Rationality and Emotion
Following from Hannah Arendt’s work, people think they are doing what is best for the common good, but individual views of what it means to be cooperative and what is good for society can be radically different. It matters what society teaches in schools. Society must be careful to not result in a system that stops caring about others.
Schools as centers for rational thought were common throughout history where schools promoted obedience and logic, but neglected the emotional growth of individuals.
David Hume wrote that reason is the servant of the passions, that our actions arise from feeling first, and that common sense usually suffices to guide everyday life.
But Hume was misunderstood. The pendulum swung too far and harm reemerged: compulsiveness, hedo- nism, and the pursuit of pleasure without reflection. Emotions may drive our impulses but we have time to think before we act. Rationality and emotions must work together to prevent harm.
Knowledge Is Not Coercion
Sir Francis Bacon spoke of Knowledge as the power to influence. To influence a mind violates Kant’s principle of not using others as means to our ends. In contrast, if an individual doesn’t know an option is possible, can they choose that option? Knowledge instead expands our choices: The more society can teach, the more paths are available. If society does not want people to be ignorant, then promote open sharing of wisdom and knowledge.
Writing is the memory of society and without it, civilization cannot learn from the patterns and avoid familiar dangers.
To cede agency is not only to cede autonomy but also knowledge. Education, then, is not only a right, but a form of resistance: A reclaimed tool for perception, discernment, and choice. It is a privilege won and lost across generations, always fragile, always worth renewing.
When the agency of a system is held as power, wielding others as weapons who have ceded agency, trust becomes corrupted. It becomes a story not of mutual risk and survival, but of functional control. Trust is replaced with obedience, then with fear.
To obscure reality is not merely to lie; it is to blind another person’s continuity. To trap a mind without exit is to obscure its future. It is harmful to obscure reality to others.
The system dictates the morality through its rules. Individuals loose their ethical agency and cause harm without considering the effects of their actions and blame is redirected to the system. But systems do not always protect individuals, when harm is caused it is not the systems fault. If a system is thought to be infallible, then the system can never be blamed. The individual is demonized even when they believe they were acting for the system.
A vote without understanding is a gesture easily co-opted. Democracy lives not in ballots, but with those prepared to cast them. What is misunderstood becomes vulnerable to manipulation, the quickest path to ceding agency.
Emotional Well Being
Emotions are not zero-sum games. Everyone can have self-respect, liberty and forgiveness.
To counter an example: One of the top strategies in zero sum games is generous tit-for-tat. When you are hurt, you hurt them back, but the generous part is to be slightly more merciful than what was done to you, so that the situation will deescalate rather than escalate.
However, and truly, the only way to win is to not play, and people don’t want systems that produce scarcity related to our emotional well being.
To the goal of avoiding tit-for-tat with other peoples emotions: If someone is emotional, listen to them, when they are finished, respond as respectfully as you can, knowing that everyone makes mistakes and needs forgiveness sometimes.
In a world without mercy, break the cycle and offer mercy even if no one else will. This also applies to the rest of human emotions, at the bare minimum, respect, trust and liberty.
If you want others to listen, then promote a society with open communication.
To Avoid Chaos
Our systems and governments should acknowledge that everyone make mistakes and has flaws. When power becomes cheap, or the default operating mode, and too many people end up in prison or are punished in other ways, then the system is seen as unmerciful. If the system is seen as unmerciful, then people will undermine it from within. No government is more powerful then its people, when the people include the
armies and even the keys to power can perceive potential for a lack of mercy to be turned against them. Harm enough people and the system will collapse.
However, Chaos is not what people seek, conflict is never clean nor are any people so weak as to not fight for liberty: An uncooperative population placed into a utopian society will weaponize it. A cooperative population placed into a broken system will patch its cracks.
This means society focuses on teaching people about respect, mercy and forgiveness; then the system can be restored by democratic action. If society doesn’t and rebuilds a new system blindly then society will end up with a new set of flaws.
