"Compassion without regard to morality is not only utterly foolish, it is absolutely dangerous."
What does it mean to you, and do you agree?
2007-09-30 10:19:54 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
I just wonder how it applies to things like the death penalty- compassion on the murderer, but none on either society or the victim, resulting in those who are totally against it. Or the anti-war faction of pre-WWII who thought that compassion for Hitler and the Nazis was more important than compassion for those he oppressed.
2007-09-30 10:31:31 · update #1
I've heard that used in reference to euthanasia. I don't think the guy who wrote the article was the first to say it, but I know what he meant. His argument was against euthanasia based on religious grounds. He used the phrase to mean that our compassion may lead us to want to hasten the death of those whose lives are near and end, and who are suffering. He said that such an act would not be done out of malice, but out of mercy. But, this would not be acting morally. He said it's immoral to take a human life, even for the sake of mercy. I don't agree with him but I'm not going to get into why.
In the broader sense, it means that our compassion can lead us to commit immoral acts. Our emotions can cloud our judgment. Sometimes the right thing to do is also the hardest thing to do, but it's necessary.
2007-09-30 10:31:00 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
it means that being compassionate as a purely emotional response is foolish and can backfire. very true.
ever hear of *enabling*? like how we hate the thought of families going hungry so we give them a handout to feed them for the moment. it builds the expectation that now you must give them handouts all the time in order for them to survive. this happens with generations of welfare recipients. this is emotional compassion...
compassion with morality holds the view (using this example) that it is wrong to let families be hungry, but it is also wrong not to work for what you get. give the person a job, teach them a skill, while providing them with temporary resources. you allow them to keep their dignity and to move on to the next level with no expectation of your continued involvement.
2007-09-30 17:31:01 · answer #2 · answered by chieko 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I dont know who the author is but it sounds to my like we are to limit our compassion in a moral way. I guess like if your neighbor isnt feeling well and you take compassion to help them, without using your moral guidence, maybe you would give them heroine to feel better? Maybe you would kill them to end their pain? I think that might be what he means.
2007-09-30 17:29:57 · answer #3 · answered by impossble_dream 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
compassion without regard to morality sounds like enabling to me.
2007-09-30 17:30:35 · answer #4 · answered by waterlin 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
It sounds like Paul Brunton the British philosopher.
2007-09-30 17:26:27 · answer #5 · answered by Sentinel 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Great. Bumper sticker philosophy.
I think it's nonsense, without some kind of context.
2007-09-30 17:31:21 · answer #6 · answered by Patrick C 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
how could someone be compassionate with no morality?
2007-09-30 17:23:00 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 3⤋