On Compassion and Consequentialism

Compassionate is the hunter whose aim is true.

In Dharmic religion, a lot of people promote the concept of ‘compassion’, which to them entails total and complete nonviolence (ahimsa), and an interest in actions which minimize suffering universally. This is not an end in itself, because it is acknowledged that suffering can only truly be escaped through your own meditation, ultimately resulting in the renunciation of desire and detachment from the provisional world. The principle of non-violence sometimes even extends to self-defense situations, but I think this is almost always a minority opinion. Because this life is just one of an unending sequence of instances of the self, I’ve met some who think it isn’t really worth attempting to preserve with violence.

However, I don’t think that what some pass as compassionate behavior, is truly compassionate behavior. Compassion — love and sympathy for *all* things, is the complement to passion, which is a vice. But, compassionate people aren’t really acting with sympathy for *all* things. They’re acting with sympathy for human beings, or in some cases, all ostensibly conscious things — human beings and animals. But if you’re an idealist and a pantheist or panpsychist, then there is an element of spirit or consciousness that is all-pervasive. Including within unconscious objects. Animism is a natural conclusion to Idealism. How do you determine what is ethical action to every single object of the universe all at once? The traditional formula seems to fall apart…

Okay, so maybe we’re going to have to set some standards. More conscious beings are worth more ethical consideration, correct? Value a human being more than a pig, a pig more than a tree, a tree more than a rock, and a rock more than an atom. This doesn’t seem like compassionate behavior… This seems to be passionately oriented towards more complicated life forms. Also, what about suffering which is not caused by you, but by other beings to other beings? Because the goal of compassion, in the eyes of *some* people, is the general reduction of suffering, then we can end up with some rather utilitarian activities. Please note, suffering-reducing behavior in this scenario is not a moral duty, but a rationally determined course of ethical action. It is good to be compassionate because the differences between everything are simply illusory, so to harm something else is to harm yourself.

Utilitarianism, I think, is pretty easy to bully. It’s just very silly. Again, you have the aforementioned issue of value judgements for different beings. Utilitarianism traditionally only deals with humans, but we know animals feel suffering. And should we scale suffering within human beings based on the complexity of each person? Utilitarianism’s main weakness is just having so many scenarios which are intuitively ridiculous. For example, the utilitarian being forced to hand his wallet over to a mugger with a knife at his own throat. The ultimate conclusion to utilitarianism, at least if it is organized politically, is getting dopamine hits in a pod until your heart expires.

If you’ve been on the internet long enough, you probably have seen this comic:

Most people are disturbed by this, just like they’re disturbed by heroin junkies. People would rather have agency and live in reality, even if it causes them more pain and suffering. I am shocked that some people don’t say this though. They would proudly live the rest of their days in the pod…

And of course, even if you ignore preference for any particular life form, there’s no actual way to measure suffering, which is a problem when your entire ethical system is based on cost-benefit analysis. Also, because living in this world is ultimately considered a lowly state compared to moksha, nirvana, whatever… Wouldn’t simply ending all life on earth be the most suffering-reducing option? Yes, you may just be reincarnated on some alien planet or in 1 trillion years as a cockroach-person, but by the same logic reducing suffering on earth is like trying to get rid of 5 million rooms in an infinitely large and roomy hotel building. It doesn’t do anything. Suffering seems to be an intrinsic characteristic to the world, maybe even a necessary part of experience, and because the world is temporally infinite save divine intervention reduction of suffering within the world cannot reduce (at least from a mathematical point of view) the total amount of suffering. At best, it is simply your responsibility not to make other people suffer, but responsibility-based morality is its own thing which I’ll get into later.

I think the most dispassionate way to act is not this sort of overly ambitious model of compassion. Instead, follow your design. This is why I say, the hunter killing his prey is compassionate. He is demonstrating his love for the entirety of existence by participating in the world without motivation, simply doing what is by his nature. Shirking your duty in this world in order to minimize suffering is clearly motivated thinking, no matter how you cut it. You’re acting with consequences in mind. He is not making a motivated exception for his prey. The Greeks viewed sacrifice as an act of compassion as they were fulfilling the life-purpose of the animal they were slaughtering. After all, death comes for all beings (usually in a much crueler way in the wild), and this is the most prestigious form of death especially for an animal bred specifically to be sacrificed.

What I’m describing is effectively a very dumbed down version of the argument being made in the Bhagavad Gita, which was possibly itself made as a polemic against Buddhism as it was composed around the time Buddhism began to spread. That’s what I saw in it when I read it. Basically, because Arjuna is by birth and by design a warrior, and warriors have been put on this earth to fight, him refusing to fight and shirking his duty suggests his attachment to the world. Taking in non-violence as a general principle requires pushing against the generally violent will of the world in order to temporarily reduce suffering. How could it be compassionate to be so against the nature of the world like this? Of course, it’s different when non-violence is a part of your responsibility in this world. If you are a priest, for instance… It is somewhat understandable. In India at least. In Europe, priests were engaged in the sacrifice of animals, like I discussed earlier.

Anyways, I’m sad because my only ride to the solar eclipse is a bunch of goobers who will likely tarnish this once in a lifetime experience for me.