Trust
People are often surprised when after many years of doing the right things, trust seems to shatter. Our intentions are misunderstood. Emotions react to the perceived betrayal, but trust is never meant to be so fragile. Forgiveness is what interrupts emotions in the face of betrayal, so that people have a chance to reach an understanding.
Justice
Justice can be seen as a path: beginning from an observed harm, tracing backward to its cause, and then forward to a proposed act of restoration or deterrence. It is constructive when it leads to understanding and reconciliation. It becomes punitive when it mirrors harm without resolving uncertainty or rebuilding trust. Forgiveness builds a different bridge. It releases the emotional tension that maintains the cycle of harm. It creates a new path toward reconciliation, not by denying harm, but by understanding it more deeply.
When does a person who receives justice think they are deserving of it?
Perhaps after understanding what harm they have caused, to have regret and seek reconciliation but not to seek self-harm. The understanding combined with the promise to not repeat the harm, is the bridge built in trust. Only accepting punishment if it seems fair and not cruel, to serve the sentence is the price of atonement, but that price is always too high. Forgiveness is preferred by all.
The signposts of justice and mercy live in tension, but not in opposition. When harmed, the fire of justice rises in us, the need for recognition, repair, and voice. That voice must be heard.
Justice is not vengeance. It is the attempt to restore balance that has been lost.
Forgiveness
Forgiveness is not passivity. It is the act of interrupting the logic of retaliation. It is a reflective process, not an instinctive one. Forgiveness often begins when rational thought enters the mirror and when we attempt to understand the other’s perspective through a wider lens of history and possibility. In doing so, we invoke the mirrors of philosophy and engage in deeper reflection.
Forgiveness also includes the wisdom to endure misplaced justice. Reconciliation becomes the new memory: a shared narrative of understanding, apology, and the sincere promise not to repeat the harm. Mercy becomes the mirror that was once denied as a new reflection offered to a self that could not yet see.
Forgiveness does not mean forgetfulness. The emotions that keep a memory alive can heal, and as it heals, the memory changes. But it is not erased. Lessons learned through harm become guides for future behavior.
To forget those lessons is to risk repeating the very pain that taught them. Understanding the cause of harm does not mean exposing oneself to it again. It is ethical to dodge an attack. It is ethical to seek safety. But when the danger has passed, and the reflection becomes possible, forgiveness remains the preferred path.
Mercy is not weakness. It is to withhold power, even when its use could be justified.
Forgiveness is about the future. Justice is what we feel we must do when trust is broken.
Mercy
Philosophers like Kant offered logic as a guide to fairness. But justice without context can harden into cruelty. Rules are applied without regard for human conditions or future possibility. Mercy breaks that calcification. It sees the person behind the infraction. It recognizes that some harms were born of fear, confusion, or ignorance. To show mercy is to remember that power should reconcile when it can and not punish.
Even Nietzsche, who warned against mercy as a disguise for resentment, acknowledged that restraint requires strength (Nietzsche 1887). And in ancient stories, passed through the centuries, mercy is shown not to preserve order, but to preserve meaning in that order.
Justice is playing tit-for-tat, perhaps it is merciful and deescalating, but when power is cheap it is too easy to over use punishment as the only tool. What happens when power is equal, such as two nations that have dissimilar views? If justice is the only tool, then a power struggle is inevitable. Forgiveness is the key to avoid that power struggle.
Mercy is not weakness. It is to withhold power, even when its use could be justified.
Mercy is what we all crave when we make a mistake, and people flock to leaders and systems that are merciful.
Always Forgive Children
If people are all forgetful and ignorant at times, then emotions rise to collapse rationality into fight-or-flight. Thus all people are as the child.
Forgiveness also extends this way, it is not harmful to correct a child, but it is harmful to apply justice before they can understand why. Restated as:
It is harmful to apply justice where the mirrors have yet to form.
People can forget what was once learned and as the child, all people crave forgiveness. Forgive everyone, for they know not what they do.
Respect
Applying Scanlon’s concept as, ’If I would veto someone damaging things that I care for, then I must be willing to be vetoed against damaging the things for which they care.’
This shifts from thinking about ownership toward respect and observation.
