Jean Jacques Rousseau's Arguments Against Compassion

The topic of compassion is an important element that affects our lives every day. Many philosophers have conjured their outlines for and against compassionate behavior. If we examine the philosophical approaches of compassion as a whole, rather than siding with which beliefs are thought to be right/wrong, humanity will begin to tear down their bias notions and reconstruct a strong, functioning, and united society. In this essay, Jean Jacques Rousseau and the Dalai Lama help explain the understandings and workings of compassion and why they believe it is the best moral practice. After their views have been stated, Theodor Adorno is introduced to argue against the unanimity for compassion as he believes it fails to address the underlying problems

As Rousseau would argue that compassion results in reduced suffering and creates moral attachments between race, cultures, and classes (Ivanovic). For example, the practice of compassion for Rousseau helps tear down the disunion between the diverse influences of social status, environment, and convention. Conventional differences such as strong, weak, rich, poor, Christian, Muslim, etc.. (“Compassion and its Discontents”). Not only can compassion be a moral practice for an individual but rather a political outline. Rousseau believes compassion supports individuals along with institutions in the recognition of shared assumptions about what a human being’s life entails (“Compassion and its Discontents”). A more in-depth understanding of this idea leads us to think of these shared assumptions as an overall formation for a general concept of humanity. This development results from a “domino effect” of compassionate traits being spread from one individual to the next, leading to a somewhat systemized frame of human moral behavior. These humanitarian ideas for compassion propel understanding for why conventional differences lead to cruelty, ignorance, and even tragedies (“Compassion and its

Rousseau and the Dalai Lama both generate powerful and significant exchanges for the settlement of compassion. Similarly, Adorno’s views cohere to many people and societies. Although both positions have their strengths and weaknesses, it is thoughtless, leisurely, and erroneous to side with only one of the arguments. The answer to the discussion for or against compassion will never be left or right but rather a stance somewhere in-between. There will always be circumstances in which siding with Rousseau/Dalai or Adorno will be the correct moral choice; it is up to the people to break free from the bias restraints of one moral philosophy or the other, and formulate a logical decision based on the contexts of the given situation.

In conclusion, Rousseau’s stance on compassion as a tool that helps unite and create moral attachments between humans is strong. On the contrary Adorno’s judgement of compassion as an irrational emotion that fails to undertake the hidden problems of society also has positive concepts. However, if societies begin to look at the many philosophical beliefs of compassion as a whole, humanity begins to function and coexist at the best possible