Recently, I've been metaphorically slapped across the face by people far more compassionate than myself. The context is essentially immaterial, although I think it would be ideal to just outline what I mean when I say I lack compassion. Take the current crisis in Gaza. I think that what the neutral governments like the UK and the US are doing is the rational thing to do. This is because while campaigners are saying various things like "stop the crisis in Gaza" (an overly-idealistic and -simplistic view), I see no rationality in said campaigners actions. They respond to my apparently heartless, cruel "but why should we help these people?" with completely arbitrary and subjective claims about aiding humanity. I feel they don't consider the practicality of doing so, nor do I feel they consider the rationality of choosing to remain neutral. I think they are too driven by their feelings. Nonetheless, either due to the moral guilt they place upon me (and I'm an amoralist!), or by some other phenomena of which I am almost completely unaware, I feel as if I should be doing or saying something differently.
The problem is, I'm afraid of sacrificing my intellectual integrity, and I feel that in becoming more compassionate as a person, I will do just that.
Is there any way I can avoid this, and still be compassionate? Or should I admit that these people are acting irrationally, and that I am not mistaken in my course of action (or non-action, as the case may be)?
USA is a great player in the free market. USA has NOT been 'rationally' neutral to the Gaza conflict, vis a vis, their support (indirect, and, much so) of Israel. So, before you make a judgement on a topic by saying that it has reached its ceiling of rationality, you may want to be better informed. It helps to actually prove your case for rationality that you think you seem to have so much of in spades.
First thing to know about logic, it is merely a thought-process. It is not an actual 'thought'. And most thoughts in this life is neither black nor white. Predisposition:
Applying logic to it makes you a T.
Applying value-based judgements to it makes you an F.
However, the 'thought' (e.g., Gaza conflict) itself is neither T nor F. And, thus, neither is 'one side' a logical argument, while the other a value-based. It is how you PROVE your thought (the process) that will predict whether you're working with T or F. So, you can take either side, neither side, or, sit on the fence. Just prove it - accordingly. Be it logic or value-based.
E.g., My close friends know my frustration when things are not 'logical'. When I was younger, it was a really big issue. I would get angry, frustrated, couldn't/wouldn't/refused to work with the world, when I felt that someone had committed a fallacy of logic. For me, it came down to, if it is not logical, I cannot do it/commit. So, one time, I challenged them, can you find 'logic' within values? Show me.
And, I have been given many an example that finally showed me the limitations of 'cold', objective logic. And, thus, the merits of value-based 'logic'.
Anecdote: Our driveway is long and narrow, and we got 3 cars parked there. Middle one, the person is not home yet so no key. Front car (my dad's). Last car, blocked in by the rest is mine. I needed to leave ASAP. So, I asked my dad to borrow his car, and when he goes out later, he could use mine. Makes logical sense. His is the in line. However...he refused, asking me to wait to get my car out. I was livid. It didn't make logical sense. Relay story to my F-disposed friend. Her response: Your dad knows you smoke and hates it, and he probably doesn't want to face it/inhale it, when he goes to sit in your car. Simple. Logical still. And, triumped me. That's value-based as you get. But, for some reason, it beats my logical reasoning. With a greater 'internal logic' of its own.
There is a certain 'logic' to many value-based judgements. Which those of us with T, or, in praise of the T, are woefully blind to.