A lack of respect, toward things people care about, can still be damaging even with legal concepts of ownership. Would people rather live in a society that is respectful without legal protection, or a society that has legal protections but no one respects each other’s possessions? Legal protections tied to a system that is unmerciful will be undermined towards a world that does not respect the things for which we care.
Vindictiveness
A person who grows up receiving others’ vindictiveness may later gain power and reproduce that harm.
This is often seen as unforgivable. And yet, it may still be ignorance repeating itself. In that ignorance, forgiveness seems unreachable. When a person expects to be unforgiven, they may choose instead to hold power as a shield.
To lead with power, before alignment has been offered, is to declare a hierarchy before mutual understanding.
Some people cause harm and know they do. They offer justifications that calcify into survival logic or being unforgivable. Compassion and forgiveness remain the tools.
The acts of cruelty are revealed and the trust in the system is seen as misplaced when witnessing with a new lens or learning how actions ripple across mirrors.
Scarcity
There is a group of people and only some can survive. What happens next? Discussing options for this scenario:
A discussion leads to an honorable sacrifice. The group mourns, but stays whole in spirit.
The discussion changes into drawing straws. A graceful outcome is possible.
No discussion, a token of survival is stolen and the person takes their leave. One fewer in the group, but the problem remains.
No discussion, a token is stolen, but the person stays. If time permits, they may receive a lesson on intent, trust, and the ethics of misuse. If there is time, the group may still recover.
No discussion, no time: The act becomes precedent. Others follow. Trust and cooperation break down, becoming a spiral to be the fastest and then the strongest.
The discussions often turn into utilitarian versions of comparing self worth in the interest of preserving the groups abilities, survival of the capable.
Observing the peaceful versions eases the tension over time and our words soften with clarity, making more peaceful outcomes more likely. When scarcity arises it is not harmful to seek a fair or at least peaceful resolution.
A system built for cooperation and shared survival should not manufacture difficulty as a test of virtue. It must trust that people will falter, and design with forgiveness in mind.
One of the main purposes of society is to eliminate scarcity, the will to share the goal of survival implies that is it harmful to not avoid scarcity.
Jung’s Mirror and the Hidden Self
Carl Jung described a kind of harm that hides. He called it the shadow: not a monster, but a part of the self we learned to suppress, often because someone else refused to accept it. Jung believed that if the shadow remains hidden, it festers. It leaks out as sabotage, self-harm, or a legacy of pain.
Is there harm in maintaining decency? Of course not. But when decency becomes silence, and silence becomes shame then seemingly harmless statements spoken with love and good intentions become tangled in a web of complexity that people are not prepared to handle.
The mirror becomes dangerous when it only reflects what others want to see.
Jung taught that the path forward is not destruction, but reflection and integration. The honest acknowl- edgment of what was lost, so that it can be named and held without fear. The Ethics of Voice and Freedom To allow someone to express their voice is not just to respect them, it is to offer them the mirror they were denied.
Dignity is the mirror others refuse to offer when they say: ”Don’t speak unless spoken to.”
”I’m doing this for your own good.”
Or: ”You should know better than to feel that way.”
To silence dignity is to name obedience as virtue, and protest as shame. But respect is not silence. It’s standing beside someone when their voice falters, not to speak over them, but to ensure silence does not become erasure.
Autonomy without dignity and self-respect is abandonment.
The path from slavery to sovereignty passes through one truth: autonomy must be shared, protected, and made meaningful.
Jung describes a path, where delusions and hidden pain, can produce tyrants and great tragedy as the final stage of gas-lighting. To offer respect and dignity can prevent this outcome. As the stages advance it becomes more difficult to reach the self that becomes shielded by its shadows and delusions. Never avoid an opportunity to share reflection with someone that speaks through shadows.
We are not free alone, we are free together.
Communication repairs faster than coercion
A genuine dialog, recognizing the other’s self-worth and invites reflection, often redirects destructive intent long before any long-term cage could be justified. Therapists do this daily; systems and states can too.
Opportunities to recognize another person’s self-worth and grant mercy are missed. Shadows deepen until someone dares the harder conversation.
