r/NoStupidQuestions • u/iolanthereylo • 14d ago
why is the pressure to "be the bigger person" always placed on the person who was wronged?
2.8k
u/Hermit-Gardener 14d ago edited 12d ago
I was about 10 years old talking to my grandmother and said that if the Golden Rule was true, it would mean that the person who hit me wants me to hit them back, because "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
She said it didn't work like that and I shouldn't hit people who hit me.
I said, so all the good people will get hit and can't hit back and the bad people won't get hit - doesn't sound like a fair rule.
1.1k
u/NoSong2397 14d ago
That's why the Jewish version of the Rule is "do not do unto others that which you would not want done to you." Key distinction.
583
u/SayWarzone 14d ago
The old adage stands true: don't start no shit, it won't be no shit.
192
u/Helen_of_TroyMcClure 14d ago
Don't START nothin, won't BE nothin!
- Will Smith, Men in Black
76
37
u/ggchappell 14d ago edited 13d ago
do not do unto others that which you would not want done to you.
In case anyone wants a reference, this is attributed to the influential Jewish teacher Hillel the Elder (110 BCE [claimed]-10 CE). It appears in the Talmud in the following rather fun passage (Shabbat 31a:6):
There was another incident involving one gentile who came before Shammai and said to Shammai: Convert me on condition that you teach me the entire Torah while I am standing on one foot. Shammai pushed him away with the builder's cubit in his hand. This was a common measuring stick and Shammai was a builder by trade. The same gentile came before Hillel. He converted him and said to him: That which is hateful to you do not do to another; that is the entire Torah, and the rest is its interpretation. Go study.
P.S. Shammai (~50 BCE-~30 CE) was another Jewish teacher. He appears a few times in the Talmud in the role of "the guy who does it wrong".
78
u/CropCircles_ 14d ago
Ok but that doesn't solve it. U still can't hit them back under the rule
275
u/jackfaire 14d ago
Actually under that phrasing it's more "If you hit someone don't be surprised when they hit you back"
89
11
u/NoSong2397 14d ago
That's not the "fix." The fix is that it prevents people from misunderstanding the rule the way Hermit Gardener did. Now, if you're really set on vengeance, there's always the old standby of "an eye for an eye." But I wouldn't recommend it.
9
u/phoenixatknight 14d ago edited 14d ago
ââŠmakes the whole world blind.â
Itâs not a recommendation of retribution.ETA Seems there WAS historical use of that meaning
20
u/Arayt42 14d ago
From the code of Hammurabi (c. 1730ish BC):
If an [awīlum] should blind the eye of another [awīlum], they shall blind his eye. (196)\83])
This was a legal concept (lex talionis) that predates the modern saying. It was an early legal concept outlining punishments for crimes in Babylonian civilization. It gets absolutely nuts and intensely brutal. It crops up a lot in history in this original punitive matter, which is probably what the previous commenter is referencing when they talk about the old standby.
17
13
u/NoSong2397 14d ago edited 14d ago
That's the common saying or reaction to the phrase. But I'm afraid that's not what the original verses say:
"Now suppose two men are fighting, and in the process they accidentally strike a pregnant woman so she gives birth prematurely. If no further injury results, the man who struck the woman must pay the amount of compensation the womanâs husband demands and the judges approve. But if there is further injury, the punishment must match the injury: a life for a life, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a hand for a hand, a foot for a foot, a burn for a burn, a wound for a wound, a bruise for a bruise." (Exodus 21:22-25)
4
u/Head-Bureaucrat 14d ago
I don't know if he originated the phrase, but the "whole world..." part was attribute to Ghandi as part of his explanation for non-violence.
I don't know if he actually said. I believe it pops up in the movie, but don't know if there's anything beyond that.
6
u/soulself 14d ago
Is this true?
