The Unbearable Lightness of Being Too Nice

rustymaker5 said:I just can't get behind that. Honestly, God, if we follow that logic, it means there’s absolutely no hope left for integrity...😲

Integrity belongs to the individual, regardless of whatever mess they find themselves living in, and it’s the person alone who decides on it, not some vague concept of "society."
Take, for instance, a federal prosecutor who does a lousy job because the circumstances are what they are—maybe corruption is running rampant in Washington—and they tell themselves: "If I don't do it, someone else will," so they just sit there and do nothing. 🤷
That person made a choice not to be honest. Because if they truly were an honest person, they wouldn't stay in a position where they’re forced to act corruptly just to hold onto their title and their paycheck.
It makes you wonder how many brilliant, highly skilled, and expert people are kept away from the waters of politics simply because integrity prevents them from ever getting involved in the first place.
And as long as people keep waiting for society to become honest first before they feel they can behave honestly themselves, nothing is ever going to change...
Every single person individually needs to work on their own integrity, because that is the only way to build a society that actually values honesty and uses it as its foundation.

The point I was making wasn't even about that, but fine, let's play it your way.
Look at this scenario.

You're a prisoner in Auschwitz and one day they start selling everything off and announce, "We're executing every second person now." And... they start doing it. The line moves up, and you realize you're actually next in line to be shot instead of the guy standing right beside you. But then, the guard makes a mistake and pulls your buddy out of line instead.
Are you really going to step forward and tell that guard, "Hey, that's not fair, I'm actually the one supposed to die here."

Mark Torres14 said:The point I was making wasn't even about that, but fine, let's play it your way.
Look at this scenario.

You're a prisoner in Auschwitz and one day they start selling everything off and announce, "We're executing every second person now." And... they start doing it. The line moves up, and you realize you're actually next in line to be shot instead of the guy standing right beside you. But then, the guard makes a mistake and pulls your buddy out of line instead.
Are you really going to step forward and tell that guard, "Hey, that's not fair, I'm actually the one supposed to die here."

You always have this need to pull out some extreme, edge-case scenario just to try and validate your point... 🙂
War, concentration camps, and things of that nature are such incredibly extreme, inhumane, and frankly nonsensical situations to force a human being into that it feels almost redundant to even discuss them... How could you even look for fairness in a place like that when you've been stripped down to nothing more than a desperate struggle for basic survival?!? (Though, even in those hellish circumstances, there are people who act out of a sense of integrity, even if their starting points are totally different, and in your specific example, it might look like this: if they skip over a father to call his son, that father would most likely point out that he should be the one taken instead just to save his kid, so they'd probably end up taking both of them. 🤷)
But if you look at it from another angle... if every single person, or even just the majority of people, actually lived by their principles, we wouldn't even be facing situations like that in the first place... 🤷

rustymaker5 said:You always have this need to pull out some extreme, edge-case scenario just to try and validate your point... 🙂
War, concentration camps, and things of that nature are such incredibly extreme, inhumane, and frankly nonsensical situations to force a human being into that it feels almost redundant to even discuss them... How could you even look for fairness in a place like that when you've been stripped down to nothing more than a desperate struggle for basic survival?!? (Though, even in those hellish circumstances, there are people who act out of a sense of integrity, even if their starting points are totally different, and in your specific example, it might look like this: if they skip over a father to call his son, that father would most likely point out that he should be the one taken instead just to save his kid, so they'd probably end up taking both of them. 🤷)
But if you look at it from another angle... if every single person, or even just the majority of people, actually lived by their principles, we wouldn't even be facing situations like that in the first place... 🤷

I was just trying to point out that honesty is way more complicated than it looks. It's tied directly to honor.
It’s funny how the American Mafia has its own codes of honor and integrity, yet they couldn't care less about anyone else's life. That's exactly why I find it hard to believe that honesty is something that just springs from within a person.

But look at it this way: if every single person, or at least most people, actually worked on their integrity, we wouldn't run into these situations in the first place. 🤷

That sounds like that old cliché: "If everyone just did their job properly, society wouldn't have crises and everything would work perfectly." Basically, a platitude.

Mark Torres14 said:I was just trying to point out that honesty is way more complicated than it looks. It's tied directly to honor.
It’s funny how the American Mafia has its own codes of honor and integrity, yet they couldn't care less about anyone else's life. That's exactly why I find it hard to believe that honesty is something that just springs from within a person.

But look at it this way: if every single person, or at least most people, actually worked on their integrity, we wouldn't run into these situations in the first place. 🤷

That sounds like that old cliché: "If everyone just did their job properly, society wouldn't have crises and everything would work perfectly." Basically, a platitude.

