discourse

[cellio]

When considering law and policy, the dominant factor should be what is just. When interacting with people, compassion should also be an important factor. The relative priorities of justice and compassion go a long way toward defining a political or philosophical position.

All that said, when discussing law and policy with people, things get complicated. I sometimes fail to give appropriate weight to compassion when expressing myself, even while holding a justice-dominant opinion. This is something I would like to improve in myself.

Comments

[nsingman.livejournal.com]

Law, and related policy, are ultimately implemented through coercive means. Thus, justice must always be considered first, and that means primarily justice for those who would be the objects of that coercion. Compassion for individuals by other individuals can be a wonderful thing. However, implementing compassion as law and related policy often, and perhaps usually, means being generous with other people's money, or mandating or prohibiting actions by others for the sake of those for which one is compassionate. And that is a gross injustice.

By all means, express sympathy more often if you feel it tempers your argument and helps others understand (though I don't see how they couldn't) that you are far from heartless. And perhaps avoid heated words like "idiot" even when describing irresponsible behavior, which can make your argument seem more like vituperation. But please never lose sight of the fact that when affecting the law, compassion can be the royal road to oppression.

[cellio]

Oh don't worry; I'm not creeping toward socialism or suchlike. I give justice priority in the actual law/policy issues, for the reasons you noted. My focus here is in how I talk with people about these things, not core beliefs. I sometimes come across as heartless in cases where I don't mean to. (I used to say that one of my goals is to never unintentionally offend people. :-) )