Critiquing - Part Three

Is compassion the essence of mental health?

Is civility the essence of societal health?

People have a tendency to conform to behaviours within a group context when they assess conformity to be beneficial to themselves in some way.

That does not imply that the behaviours are moral.

There is nothing morally justified about obedience itself.

Only reasonableness is morally justified.

Have you ever critiqued the Golden Rule?

Perhaps you assume that the rule implies that all people have the same expectations of particular situations.  But what does reality indicate?

When have people mistakenly assumed you appreciate something because they do?

The Golden Rule has nothing to do with empathy and much to do with imposing tastes, values and expectations on other people.

Behaving towards other people as you wish them to behave towards you does not take their tastes, values, interests and opinions into consideration in any way whatsoever.

Perhaps people have attempted to insist upon you eating something they have specially made for you, without first consulting you, even though you know it contains an item you detest, or will not eat for ethical reasons, or which may even be detrimental to your health.

Perhaps people assume you enjoy the same music as they do, or the same smells, or the same hobbies.

When, if ever, have you been invited to make an insightful or spiteful commentary on someone or something?

Civility is obviously never spiteful though it is occasionally associated with informed criticism.

If you have been investing in historical accuracy, you will know that freedom of speech has meant many different things in many different places at many different times.

The purpose of freedom of speech is rarely discussed appropriately.  Such a right is intimately entwined with the right to know the truth about abuses of power, bureaucratic incompetence and other cover-ups.

You may or may not know anything about laws relating to contempt of court, contempt of Parliament and/or expressions of defamation.

You may have republican tendencies, even if you are an Australian citizen under the laws enacted on behalf of the Crown in this part of the world.

If so, what are your particular criticisms of monarchy, and why?

If you have monarchist tendencies, regardless of your citizenship, why do you believe monarchical rule is superior to republicanism?

What sort of climate(s) did your ancestors experience in the 18th, 19th and early 20th centuries, and how do you know?

Which climate(s) have you experienced in recent years, and why?

 

The Crown is an invention, though for a different purpose than that of The Crown.

How do you think about criticism and critiquing in terms of civility and opinion? 

How compassionate are your critiques, and how do you know?

Far too many participants in social movements behave like fans instead of social critics.  Their ideas about the good are associated with whatever makes them feel good about themselves, their hopes, dreams, tastes, interests and imagination.  They glorify themselves and the people they admire rather than good itself.

How do you express civility, compassion and appropriate critiquing through your activism?