So, I just had a random thought. That thought is that the idea of 'sparing someone's feelings' by not being blunt about something difficult is inherently a selfish thing
( Read more... )
On one level its a matter of terminology; if you're not saying something for the reasons above, its incorrect to say that you are doing it to spare their feelings, you're not; you are instead doing it because you can't be bothered. While it might be considered a matter of semantics, the second one fully assumes the selfishness of the act and doesn't shy away from it. Saying (or thinking) that you're 'sparing someone's feelings' is an excuse and I contend a lie to either yourself or another. I don't have a problem with people being selfish about their emotions - that's entirely their right - but I don't think that people should pretend that they aren't being selfish when they are.
Secondly, I think its somewhat arrogant to believe that you (and I am speaking generically there) know what is or is not going to make a difference to someone, especially if they have directly confronted or asked you about the information. People act in odd ways, I'm particularly aware of this, because I am quite different to most people out there. So, to assume that someone fits the your personal 'normal' reaction is a little limited.
But ultimately its the first thing, the statement of 'sparing someone's emotions' assumes (at least to me) an altruistic motivation for your actions which I feel is patently untrue. If people want to be honest, then they should say "I didn't feel like telling you", "I couldn't be bothered telling you" or, they should tell the person.
I understand why people would pretend that they aren't being selfish when they are, we generally like to think well of ourselves.
As to your other point, I wouldn't call it arrogance so much as cognitive bias; people tend to be limited in their perspective and often are happy to make do with what they have. I guess the word I also left out of my initial statement was "positive" difference (assuming the aim is to act in a benign or beneficial manner). For example, it would be grossly inappropriate for a doctor relay all the details of how someone died to their grieving relatives.
But I digress, the point I was originally trying to make is that brutal honesty isn't always the way to go. Consider a drug addict that has fallen into despair due to their relapse into addiction, who has asked you for your opinion on their chances of rehabilitation. In truth you might think their situation is completely hopeless based on what they have done in the past. Objectively, you might know there might be an 80% chance of relapse. But because this drug addict is your someone you care about and takes your opinion to heart, you are kind of locked into pledging some form of support since "I don't feel like telling you" isn't really going to cut it.
I accept your points. They're largely why I said that there are indeed valid times when it is appropriate to spare someone's feelings. I can also see other valid altruistic urges, such as an intent to encourage someone, such as in the last example you provided.
I'm just suggesting that the vast majority of occurrences of such sentiments are not expressions of true altruism at all, but instead of selfishness. I used definite language largely because I see it as overwhelmingly more common.
But, yeah, I get what you're saying and agree with you.
On one level its a matter of terminology; if you're not saying something for the reasons above, its incorrect to say that you are doing it to spare their feelings, you're not; you are instead doing it because you can't be bothered. While it might be considered a matter of semantics, the second one fully assumes the selfishness of the act and doesn't shy away from it. Saying (or thinking) that you're 'sparing someone's feelings' is an excuse and I contend a lie to either yourself or another. I don't have a problem with people being selfish about their emotions - that's entirely their right - but I don't think that people should pretend that they aren't being selfish when they are.
Secondly, I think its somewhat arrogant to believe that you (and I am speaking generically there) know what is or is not going to make a difference to someone, especially if they have directly confronted or asked you about the information. People act in odd ways, I'm particularly aware of this, because I am quite different to most people out there. So, to assume that someone fits the your personal 'normal' reaction is a little limited.
But ultimately its the first thing, the statement of 'sparing someone's emotions' assumes (at least to me) an altruistic motivation for your actions which I feel is patently untrue. If people want to be honest, then they should say "I didn't feel like telling you", "I couldn't be bothered telling you" or, they should tell the person.
Reply
As to your other point, I wouldn't call it arrogance so much as cognitive bias; people tend to be limited in their perspective and often are happy to make do with what they have. I guess the word I also left out of my initial statement was "positive" difference (assuming the aim is to act in a benign or beneficial manner). For example, it would be grossly inappropriate for a doctor relay all the details of how someone died to their grieving relatives.
But I digress, the point I was originally trying to make is that brutal honesty isn't always the way to go. Consider a drug addict that has fallen into despair due to their relapse into addiction, who has asked you for your opinion on their chances of rehabilitation. In truth you might think their situation is completely hopeless based on what they have done in the past. Objectively, you might know there might be an 80% chance of relapse. But because this drug addict is your someone you care about and takes your opinion to heart, you are kind of locked into pledging some form of support since "I don't feel like telling you" isn't really going to cut it.
Reply
I'm just suggesting that the vast majority of occurrences of such sentiments are not expressions of true altruism at all, but instead of selfishness. I used definite language largely because I see it as overwhelmingly more common.
But, yeah, I get what you're saying and agree with you.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment