Is being heartless, cruel, cunning and cold wiser than being compassionate, empathic, humane and inclusive?
I think we all benefit to some degree from the actions of compassionate people but it could be said that compassion is derived from grievances born of personal affliction.
It seems in order for progression to be valued one needs first to identify with issue or abuses being challenged. Therefore it could be said that any progress made is the result of seeing oneself as more valuable than others perceive you.
Being we are all members of identity groups in varying ways it seems you could, at a stretch, perceive any attempt to alleviate your identity group of discriminations as selfish, regardless of the fact that abuse should never be tolerated.
Abuse is profitable. Wether accepted or not, abuse has pay offs and unless personally abused we tend to excuse or ignore abuse.
Being that many of us seek to rise above our current position it could be said that to be ruthless and cold hearted will ensure advantages more so than if one were to strive to be ethically sound in their endeavour to prosper.
We often idolize the successes of individuals who rose up from their humble beginnings and with a cold and callous ruthlessness prospered - to the detriment of others.
We also laude the efforts of revolutionaries who challenged the status quo seeking liberation from oppression.
In both cases, a staunch, undeniably, fearless, heroic attitude was needed to rise above.
But we consider gangsters heroes as we do revolutionaries.
Is cold, unforgiving dominance more intelligent than heroism? Are they comparable even if the objective differs?