But honestly, it’s precisely because so many people dismiss it as just some empty cliché that we find ourselves stuck in this mess in the first place. 🤷
Man, you really have to have some guts to just start acting right on your own, regardless of anyone else, and then deal with the heavier consequences if they come your way... without sitting around waiting for society to suddenly create this perfect little bubble where it's easy to be decent before you decide to step up. That’s what actual integrity looks like, both for yourself and for the people around you.
Because if you, me, him, her, and maybe ten other folks actually lived with some real honesty, then those last few holdouts would eventually see that it works—that life is actually better and easier that way. And then, it stops being a mere slogan and becomes a core value that everyone starts aiming for.
Nowadays, values are all warped; people end up valuing whatever they've been conditioned to prize by people who are far less honest than they are. But that isn't an excuse to sit on your hands instead of changing things, step by step, person by person, until you finally hit that critical mass that shifts the whole scale automatically. But damn, you're going to have to swallow some bitter pills along the way, because let's face it, the beginning is always the hardest part...

.. everything is wrong .. people have been misinterpreting this for two thousand years .. start with yourselves .. just be decent people ..
.. a total disaster ..
.. good people actually listen .. while those bastards .. they don't bother .. but idiots like that .. the kind who throw stones when you offer bread .. are exactly what's needed .. that's how they build the world .. and that's precisely why the world turned out to be .. such a miserable mess ..
.. nothing matters but a clear readiness to die .. my friends and fellow Americans .. God is all there is .. the god of all gods ..
(.. that's how the old shamans used to say it .. clear .. precise .. brief .. because there isn't much philosophy to be found here ..)

redtinker36 said:.. everything is wrong .. people have been misinterpreting this for two thousand years .. start with yourselves .. just be decent people ..
.. a total disaster ..
.. good people actually listen .. while those bastards .. they don't bother .. but idiots like that .. the kind who throw stones when you offer bread .. are exactly what's needed .. that's how they build the world .. and that's precisely why the world turned out to be .. such a miserable mess ..
.. nothing matters but a clear readiness to die .. my friends and fellow Americans .. God is all there is .. the god of all gods ..
(.. that's how the old shamans used to say it .. clear .. precise .. brief .. because there isn't much philosophy to be found here ..)

N'Dug once noted that "it is truly easy to be honest while being a scoundrel, but to be honest—without being a scoundrel—requires significant reflection," and frankly, what you're saying right now is born purely from fear.

The truth is, linking stupidity to honesty stems from the exact same metric: the idea that being honest simply "doesn't pay." In other words, anyone terrified that their own integrity will make them look foolish is, quite unintentionally, infected by the very standards of dishonesty that claim to be "normal" behavior.

Furthermore, redtinker36, you seem to hold this romanticized vision of the world from two millennia ago—but the world didn't suddenly become a "godforsaken mess" back then; it was always this way. Two thousand years ago, the only thing that changed was the emergence of a certain (?) force that has maintained its presence ever since. By labeling that force as the reason for our current state, you're inadvertently siding with your own enemies.
And of course, we have the "readiness for death"—but which kind? The kind that brings life, or the kind that merely spreads death?

.. maybe.. okay.. this is just fear.. but that isn't philosophy..

.. philosophy accounts for the fact that the US bombed Iraq for oil.. that people would kill others over something like swine flu just to turn a profit.. that Hitler burned millions of lives..

.. telling some Jewish person fleeing from Hitler—thirty-some years ago—that it's all just fear.. that they should stay put and change the course of history through sheer kindness.. that feels like.. a bullshit ideology to me..

.. the problem is—damn it—when an ideology comes from clergy.. (.. you're Catholic.. am I supposed to think of myself as some kind of.. priest's sycophant? ..) .. the issue is that slavery was truly a vile system.. and priests who preach about love often just serve their masters to keep the masses under the yoke.. .. so you have to wonder.. good Lord.. why do those priests do it?.. because, well.. for themselves.. they secured their own positions.. if they had actually been acting out of love back then, would they have stayed slaves to the cause?..

What you’re saying doesn't actually address my point—it isn't really a conversation if we aren't even talking about the same thing...

.. no .. I don't agree .. that isn't a conversation .. which is why I consider myself a philosopher .. a philosopher's job is to dismantle the conversation ..
.. in America, they call it a "point of view" .. personally, I say .. I'm just standing here observing it .. and I say .. stay right there and tell me what you see ..

Mark Torres14 said:The point I was making wasn't even about that, but fine, let's play it your way.
Look at this scenario.

You're a prisoner in Auschwitz and one day they start selling everything off and announce, "We're executing every second person now." And... they start doing it. The line moves up, and you realize you're actually next in line to be shot instead of the guy standing right beside you. But then, the guard makes a mistake and pulls your buddy out of line instead.
Are you really going to step forward and tell that guard, "Hey, that's not fair, I'm actually the one supposed to die here."

