Totally agree with each and everything you said!!👌
I also find myself guilty of being that person who says yes for everything.
Recently, I have cut ties with a person who would ask for anything in a very sweet manner but I would not always like to agree to their request. Still, I would always reply with a yes, cause otherwise, it would mean hurting the other person’s feelings. But, after sometime, when it was no longer tolerable to say yes every time, we called it quits.
I have become the No person, some people don't like me for that, which makes me smile.
"When we focus too much on making everyone else happy, we start to lose ourselves and forget what truly makes us happy. We start saying yes to things we don’t actually support and do things we don’t really want to do, all because we’re afraid of being disliked by everyone."
I am in England right now and a similar thing I want to say is "Stop apologizing— you have not done anything wrong and yes, I am okay."
The argument you’ve put forward really does highlight some important ethical concerns, especially around the principle of “treating others as you want to be treated.” However, after reflecting on it, I think there are a few areas where the argument could be refined to make it even stronger.
One area to consider is that the argument relies on some logical shortcuts, like generalising from personal experiences. It suggests that trying to live by this principle often leads to negative outcomes for everyone, which might not always hold. Some people find that this principle strengthens their relationships and personal integrity. This is where the argument seems to fall into a hasty generalisation—assuming that it must do so universally because it may lead to negative outcomes in some cases.
The argument also appeals to consequences, suggesting that the principle is flawed because it can lead to feelings of exhaustion or emptiness. While it’s important to acknowledge potential downsides, drawing conclusions based on feared outcomes might overlook the full picture, including the positive impacts this principle can have when applied thoughtfully.
Another point to consider is how the argument blends different philosophical concepts—ethics, epistemology, and metaphysics. It starts with an ethical discussion, shifts into discussing the fear of disagreement (which is more about how we handle different beliefs), and then touches on the idea of losing oneself, which relates to personal identity. These are all valuable ideas, but they’re quite distinct. Mixing them together without clear boundaries makes the argument less focused and harder to follow. To make this clearer:
The argument begins with an ethical principle—"treat others as you want to be treated"—which is rooted in moral philosophy and concerns how we ought to behave toward others. However, as the argument progresses, it shifts from discussing ethical behaviour to addressing the fear of disagreement, which is primarily an epistemic concern (how we handle differing beliefs or knowledge claims).
From the ethical principle, the argument shows Epistemic confusion. The discussion of disagreement, while important, is framed in a way that suggests it is inherently problematic from an ethical standpoint. This confuses the nature of epistemic inquiry, where disagreement is often a necessary and constructive part of the process. By conflating epistemic disagreement with ethical failure (e.g., being "disagreeable"), the argument undermines the value of healthy debate and intellectual diversity.
The argument concludes with reflections on the self, discussing concepts like "losing oneself" or "forgetting what truly makes us happy." These are metaphysical concerns related to identity, existence, and personal integrity. However, the argument does not clearly distinguish these concerns from the ethical and epistemic issues it raises earlier, leading to a muddled conclusion.
I also believe that there is an equivocation on 'disagreeable' that adds to the confusion. shifting from a neutral or positive sense (someone who disagrees or holds firm to their beliefs) to a negative sense (someone who is rude or unpleasant). This equivocation leads to a misleading implication that all forms of disagreement are ethically problematic, which undermines the value of constructive epistemic discourse.
The argument also presents what could be seen as a false dilemma, suggesting that the only options are being overly agreeable (to the point of self-sacrifice) or becoming harsh and dismissive. But in reality, there’s a middle ground where someone can assert their values while still being respectful and kind. Acknowledging this balance could help the argument resonate more with people trying to navigate these situations.
Regarding communication, the advice that “language matters a lot” is important, but it might reduce the concept of respect to just the words we use. Respect in disagreement involves more than careful language—genuinely considering others’ perspectives and treating them with dignity, even when we disagree.
Finally, it might be helpful to consider the role of power dynamics and the possibility of bad-faith actors in disagreements. The argument assumes that setting boundaries and communicating respectfully will always be effective, but real-life situations can be more complicated. Some people might not act in good faith, or power imbalances might make it difficult to assert oneself. Recognising these factors could make the argument more applicable to real-world scenarios.
