C&C

  I think perhaps the saddest thing I'm seeing these days are those that are confusing compassion with common sense. It's like a parent attempting to be a friend, instead of a parent. You can not allow your love, your compassion to establish boundaries. Moral boundaries must be established by empathy. It really is why I would hear, "this is hurting me more than it is you." Yes, it did cause pain to my parents when I required that discipline. The hope of every parent is that their child recognizes the rights of others, respects the rule of law, and exercises sound judgement. At this particular moment in time with the shooting of Charlie Kirk can you imagine how much hurt that had to cause his father? His father turned him in. Common sense directed him to do that, compassion was set aside. Compassion, in this scenario had to become a private thing, not a matter of law.

 So just what is true compassion? It is, pity, sympathy and concern for another, often involving an attempt to alleviate that suffering. It isn't the same thing as empathy. Empathy is the ability to understand another's feelings while maintaining a detachment from those feelings. The best among us have the ability to distinguish between the two, even when it affects us personally. It's a skill, a life lesson to learn and takes a lifetime of practice to master. There are those times when the common sense answer, the common sense approach, is what is required. You can not allow yourself to become embroiled in an emotional response. Compassion is an emotional response. 

 In ancient Greece there were the stoics. They taught that we should focus on the things that we can control and accept those things that we can not. A common sense approach in my humble opinion. I haven't made any scholarly studies about ancient Greek philosophies, I haven't had anyone attempt to teach me philosophy. I have simply developed my own, based on my life experiences. Stoic philosophy does most closely reflect what I'm thinking most of the time but even the stoics had disagreements among themselves. Sometimes I find myself doing that as well. I always win the argument however, I do believe in making a decision. Is it always the correct one? Well, that's another whole discussion philosophically. Thing being, belief requires no proof! If I believe it, it is real to me. Your reality is always going to be just a bit different. 

 Justice is blind. Isn't that the promise we have here in America. A fair, unbiased, unemotional response based on law. The judge isn't supposed to be compassionate, although we have provided avenues for just that, according to law. A crime of passion may not be viewed in the same way as a wanton act of violence. Our judicial system recognizes that. Justifiable is what we call that. Justification is based in  empathy. I can feel and understand your motives, your emotional response to a situation. In the legal system compassion is reserved for the victim, although I'm seeing a shift in that thinking. For the one committing the crime, compassion is solely based in empathy. But empathy isn't a guarantee of compassion! That is not a "right" guaranteed by law. I can understand why you stole the money but that doesn't excuse you stealing it, or lessen the punishment. 

  Our constitution is, as John Adams famously observed, only adequate for a people with "virtue and moral restraint." It is that virtue and moral restraint that nourishes common sense. That is what it takes to recognize the difference between common sense and compassion. Self denial is at the core of that. Obviously we are not all going to agree on everything and so a method to moderate society is required. The legal system serves that function. You might say it supports the virtues and moral judgements of the society. Government has to be the parent! Yes, big brother. I had two, and they could be a pain, but also supported me when I deserved that support. They didn't necessarily teach me moral restraint, although they did on occasion restrain me.

  There are many common sense actions that we are refusing to take because he have confused compassion with common sense. Consider the national budget. 34 trillion dollars in debt and the lawmakers want to increase spending. Ronald Reagan said it plainly enough, we don't have a tax problem. we have a spending problem. We have established legal means for anyone to enter our nation, common sense says he should simply enforce those laws. That's why we wrote them. All of our law enforcement agencies should work hand in hand to enforce all the laws. Common sense! I can see no logical reason why that shouldn't be the the case, yet I hear about that refusal to "cooperate" every day. 

  Right now I'm hearing a great deal of discussion concerning social media platforms. Many I have never heard of but apparently are in the dark corners of the web. Makes it sound like some video game or something, you have to "unlock" certain avenues. There is much discussion about the potential harm these sites may be having on our children. That is being said in an attempt to explain the actins from people like Tyler Robinson. 

 Well you know common sense should be telling parents to restricting their children's access and time on those platforms. I'm old enough to remember when the concern was the "boob" tube. My parents simply turned it off, sent me outside, or told to go read a book. Enough of that for today! Yeah, parents should be doing that. Yes, they will sneak around, I know that. But it is the awareness that what they are doing is somehow "wrong" or harmful" that is important. It was establishing that "virtue" and "moral restraint" that John Adams was talking about. It really is just common sense folks. There are times when you don't "validate and empower" the individual, you simply tell them they are wrong. It's not about hating the person, it's about being compassionate. It's an attempt to alleviate the suffering before it ever gets a chance to infect them.