UI 054: Standards vs. Compassion (Part 1)

This weeks parsha Beha'alotecha (Numbers 8:1–12:16) brought to mind an ultimate issue I'd like to discuss.

Numbers Ch. 9 (NIV)

1The Lord spoke to Moses in the Desert of Sinai in the first month of the second year after they came out of Egypt. He said, 2“Have the Israelites celebrate the Passover at the appointed time. 3Celebrate it at the appointed time, at twilight on the fourteenth day of this month, in accordance with all its rules and regulations.”

4So Moses told the Israelites to celebrate the Passover, 5and they did so in the Desert of Sinai at twilight on the fourteenth day of the first month. The Israelites did everything just as the Lord commanded Moses.

6But some of them could not celebrate the Passover on that day because they were ceremonially unclean on account of a dead body. So they came to Moses and Aaron that same day 7and said to Moses, “We have become unclean because of a dead body, but why should we be kept from presenting the Lord’s offering with the other Israelites at the appointed time?”

8Moses answered them, “Wait until I find out what the Lord commands concerning you.”

9Then the Lord said to Moses, 10“Tell the Israelites: ‘When any of you or your descendants are unclean because of a dead body or are away on a journey, they are still to celebrate the Lord’s Passover,11but they are to do it on the fourteenth day of the second month at twilight. They are to eat the lamb, together with unleavened bread and bitter herbs. 12They must not leave any of it till morning or break any of its bones. When they celebrate the Passover, they must follow all the regulations. 13But if anyone who is ceremonially clean and not on a journey fails to celebrate the Passover, they must be cut off from their people for not presenting the Lord’s offering at the appointed time. They will bear the consequences of their sin.

 This situation and the conflict presented is not exclusive to the people or the times.  No, it's a universal conflict.  What is it?  Often times in life we feel a conflict between Standards and Compassion.

Usually I I do an issue in order to find clarity myself, or I'm trying to help others clarify an issue.  But this is an instance where I don't just prefer clarity over agreement... I really do want agreement.  If we can agree on the ideas I am presenting in this Ultimate Issue, then I think we can create a better society the more we adopt this philosophy.

And that idea is:

We should have Standards dominate the Macro (Public, Societal) Life, and Compassion dominate the Micro (Private, Personal) Life

~ ideas adopted and learned from Dennis Prager and inferred from Judaic teachings

Understand the differences between:

Standards vs Compassion:

Standards = Rules, Standards, and Regulated ways of behavior so as to bring about a better society

Compassion = Doing kindness, Behave lovingly, and feeling empathy for other individuals

Macro vs Micro:

Macro = Big picture, Global view, Society, Public matters

Micro = Close up & Magnified picture, Anecdotal incidence, Individual, Private matters

 

Compassion should dominate the workings of our personal life.  For instance:

• How we personally deal with others transgressions. (i.e. adultery)
• How we personally deal with those we do not particularly like or understand. (i.e. the "other")
• How we personally deal with those whom we do not agree. (i.e. the brotherly dispute)

Standards have to dominate the workings of our societal life.  For instance:

• How we societally deal with other transgressions.  (i.e. court rulings on adultery)
• How we societally deal with those we do not particularly like or understand. (i.e. the "other")

 

Case 1:

Same Sex Marriage:  You should personally love and have compassion for homosexuals and empathize with their desire for marriage.  And have standards for the society that don't falter due to the personal emotions.  With such understand and empathy it is logical to necessary to set up a workable scenario where a same sex couple can still live with the rights and obligations similar to that of a married couple (i.e. civil union).

Case 2:

Peanut allergies: The popular policy banning peanuts (any and all forms) because someone may have an allergy is an example of one sided, micro compassion dominating the macro workings of a society.  It shows compassion for the child who may have an allergy, but what about compassion for the rest of kids who love peanut butter and it serves as an inexpensive and enjoyable choice for kids to get fat and protein in their diet.

Case 3:

Adultery: Often standards in the macro when applied to the micro end up being cruel.  For instance, if the standard for a society rules adultery is bad for families and ultimately the civilization, then it is a macro issue.  But if the individual has no compassion for the adulterer and treats it as automatic grounds for divorce or denies the humanity of the parties involved then that is an example of a macro standard which has been abused in the micro workings of life.  The individuals in a society should keep perspective regarding micro/personal/private issues and macro/societal/public issues.   Thus, this should lead to an admonishment of the action, but compassion for the individual.  Typically the over zealous standards in the micro life tend to occur in religious lives.  Which is not quite so common in most of Western society as it has become more and more secular.

Stringent standards ruling Personal/Macro issues denies:

• Dignity
• Empathy
• Humility
• Generosity

Compassion Ruling Society/Macro issues denies:

• Truth
• Wisdom
• Character development
• "Fairness"

 

Compassion in social policy almost always produces unfair results. Compassion for murderers allows them to keep their lives after taking the life of another. Compassion for minorities leads to affirmative action, which means that individuals who are not members of a designated minority will be treated unfairly. Compassion for immigrant children led to bilingual education, which subsequently prevented most of those children from advancing in American society.

Compassion as the primary determinant of behavior is effective in personal life. In making public policy, it is a morally and socially destructive guideline. In fact, it is so bad that thinking people must conclude that its primary purpose is to enable policy makers who are guided by compassion to feel good about themselves.

~ Dennis Prager read full article here