While the argument raises some critical points, it could be even more compelling with a few adjustments. By addressing these logical fallacies, clarifying the distinctions between different philosophical ideas, and considering the complexities of human interaction, the argument could offer a more nuanced and practical approach to handling disagreements. It’s clear that you intend to encourage thoughtful and respectful discourse, and with these refinements, your argument could become a powerful tool for engaging with these principles.
Some of my favorite people are super disagreeable and actually ENJOY conflict. It’s always interesting to see their perspective as a self-proclaimed agreeable person because getting into conflict can be a tough thing to manage, but disagreeable people are often really good at it and I’ve learned a lot from them with it
Agreed! Disagreeable people thrive in conflict because they care less about others' opinions. This detachment makes them more straightforward and honest, allowing them to handle difficult situations with ease.
I have been interested the concept of paradims as in the last 5yrs. In your intro you mentioned the "golden rule". The paradigm behind this rule assumes that the self knows what one wants, then assumes the others want the same. However as you mentioned we say yes to things that we do not want in order to get things that we want. There is a personal sacrifice to be made in this conclusion.
This is how the "golden rule"was changed from "Don't treat others as you wouldn't want to be treated. To "treat others as.."
The original "rule" was thought of by Confucius 500 years before Christians ruled with their golden rules.
The original was meant to assume that we don't want to be treated in a certain manner so don't treat others that way. And since it is easier to know what one dosent want than to know what one wants. There is any sacrifice in this paradigm. We then have then opportunity to build a connection with another growth and platform of empathy.
Yup, I appreciate the principle of being nice to everyone, but it can lead to an obsession with maintaining a "nice" image. Truly kind people aren’t pushovers, they stand up for what they want, just in a polite and considerate way. I think people need to understand that you don’t have to be a pushover to be seen as nice.
Totally agree with each and everything you said!!👌
I also find myself guilty of being that person who says yes for everything.
Recently, I have cut ties with a person who would ask for anything in a very sweet manner but I would not always like to agree to their request. Still, I would always reply with a yes, cause otherwise, it would mean hurting the other person’s feelings. But, after sometime, when it was no longer tolerable to say yes every time, we called it quits.
Thankyou for writing such a wonderful post!!✨🙌♥️
Sometimes you do need boundaries!
Arathy,
I love the title of this one.
I have become the No person, some people don't like me for that, which makes me smile.
"When we focus too much on making everyone else happy, we start to lose ourselves and forget what truly makes us happy. We start saying yes to things we don’t actually support and do things we don’t really want to do, all because we’re afraid of being disliked by everyone."
I am in England right now and a similar thing I want to say is "Stop apologizing— you have not done anything wrong and yes, I am okay."
No denial in that.
;) thx for reading my post.
Thank you!
Yes it is difficult to say no but sometimes you need to do it for yourself :)
To do this, find out what you truly are:
https://open.substack.com/pub/bernhardexplores/p/how-to-become-what-you-truly-are?r=3oqs68&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
The argument you’ve put forward really does highlight some important ethical concerns, especially around the principle of “treating others as you want to be treated.” However, after reflecting on it, I think there are a few areas where the argument could be refined to make it even stronger.
One area to consider is that the argument relies on some logical shortcuts, like generalising from personal experiences. It suggests that trying to live by this principle often leads to negative outcomes for everyone, which might not always hold. Some people find that this principle strengthens their relationships and personal integrity. This is where the argument seems to fall into a hasty generalisation—assuming that it must do so universally because it may lead to negative outcomes in some cases.
The argument also appeals to consequences, suggesting that the principle is flawed because it can lead to feelings of exhaustion or emptiness. While it’s important to acknowledge potential downsides, drawing conclusions based on feared outcomes might overlook the full picture, including the positive impacts this principle can have when applied thoughtfully.
Another point to consider is how the argument blends different philosophical concepts—ethics, epistemology, and metaphysics. It starts with an ethical discussion, shifts into discussing the fear of disagreement (which is more about how we handle different beliefs), and then touches on the idea of losing oneself, which relates to personal identity. These are all valuable ideas, but they’re quite distinct. Mixing them together without clear boundaries makes the argument less focused and harder to follow. To make this clearer:
The argument begins with an ethical principle—"treat others as you want to be treated"—which is rooted in moral philosophy and concerns how we ought to behave toward others. However, as the argument progresses, it shifts from discussing ethical behaviour to addressing the fear of disagreement, which is primarily an epistemic concern (how we handle differing beliefs or knowledge claims).
