to motivate you to use your reason to fix a problem. For example, the author's compassion for the mother whose stove set fire to her apartment motivates her to advocate for stoves with smoke sensors and automatic shut-off valves. If all you do with your compassion is feel bad, you've missed the point.
s5300 6y ago
Compassion is a very unreasonable thing? Can I ask which society on our Earth that you were born into?
- RcouF1uZ4gsC 6y ago
  It is “unreasonable” in the sense that I don’t think you can arrive at compassion purely from reason. I think morality and compassion are bigger than reason. And I truly believe that compassion is a good thing and we need more of it in the world, but I don’t think I could convince someone of the benefits of them being compassionate purely through reason.

pdonis 6y ago

> Objectively people who don’t have compassion do better in life. Depends on your definition of "do better". > it seems the author wants to keep one unreasonable thing (compassion) and throw out another unreasonable thing(religion) The author is not saying we should throw out religion. She is arguing against "superstition and tradition" in areas where they have failed to solve problems that science has solved. Nor is she advocating for compassion without reason. Compassion is not there to make you feel bad; it's there to motivate you to use your reason to fix a problem. For example, the author's compassion for the mother whose stove set fire to her apartment motivates her to advocate for stoves with smoke sensors and automatic shut-off valves. If all you do with your compassion is feel bad, you've missed the point.

s5300 6y ago

Compassion is a very unreasonable thing? Can I ask which society on our Earth that you were born into?

RcouF1uZ4gsC 6y ago
It is “unreasonable” in the sense that I don’t think you can arrive at compassion purely from reason. I think morality and compassion are bigger than reason. And I truly believe that compassion is a good thing and we need more of it in the world, but I don’t think I could convince someone of the benefits of them being compassionate purely through reason.