Thanks for posing this question, SC/CA, because it made me stop and think - and I don't 'think' I'm done doing that. 
My first instinct was to say 'kindness', which I consciously try to achieve - although I often fall short. (I'm working on it...) But after sleeping on it, I was in the 'it depends' column with Lee/AR. I believe context is important, as well as the nature of the relationship you have with the people or persons you're speaking with, as well as the topic or circumstances.
I need to continue to chew on this, because there's also a part of me that believes that some issues are too important to not respond to when encountering something you believe is wrong. But some relationships are too important to jeopardize by trying to be right. Does it have to be either/or? Is it possible to be kindly right? Sometimes the kindest thing to do is be honest and share the truth when it's something factual, and to speak your mind (preferably with documentation) when you're convinced about something less concrete. Taken to the extreme, there are times when being right could be a matter of extreme urgency, even with a life at stake, so naturally, kindness has to become secondary. Other times, the consequences may not be urgent, but may have dramatic impact in the long term.
Ultimately, I guess we need to weigh the consequences of either choice. This question reminds me of a column I've come across from time to time in the New York Times. It's written by an 'ethicist', who attempts to answer questions presented by people who write in with their ethical dilemmas. Fascinating stuff! (A modern day Dear Abby, but with issues that seem way more thorny than anything I used to read in that column... A sign of our complicated times?)
I'm probably going to be away from this forum for a few days, but will post again if I confuse myself further by thinking about this too much - and end up with a different opinion...
[BTW, Bear, Mrs Bear sounds like a pretty special lady - which says lots about you, too!  ]
|