From the ethical principle, the argument shows Epistemic confusion. The discussion of disagreement, while important, is framed in a way that suggests it is inherently problematic from an ethical standpoint. This confuses the nature of epistemic inquiry, where disagreement is often a necessary and constructive part of the process. By conflating epistemic disagreement with ethical failure (e.g., being "disagreeable"), the argument undermines the value of healthy debate and intellectual diversity.
The argument concludes with reflections on the self, discussing concepts like "losing oneself" or "forgetting what truly makes us happy." These are metaphysical concerns related to identity, existence, and personal integrity. However, the argument does not clearly distinguish these concerns from the ethical and epistemic issues it raises earlier, leading to a muddled conclusion.
I also believe that there is an equivocation on 'disagreeable' that adds to the confusion. shifting from a neutral or positive sense (someone who disagrees or holds firm to their beliefs) to a negative sense (someone who is rude or unpleasant). This equivocation leads to a misleading implication that all forms of disagreement are ethically problematic, which undermines the value of constructive epistemic discourse.
The argument also presents what could be seen as a false dilemma, suggesting that the only options are being overly agreeable (to the point of self-sacrifice) or becoming harsh and dismissive. But in reality, there’s a middle ground where someone can assert their values while still being respectful and kind. Acknowledging this balance could help the argument resonate more with people trying to navigate these situations.
Regarding communication, the advice that “language matters a lot” is important, but it might reduce the concept of respect to just the words we use. Respect in disagreement involves more than careful language—genuinely considering others’ perspectives and treating them with dignity, even when we disagree.
Finally, it might be helpful to consider the role of power dynamics and the possibility of bad-faith actors in disagreements. The argument assumes that setting boundaries and communicating respectfully will always be effective, but real-life situations can be more complicated. Some people might not act in good faith, or power imbalances might make it difficult to assert oneself. Recognising these factors could make the argument more applicable to real-world scenarios.
While the argument raises some critical points, it could be even more compelling with a few adjustments. By addressing these logical fallacies, clarifying the distinctions between different philosophical ideas, and considering the complexities of human interaction, the argument could offer a more nuanced and practical approach to handling disagreements. It’s clear that you intend to encourage thoughtful and respectful discourse, and with these refinements, your argument could become a powerful tool for engaging with these principles.
Some of my favorite people are super disagreeable and actually ENJOY conflict. It’s always interesting to see their perspective as a self-proclaimed agreeable person because getting into conflict can be a tough thing to manage, but disagreeable people are often really good at it and I’ve learned a lot from them with it
Agreed! Disagreeable people thrive in conflict because they care less about others' opinions. This detachment makes them more straightforward and honest, allowing them to handle difficult situations with ease.
“Treat people how they want to be treated” might work better. Great writing! Love it👍🏾❤️
Yes! Thank you 😊
Great words of advice.
I have been interested the concept of paradims as in the last 5yrs. In your intro you mentioned the "golden rule". The paradigm behind this rule assumes that the self knows what one wants, then assumes the others want the same. However as you mentioned we say yes to things that we do not want in order to get things that we want. There is a personal sacrifice to be made in this conclusion.
This is how the "golden rule"was changed from "Don't treat others as you wouldn't want to be treated. To "treat others as.."
The original "rule" was thought of by Confucius 500 years before Christians ruled with their golden rules.
The original was meant to assume that we don't want to be treated in a certain manner so don't treat others that way. And since it is easier to know what one dosent want than to know what one wants. There is any sacrifice in this paradigm. We then have then opportunity to build a connection with another growth and platform of empathy.
Yup, I appreciate the principle of being nice to everyone, but it can lead to an obsession with maintaining a "nice" image. Truly kind people aren’t pushovers, they stand up for what they want, just in a polite and considerate way. I think people need to understand that you don’t have to be a pushover to be seen as nice.
Yes! I'm still working on learning to say no to myself and others. Excellent writing 👍
You can do it!
It is not!
But you called me mean 😕
You didn't deny it 😓