So, when we take the concept of "fairness" and push it to these absurd extremes, it becomes impossible to maintain. At that point, the distinction between being fair and being unfair just becomes completely meaningless... it all just turns into nothing.

redtinker36 said:.. no .. I don't agree .. that isn't a conversation .. which is why I consider myself a philosopher .. a philosopher's job is to dismantle the conversation ..
.. in America, they call it a "point of view" .. personally, I say .. I'm just standing here observing it .. and I say .. stay right there and tell me what you see ..

Exactly—and my response is, "Where should I stand? Right here, then"—and just like that, the dialogue begins.
A philosopher is someone capable of stepping into any human perspective; those who lack the ability, or simply refuse to try, are already far too numerous...

.. look at me.. look at where I'm standing..

.. and I see you.. you exist for me in a place where you can actually hold your own.. where you can actually live..
.. that's how I view people, too.. .. nothing about them is as solid as their desire to simply exist.. .. if they truly believed in God, they could have found Him in two thousand years of searching..

.. Camus once said that some people champion great truths only to abandon them the moment their lives are on the line.. on the flip side.. others die because they believe life itself is worthless.. if you ask him what matters.. he says.. it's simple.. what matters is what binds you.. what forces you to take yourself seriously.. not something up for debate..

You aren't actually seeing me—you're just staring at your own mental projection of who you think I am... which means you're really just looking at yourself; if you actually wanted to see me, you’d have to start by having an actual conversation.

... No... if my assessment of where you stand is accurate... I won't walk away from this conversation with anything truly new... and the discussion itself will just turn into a vehicle for hitting certain agendas...
... and if I take it too seriously... I lose...

Look, fear and prejudice... you really have to start by accepting that your own assessment might be fundamentally flawed.

I find it utterly difficult to fathom... someone who has never once made an effort to grasp the perspective of their interlocutor is suddenly insisting on such things..

.. a certain individual.. who historically refused to acknowledge even the slightest hint of their own error.. is now attempting to project that fault onto others..

.. good heavens.. it is truly absurd.. like expecting snow to fall or swans to migrate by sheer force of will..

When did I ever say anything of the sort?

.. you’re essentially making an assumption.. (.. starting from the premise that the initial hypothesis is flawed..)

.. if one's personal experience suggests that a certain outcome is consistently true..
.. having observed such a pattern roughly fifty times, for instance..
.. why then should one feel compelled to repeatedly assume that any conclusion drawn from that very experience is somehow erroneous..?
(.. after all, most of our assessments of others are fundamentally rooted in experience.. )

Don't be so vague—what experience are we actually talking about here? What did I say, exactly? Or is this just your own bias and assumption playing tricks on you?

Sam Green73 said:The other day, someone actually said to me, "You know, sometimes it’s just easier to be honest—it takes way less effort," and I have to admit, it totally threw me for a loop.
I get the logic behind it; telling the truth is definitely simpler because you don't have to spend half your life playing mental gymnastics trying to remember which lie you told to whom.
But is "honesty" really that straightforward?
Is it truly just a simple thing?
Honestly, I don't think so.
To me, being an honest person isn't some innate quality you're just born with; it's more like a skill that you actually have to work at.
Think about little kids—they’ll happily grab a toy from someone else, but they find it incredibly hard to actually share one of their own. Parents have to step in and teach them how to act in a socially acceptable way.

I'm a firm believer that being honest pays off in the long run, but when you look at the short term, is being truthful always the easiest path?

p.s. I almost wrote this whole thing as a post about sincerity, but I realized those aren't quite the same thing.

But here's my take: acting in a way that's socially acceptable doesn't necessarily mean you're being honest; it just means you're following social norms, which can certainly be a learned skill, but true honesty itself isn't just a skill.

Honesty is something deeper entirely, and it doesn't even need to be validated by social standards to be genuine; at its core, it comes down to the individual—their integrity, their conscience, their empathy, and that deep-seated sense of self and others... it's an intrinsic part of who they are, a fundamental quality.

A person with a truly developed sense of honesty might find themselves sidelined by society and end up bearing all sorts of heavy consequences, whether they're emotional or material, but that doesn't make them a loser. So, there's that... if we're talking about what's "worth it."

I actually went down a bit of a rabbit hole looking into the etymology of the word "honesty," and I found that some linguists suggest the roots point back to terms meaning "to read" or "to learn," implying it's tied to being instructed or educated.

So, circling back to that idea of "socially acceptable behavior," I think it's important to make a distinction: we shouldn't focus on teaching people how to follow social codes, because that's just teaching them how to adapt to a specific social climate or set of rules, but instead, we should be teaching fundamental values and inspiring a desire for knowledge, so that honesty can grow from a solid foundation.