the greatest harm can result from the best intentions?

[McBell]

Good intentions, being kind, can encourage the lazy, and motivate sound minds to become indolent.
The more help you give them, the more help they need. As long as your kindness is open-ended, they never gain discipline, dignity, or self-reliance.
Your kindness impoverishes their humanity.
If you give a coin to a beggar because he says his family is hungry, and he uses it to get drunk, and then kills someone, is it your fault?
No.
He did the killing, but had you given him food instead, or gone and given his family food, the killing would not have happened.
It was a good intention that resulted in harm.

Some leaders have preached peace, saying that even self-defense is wrong.
It seems the best of intentions to shun violence.
In the end, it often leads to slaughter, where their threat of violence in the beginning would have prevented attack, and resulted in no violence.
They put their good intentions above the realities of life.
They accuse warriors of being bloodthirsty, when the warriors would have actually prevented bloodshed.
~~Zed

 

[nutshell]

Good intentions, being kind, can encourage the lazy, and motivate sound minds to become indolent.
The more help you give them, the more help they need. As long as your kindness is open-ended, they never gain discipline, dignity, or self-reliance.
Your kindness impoverishes their humanity.
If you give a coin to a beggar because he says his family is hungry, and he uses it to get drunk, and then kills someone, is it your fault?
No.
He did the killing, but had you given him food instead, or gone and given his family food, the killing would not have happened.
It was a good intention that resulted in harm.

Some leaders have preached peace, saying that even self-defense is wrong.
It seems the best of intentions to shun violence.
In the end, it often leads to slaughter, where their threat of violence in the beginning would have prevented attack, and resulted in no violence.
They put their good intentions above the realities of life.
They accuse warriors of being bloodthirsty, when the warriors would have actually prevented bloodshed.
~~Zed

Agreed. I have a quote from a book I'd like to share, but I don't have it with me. Maybe later.

 

[PureX]

You're mixing a couple of very different ideas, here. The first is that sometime we do harm even though we are trying to do good. And the second is that non-violence does not always work. And I agree with both of these ideas, though perhaps not with the way you mean them.

Yes, it's true that when I try to help someone, I may not be helping them at all. BUT, I see no reason that this should stop me from trying. After all, I have no way of knowing up front if my help will actually help or not, but I do know that if I don't at least try to help, the other person isn't even going to have the option.

I believe in my heart of hearts that it's a very bad idea for me to presume to know another person's thoughts or actions, and to use this presumption as a means of controlling them (for their own good or for any other reason).

Even though I have been a raging alcoholic, and I know how horrible that disease is, I would still never presume to know what a drunk on the street should do with the dollar I give him. It may very well be that the drink he buys with that dollar is what he really needs at that moment, and that it will save his life. Or, he may go and buy a sandwich, I don't know. But I do know that if I don't give him that dollar, he will not have any options at all. And that's why I give the dollar ... not to control him, but to give him options. Options are freedom and freedom is life, even when we choose the wrong things.

And anyway, who am I to tell another man what he should or shouldn't be doing with his life?

As to the subject of non-violence, I agree that there are times when we have to defend ourselves. But I would not agree at all with the idea that because we will sometimes have to fight to survive, that this in any way, shape, or form justifies preemptive self-defense. As far as I am concerned there is no such thing as preemptive self-defense. This is just a clever disguise for aggression.

The idea that if we strike first we can avoid more bloodshed is insane. It's based on the assumption that we know that the other side is going to attack us, and in fact we don't EVER know this, and we CAN'T ever know it until they do it. And the moment we assume what will be, WE BECOME THE AGGRESSORS. And that's why even though there may be more bloodshed if we wait until we're attacked before fighting someone else, we must do so. Because the alternative turns us into the bad guys, no matter how you cut it, and that will just increase violence and death all across the board.

 

[Feathers in Hair]

I think that the 'greatest harm' does not come from kindness, but rather the way in which it is potentially expressed.

 

[jacquie4000]

I guess no matter what I would find it hard to change who I am. I like to give to people in need when I can. I can only hope I am helping. There will always be people who take advantage of it and those who will improve because of it. But if I close my heart off to everyone, no one will benefit.

 

[McBell]

I suspect that many people are completely missing the point of the quote.
The quote is simply saying to be mindful of the consequences of your actions.

 

[PureX]

I suspect that many people are completely missing the point of the quote.
The quote is simply saying to be mindful of the consequences of your actions.

Maybe you're missing the point, which is that we can't know the consequences of our "helping others" in advance. All we can do is offer the help, and respect the other person's response. Some people will want our help and some will not. Some will take our help and misuse it, and some will take it and apply it well. But what they do is not for us to judge.