Skip to main content

Verified by Psychology Today

Philosophy

"Just Be Kind" Is More Complicated than It Sounds

A dialogue for the kindhearted.

Experimental psychology got its start in 1879 but Western psychology in general really begins with Plato's dialogues, roughly 2300 years earlier—written debates between Socrates and others about what people want and how to live good lives.

Today, of course, we call those dialogues philosophy, which Bertrand Russell defined as "a peculiarly stubborn attempt to think clearly." Still, psychology is most of what the dialogues attempt to think clearly about.

For that pursuit, written dialogues are perfect. Writing, a relatively newfangled invention in Plato's time, started out as a way to record shipping contents, in other words, packing slips. Plato was among the first to put it to use unpacking the content of human nature.

What makes philosophy's attempt to think clearly peculiarly stubborn is the way it vigilantly exposes inconsistencies in thought. Vigilance was also the point with packing slips. Peculiarly stubborn attempts to think clearly really takes off with writing, a way to record and expose inconsistencies about the content of our character.

Dialogue writing is especially conducive to discovering inconsistencies since you've got voices on hand to expose them. In Plato's dialogues, Socrates plays that role, exposing where other speakers are talking out of both sides of their mouths.

Plato was not into theology and neither is philosophy. At its origins, science was called natural philosophy—philosophy that doesn't resort to supernatural claims—and perhaps it should be still. Science is too often regarded as a merely empirical endeavor, as though experimental or research data speaks for itself.

It can't. All scientists double as philosophers whether they recognize it or not. It is by philosophical reasoning that psychologists generate and evaluate hypotheses worth testing and interpret their test results.

If natural philosophy deserves a comeback, so does dialog. Here's one in the spirit of Plato's.

Just be kind

I try to live by one principle, no compromise. Follow it and everything works out for the best.

Interesting. What is it?

Always be kind.

To everyone always?

Yes.

Sounds nice.

It certainly is. Righteous and absolutely true.

So what happens when to be kind to one person you have to be unkind to another?

That wouldn’t happen.

It does. Say you have one job to offer and two people, both qualified, really want it and will be disappointed if they don’t get it.

That’s business. In business, people understand when they don't get the job.

So two rules. In business one thing, in life another?

No, just one principle, but sure, it depends on context, and business is different.

Well OK, so suppose you fall in love with two people at the same time and have to decide which you’ll stay with. Is that unkind to the other one?

Why would I ever fall in love with two people at the same time? That would be unkind!

Not in the moment. It’s a kindness to both since they’ve both fallen in love with you.

I would never do that!

So you’d disappoint not just in business but in love?

Kindness is different from disappointing. You have to disappoint people.

So what’s your definition of kindness?

It should be obvious.

You’ve got one true principle, no compromise. it rests on the word “kindness” and you don’t want to define it?!

I'll define it. Kindness is being generous with people.

And not giving a job to a candidate or yourself to someone who loves you is generous? They'd be disappointed, so how is it generous?

I think you’re just trying to prove me wrong here, which, in my opinion, is unkind.

OK, but you’re going to be generous with me even though I’m unkind, right? No compromise. Let me ask you about this then. Suppose someone is being really unkind to many people. Do you still want to be generous with them?

Yes.

So does that mean you wouldn’t put them in jail?

Of course, I would if they broke the law.

Now would this criminal think you were being kind when you put them in jail?

Probably not, but that’s not the point. I would jail them with a kind and generous spirit.

So kindness and generosity are about how it would feel to you, not how it feels to the other person?

That’s right. I have to look into my soul and make sure I’m doing it with a kind and generous spirit.

And each of us should do that to follow your one no-compromise principle?

Right.

OK, but then what if this criminal tells you that they’ve looked in their soul and what you think was unkind to others was in their soul an act of kindness. Like what if you had someone out murdering people up and when you decided that they were being unkind, they tell you that you’re just plain wrong. They were murdering with a kind and generous spirit.

That’s different.

How? Why?

They were obviously doing something wrong.

So you do have other principles besides always be kind. Like, don’t do wrong things even if you believe you're doing them with kindness in your soul.

You always try to complicate things. Tell, me: Do you have a principle you try to live by, oh wise one?

Mine is simple too, but with complicated and compromising results: Don't pretend that you can live by no-compromise principles.

That doesn't sound very moral.

I agree. It doesn't sound half as moral as claiming that you live by one or many no-compromise principles.

So why do you live by it?

I don’t think you can ever live by no-compromise principles and if you claim you can, you’ll just end up compromising and denying it, turning a blind eye to your own inconsistencies. In other words, you’ll become an untethered hypocrite, cutting yourself all sorts of slack, pretending that you live by no-compromise principles when you don’t.

Is that so? Why?

Because there are always going to be trade-offs. A universal no-compromise principle like “always be kind” will often clash with itself, for instance when you have to decide whether to be kind to this person instead of that one. There will be times when kindness to one person will mean unkindness to others and so you’ll pile on other principles for deciding how to apply your one principle, for instance your add-on: different in business than in love, different if it’s from your soul but not the souls of people engaged in bad behavior. Once you have multiple principles, they’ll clash too.

You call that simple?

Like I said, simple in principle: There’s no such thing as no compromise and pretending there is makes you a hypocrite, but you're right, it's complicated in practice—as complicated as a moral life really is.

I think that’s just wrong. I’m sticking with my one no-compromise principle. You think too much. Sorry if that sounds unkind but I've checked with my heart and you're wrong. I mean it kindly.

advertisement
More from Jeremy E. Sherman Ph.D.
More from Psychology Today