[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 1.18 MB, 3110x2073, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6309872 No.6309872 [Reply] [Original]

>No man deserves to be praised for kindness if he does not have the strength to be bad; every other form of kindness is most often merely laziness or lack of willpower.

Yes or no?

>> No.6309877

>>6309872
agree

this is how christian morality came into being

>> No.6309898

>>6309872

I DISAGREE; THAT STATEMENT CONFLATES AUTHENTIC KINDNESS, WHICH STEMS FROM NOBILITY, WITH MERE AMIABILITY, WHICH IS JUST A SOCIAL MECHANISM; THE FORMER IS A PROACTIVE BEHAVIOUR THAT REQUIRES INITIATORY PURPOSE ON PART OF THE AGENT; THE LATTER IS A REACTIVE ATTITUDE THAT REQUIRES VIRTUALLY NO CONSCIOUS EFFORT ON PART OF THE AGENT.

THE STATEMENT WOULD BE ACCURATE IF IT READ:

"No person deserves to be commended for amiability without nobility; amiability is merely laziness, or a substitute for kindness."

>> No.6309918

>>6309872

Agree I guess

I've always wondered why self-proclaimed 'nice guys' think its somehow a positive character trait to not be a douchebag, rather than simply the lack of a negative trait.

>> No.6309965

No. Why would laziness have to do with morality? I understand that they have had a relationship in the past, but why are they inherently valuable to each other? Can't the idea of kindness go along with the idea of laziness? I realize that there's got to be a certain point of willpower to be kind, but surely that's at a different capacity than "being bad".

Everyone has the strength to be bad, I understand acts of kindness or evil are based on influence, but the lack of willpower or drive does not indicate a lack of capacity for evil.
>>6309918
You act like that's expected of people. It's not. It should be, we want it to be, but it's not. There's a certain lack of a negative trait that doesn't require merit. Lacking certain negative traits that are deemed acceptable or even encouraged in modern society is worth praising.

>> No.6309979

>>6309965
>>6309965
what the fuck are you talking about mate. said a whole lot of shit without saying anything

>> No.6309984

>>6309872
No

Kindness is a cardinal virtue, which is to be pursued regardless of context because it is invariably good. Putting conditions on it is mere delusion and attempt to justify not acting according to it.

>> No.6310007

>>6309979
>No. I disagree with the first statement but could see an argument for it. Everyone has the capacity for evil and the evil that's still accepted or encouraged by society that's rejected even on a passive level should still be praised. I disagree with the second statement entirely, again, everyone has the capacity for evil but it's all relative. 'Laziness or lack of willpower' are pointless observations in this argument.

>> No.6310097

>No man deserves to be praised for kindness if he does not have the strength to be bad; every other form of kindness is most often merely laziness or lack of willpower.
I don't understand the context that brings this quote.

I think praise is better put not in the sense of who deserves it or not, but for what purpose would you praise someone, what you seek to achieve with it. Praise is not always a good thing and also depends on who is praising it, it is not solely a matter of who is the one receiving it.

There is a conflict there between strenght/weakness and kindness/bad. They are all capabilities, potent, latent. You may act with kindness or not, you may exercise your strenght or not. So strenght is not something you have, but something you put to use. How to tell someone has the strenght to do bad if it only does good? And how to tell whether this good is product of laziness or of strenght? It doesn't concern the man who praises.

And what is this relationship between laziness and those actions? Laziness is a form of conforming yourself with the current state of things. When claiming that one can be kind on the basis of laziness is to claim that being kind is a given in this context. One can do bad on laziness and put lot of effort in being kind.

"Willpower" is a terrible term as well, greatly misused, in my opinion. It quantifies our will in order to disqualify it. More often than not, when people mention "lack of willpower" they don't account that there could be a strong willpower just scattered around in confusion. Or a supposedly strong willpower may also be a stubborn and even lazy shut eye to the environment around the matter.

>> No.6310155
File: 604 KB, 900x1161, nigerian_school_girl_by_sugabelly-d2vlgnh.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6310155

There is no objective situation for correctly using or bluffing strength. Its always guys that haven't been group beaten up or shot or stabbed that think they're invincible and have stupid delusions like op.

>> No.6310167

>>6309872
>No man deserves to be praised for kindness
Who's doing the praising? Why does it matter whether you're praised or not? Since when is the reaction of bystanders more important than your kindness?

Also, define kindness if you're going to say shit like
>every other form of kindness is most often merely laziness or lack of willpower.
Does it not take willpower to be kind? Doesn't kindness take more effort than being lethargic?

This whole statement reeks of strange definitions and pseudo-pop-philosophical bollocks.

>> No.6310373

>>6309872
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.

>> No.6310417

>>6309898
Amiability also serves to avoid confrontation, so it's actually a logical way to behave -- even alpha males will suffer socially if they fail to be cohesive in society.

OP's statement is too absolutist and not nuanced.

I like your observation of "authentic kindness" -- amiability may or may not be authentic, however even misanthropes benefit from keeping the peace.

>> No.6310444

Third one from the left looks sort of normal, I'd talk to him.