Human frailty and foibles

[SingingAnalyst]

I realize these may not be polar opposites (in that making humans better may well include helping us be more tolerant of each other's innocent mistakes), but I choose Option 2. The appeal of Option 1, which has a lot of validity, is that humans can do better than we have. However, I feel it promotes an attitude of less tolerance for even innocent mistakes.

Option 2 is not inconsistent, in my view, with wanting humans to help make the world a better place for those that follow us, nor with social action to eliminate racism, bigotry, hunger, poverty, etc.

[Antonio the Sixth]

This is kind of a hard question to answer in the abstract - obviously there are situations where one attitude is appropriate and situations when the other is - but if you really want an answer, I have to go with option 2. Empathy is the cornerstone of all morality IMO.

[SingingAnalyst]

This is kind of a hard question to answer in the abstract - obviously there are situations where one attitude is appropriate and situations when the other is - but if you really want an answer, I have to go with option 2. Empathy is the cornerstone of all morality IMO.

I agree, it is hard to answer in the abstract, which is one reason I posed it.

[Mr. Smith]

Option 2, mostly because the premises of Opt. 1 are questionable anyway. I mean, do we truly know better?

[Esteemed Jimmy]

Option 2

[TJ in Oregon]

A few years ago I'd have picked #1, but I'm leaning toward to #2 now. People can be so vicious and unforgiving now it's really hard to see common good across our partisan divide.

[dead0man]

obviously number 2 for 99% of life

Clearly there are times when the first one is true.  Like if you're driving a school bus or building a hospital.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

A few years ago I'd have picked #1, but I'm leaning toward to #2 now. People can be so vicious and unforgiving now it's really hard to see common good across our partisan divide.

[afleitch]

Option 2.

There's no 'default human' or standard by which to measure success or failure or at times even intent. We all have different and unique faculties; I'm able bodied. But I'm also autistic, so my thought and reasoning processes are imbued by that and flowing from this my empathy has became almost boundless as an overcorrection. Being gay gives me a closeness to men and a different closeness to women.

So on those counts there is already 'error' or deviation from an expected path or insight which may run contrary to societal or religious expectations. A knife to my throat isn't going to alter these facets in order to 'see as I should.'

We can never 'know better'; just different.

[SingingAnalyst]

I get that most of us want us to be more tolerant of each other. Which leads to the next logical question: what are some widely-held misconceptions we would do well to jettison?

One, for me, is the idea that there must be only one "true" explanation for something. For example, I have seen posts about how a handful of Australian youths have been arrested for setting fires, as though this negates the role of climate change in the fires. Also, Milankovitch cycles are a thing (alterations in Earth's orbit is believed to affect climate), but that, too, does not negate the role of humans in effecting climate change.

[Tartarus Sauce]

I get that most of us want us to be more tolerant of each other. Which leads to the next logical question: what are some widely-held misconceptions we would do well to jettison?

One, for me, is the idea that there must be only one "true" explanation for something. For example, I have seen posts about how a handful of Australian youths have been arrested for setting fires, as though this negates the role of climate change in the fires. Also, Milankovitch cycles are a thing (alterations in Earth's orbit is believed to affect climate), but that, too, does not negate the role of humans in effecting climate change.

In general, multicasuality is a common expectation within academic study, but an underutilized lens within the public discourse of laymen. People pay more attention to simple arguments that forcefully distinguish themselves through narrow delineation. It's easier to sell people on the solution to a problem, or the reason for a phenomenon. That may be an appropriate approach at times, but such descriptive explanations can just as easily fall victim to reductivism, doubly so in the case of prescriptive solutions.