Are you kind or just incapable of being bad?
"No one deserves to be praised for kindness if he does not have the strength to be bad." ~ La Rochefoucauld
I've been thinking about the difference between choosing to do a virtuous act, and being compelled by your nature.
I have a tendency to see other people's emotional states as my responsibility.
If you're not ok, then I'm not ok. That someone else's distress is a problem for me to solve.
A while ago I rang a friend to check in on them after an amicable debate. I mentioned I wanted to make sure they were alright, they said of course. I then started talking about wanting to dial back my people pleasing nature and this overbearing need to ensure everyone else is ok ahead of myself.
My friend stopped me and said "be careful getting rid of that, the fact you rang to check on me is exactly one of the reasons I love you as a friend. Don't pathologise the kindest parts of your nature."
But in many ways I didn't CHOOSE to check in on them, I had to.
Is it virtuous to do a good thing if you didn't have any other choice other than to do the good thing?
"Well, the impact was good and positive so, kind of." But there's something about it being compelled and less effortful or conscious that seems to derogate the virtuosity.
So is it more virtuous to do a good thing if it took more effort? If it was harder to do something kind than to do something mean?
Which creates an interesting situation - if your nature compels you to do something good, is it more virtuous to purposefully deprogram that compulsion, making you objectively a worse friend for a while, to then reintroduce the same act but consciously?
That seems an unnecessarily effortful way to finally feel good about doing something kind for other people.
I have no answer here, interesting question though.