The Paradox of Kindness

Every man claims to be a moral relativist until he is wronged.

The intellectual will casually argue that values are subjective, that truth is a construct, and that no culture has the right to judge another. He will tell you with a smirking confidence that right and wrong are merely matters of perspective.

Then, blast into his front door in the middle of the night. Take his possessions. Burn his work. Threaten his children.

In an instant, his precious intellectual posturing evaporates. He does not scream, "I subjectively dislike your behavioral preference!" He does not say, "In my culture, this is considered inconvenient!"

He screams that you are wrong. He demands justice as though the violation were more than a matter of taste. And suddenly, the language of subjective preference disappears. He behaves as though some things are wrong regardless of what either of you happens to believe.

Human moral behavior appears to contradict the relativism we intellectually profess.

We all live as if morality is real. We do not treat murder, treason, and child abuse as minor errors in taste, like preferring tea over coffee. We treat them as cosmic transgressions. We feel the weight of a debt when we betray someone who trusted us. We carry the guilt in our bones with objective certainty, that we might have fractured something fundamental to reality itself.

This is the great contradiction of the modern human: we live like moral realists while preaching moral nihilism. We demand the protections of an absolute law while denying that there could be anything above human preference from which such a law derives.

This is why many men go to their graves clutching a set of values they never once tested.

They were born into a household that praised certain behaviors and punished others. They were schooled in systems that reinforced whatever the household had begun. Their peers completed this indoctrination. The culture solidified the mindset.

And by the time they were old enough to think for themselves, the values were so deeply embedded that examining them felt not like philosophy but like heresy.

Consider the most fundamental thing you believe about how to treat other people. The rule that sits at the bottom of your ethics, the one you reach for automatically when the question of right and wrong arises. Where did it come from?

Did it come from your parents? From your biology? Or does it come from your culture?

And if someone grew up believing the opposite, why would they be wrong?

From the cradle, you have been taught that kindness is a natural human inclination, that goodness is merely the polite consensus of civilized men, and that your morality is something you fashioned out of your own noble intellect.

But, never throughout history, has the wolf consulted a council of elders before tearing the throat out of an aging stag. The spider doesn't go through a existential crisis as it liquefies the entrails of a trapped fly. In the unblemished reality of the natural world, there is only power, appetite, momentum, and decay. Biology does not care about your rights. Evolution favors the efficient, the brutal, and the adaptable; it bestows no prize on the merciful.

So if we are nothing more than biological machines, then is it stupid to admit that empathy is merely a chemical defect? Is it just an evolutionary glitch that causes a predator to pause when it ought to strike?

The man who grew up in that environment would not have been wrong in the way you mean when you call something wrong. He would have been inside a different moral grammar entirely. For him, it was as internally consistent, as emotionally real, as felt-as-bedrock as yours is to you now.

The question is not whether his values were worse than yours. The question is by what standard you would establish that his values are wrong and yours are right. And that standard will turn out to have been produced by the same process as his values. It was given to you. You received it. You did not derive it from first principles in the clear light of undistorted reason.

Kindness is historically specific. But it is also historically recent. We are social primates whose survival across millions of years depended on cooperation, and cooperation selected for prosocial instincts: the capacity for empathy, reciprocity, loyalty, recognizing another's pain as pain, and feeling something when another creature suffers.

And this is partly true. And it is also the weakest possible foundation for an ethics.

Because the same evolutionary process that selected for empathy also selected for tribalism. For the specific, intense, and practically unbounded care for those inside the group, and the equally specific and practically unbounded capacity for cruelty toward those outside it.

The same brain that aches when it sees a child cry has been fully capable of systematically destroying children who belonged to a different tribe. Maybe not as an aberration. But as the outgroup-hostility drive that enabled the ingroup-loyalty drive that you've been calling kindness.

You cannot take the prosocial half of the evolutionary inheritance and call it good while discarding the violent half and calling it evil. They are the same system. They were selected for together. The same evolutionary logic that produced your capacity for kindness produced the capacity for the thing you most fear and most condemn in human nature.

The people who failed to discover the obvious goodness of kindness were not degenerate monsters. They were just operating inside conditions that produced a different survival logic. Loyalty to the feudal structure, deference to the church, willingness to fight for territory — these were not arbitrary corruptions of a purer ethic. They were functional adaptations to an environment where the failure to hold those values carried existential consequences.

You must decide where you stand.

Either accept morality as fiction or accept morality as real, objective, and terrifyingly absolute.

If it is real, then morality is not yours to invent. You are subject to a standard you did not create. You do not get to rewrite the laws of reality to accommodate your weaknesses, your lusts, or your modern anxieties.

You are being judged by a standard that existed long before your first breath and will remain long after your name is forgotten by history.

To believe in kindness because you were instructed to is the morality of the well-trained dog.

But to choose it after examining every argument against it, after sitting with the full weight of its contingency, after acknowledging that another person could have been built differently and would not automatically be in error that is a different act entirely. That is something approaching free thought.

— Marcus | Stern Stoic

P.S. If you enjoyed today’s newsletter and want denser, more intellectually demanding topics delivered to your inbox, you don’t have to wait for the free morning letters.

As a free subscriber, you receive 3 letters a week (every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday). But as a Stern Stoic Premium Pass member, you get those same 3 letters plus 4 additional letters every week—bringing a new analysis to your inbox.

That means 7 new in-depth analysis total across the work week—including double issues on Monday and Friday.

As a Premium Member, you'll receive:

If you want to turn daily Stoic insights into pure intellectual power—so you always have the sharpest perspective no matter what topic comes up:

→ Upgrade to the Stern Stoic Premium Pass