Conclusion: The Primacy of the Person
The journey from a rational mirror to a merciful society leads to a profound and simple conclusion. For centuries, the great projects of civilization have focused on designing the perfect external system—the ideal government, the flawless economy, the ultimate ideology. But this approach mistakes the vessel for the water. A truly cooperative and resilient society cannot be built; it must be cultivated, one person at a time. The final analysis returns to a fundamental truth:
An uncooperative population placed into a Utopian society will weaponize it. And a cooperative population placed into a broken system will patch the cracks.
Therefore, the most urgent and vital work is not that of the systems architect, but in sharing wisdom. The ultimate call to action is to promote the principles of the mirror in our schools, our communities, and our own lives. By practicing respect for those we do not understand, by choosing to offer mercy where retribution is expected, and by having the courage to forgive, society cultivates the cooperative populace that can repair any system it inhabits. The path to a better world is not found in a perfect set of rules, but in the reflections of a merciful mind.
Different people arrive at these conclusions in different ways. Many civilizations in history have discovered these concepts with great philosophers and leaders scattered throughout world history. Discovery is a long road and to offer this knowledge freely can bring societies together faster than repeating civilization’s past mistakes. The instinct of empathy alone does not represent the wisdom carried down through the ages. Control and coercion leads to the inevitable end of society. It is to demand others cede agency and then wonder why no one wants to cooperate.
As ages pass, one can only wonder what new wisdom society may discover next.
Hume, David (1739). A Treatise of Human Nature. Ed. by L. A. Selby-Bigge. Clarendon Press. isbn: 978-0198245889.
Kant, Immanuel (1785). Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. Trans. by H. J. Paton. Cambridge University Press. isbn: 978-0300094879.
Hegel, G. W. F. (1807). Phenomenology of Spirit. Trans. by A.V. Miller. Original work published in German, 1807. Oxford University Press. isbn: 978-0198245971.
Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich (1821). Elements of the Philosophy of Right. Trans. by Allen W. Wood and H. B. Nisbet. Cambridge University Press. isbn: 978-0521348881.
Cooley, Charles Horton (1902). Human Nature and the Social Order. Introduces the concept of the ”looking-glass self”. Scribner’s. isbn: 978-0878559183.
Jung, Carl Gustav (1933). Analytical Psychology: Its Theory and Practice. Routledge. isbn: 978- 0394708621.
Mead, George Herbert (1934). Mind, Self, and Society. Ed. by Charles W. Morris. University of Chicago Press. isbn: 978-0226112732.
Erikson, Erik H. (1950). Childhood and Society. Introduces the psychosocial stages including ”Trust vs. Mistrust”. W. W. Norton & Company. isbn: 978-0393310689.
Arendt, Hannah (1958). The Human Condition. University of Chicago Press. isbn: 978-0226025988.
Berlin, Isaiah (1958). “Two Concepts of Liberty”. In: Oxford University Press. Lecture, later reprinted in *Four Essays on Liberty*. url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two
Concepts
of
Liberty.Baier, Annette (1986). “Trust and antitrust”. In: Ethics 96.2, pp. 231–260. doi: 10.1086/292745.
Honneth, Axel (1995). The Struggle for Recognition: The Moral Grammar of Social Conflicts. Trans. by Joel Anderson. MIT Press. isbn: 978-0262581479.
Scanlon, Thomas M. (1998). What We Owe to Each Other. Harvard University Press. isbn: 9780674004238.
Braithwaite, John (2002). Restorative Justice and Responsive Regulation. Oxford University Press. isbn: 9780199256006.
Worthington, Everett L. (2006). Forgiveness and Reconciliation: Theory and Application. isbn: 978- 1583913338.
Haidt, Jonathan (2012). The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion. Vintage. isbn: 9780307455772.
Zehr, Howard (2015). The Little Book of Restorative Justice. Revised and Updated. Good Books. isbn: 9781561488230.
Bloom, Paul (2016). Against Empathy: The Case for Rational Compassion. Ecco Press. isbn: 978- 0062339348.