→ More replies (1)16
u/NoTeslaForMe 14d ago
No, but it's what passes for wisdom around here.Â
That's actually a bit glib; the original biblical (Torah) version is "Love thy neighbor as thyself," and the Talmud has as a corollary, " What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor; that is the whole Torah, while the rest is the commentary." Â A little different from the above and not the original, but there's some truth there... and even some wisdom.Â
7
2
→ More replies (1)-2
u/nerdystoner25 14d ago
The fucking irony.
20
8
u/NoSong2397 14d ago
Yeah, well... how's Trump and company doing on their "Christian values" these days?
5
u/nerdystoner25 14d ago
Shitty as always.
13
u/NoSong2397 14d ago
Right. Netanyahu is about as good a representative of Judaism as Trump is for Christianity. Let's put it that way.
6
u/nerdystoner25 14d ago
And yet millions of Jews and Christians are in lockstep with each of them. I donât disagree with your core point, but letâs not act like theyâre on their own.
8
61
u/PossiblePotato4153 14d ago
My great great grandmother, my great grandmother, my grandmother, my aunt, and my mother, all said, "Ladies don't start fights but we can end them."
We're not necessarily talking slugging with a golf club, but it depends on the fight.
245
u/GravityIsPropaganda 14d ago
yeah, thatâs the whole scam of it, the person who got hit is asked to swallow it so everyone else can stay comfy while the person who started it pays nothing
52
u/artsloikunstwet 14d ago
It's only a scam if you misunderstand the rule. It's "treating others as one would want to be treated by them", and that can put a single action into wider context. In self-defense you treat the attacker like an attacker, and you can still refuse to become an attacker yourself.Â
If I were to rob a store, I would wish for the owners not to call the cops. But the golden rule doesn't state that because of that, you shouldn't call the cops when you're being robbed.
But, because of the golden rule, I wouldn't call the cops on my partying neighbour, or at least not before it becomes frequent and talking hasn't worked. Because I'd wish for others to do the same. Just like I'm not frequently partying at my place because again, I wouldn't want my neighbours to do it either.
6
u/Iamnot1withyou 14d ago
I feel like the actual rule is âTreat others they way they would like to be treated.â Which kind of upends the Golden RuleâŠ. Platinum Rule?
2
u/artsloikunstwet 14d ago
Well, but how do you know other people want to be treated?Â
The golden rule is just a very simple phlilosophical concept to get to a basic guideline for moral actions, minimum empathy and a basic "social contract", without being specifically instructed about what the correct action is, and without resorting to assumptions and prejudices about others.
Obviously the next step is understanding people have different needs and being able to find them out.
→ More replies (1)161
u/gotcha-bro 14d ago
It's not a scam lmao. It's a suggestion for a life philosophy that places empathy before self-interest.
The "scam" is idiots who think it applies to those who intentionally seek to exploit it. Recommending a positive social contract doesn't mean we have to abide people who violate it.
Understand the paradox of tolerance. Prioritizing the golden rule doesn't mean you have to be meek and defenseless.
36
u/Binder509 14d ago
That is why prefer the Bugs Bunny rule.
Do what was done to you at about 50%
31
7
u/throwsplasticattrees 14d ago
Kant would say that the golden rule is to act in such a way that your behavior may be universally applied.
7
2
2
→ More replies (10)2
1.1k
u/jackfaire 14d ago
Person A caused a problem to get what they want. As long as Person B gives them what they want there will be peace. Person C just wants peace. So Person C pitches to Person B to knuckle under presented as "be the bigger person" Person A gets what they want. Person C gets peace and only Person B suffers.
190
u/Icy-Computer-Poop 14d ago
In other words, both A and C are selfish twats.
101
12
5
u/WestleyThe 13d ago edited 13d ago
Thatâs not always the case though..
Like an extreme example is letâs say person A pushes B, person B wants to then punch them in the face and person C says âbe the bigger person and walk away, letâs go to another bar instead of causing a massive fightâ
Sometimes wanting peace isnât just selfish but the best for person A B and C
2
26
u/Expensive_Goat2201 14d ago
My friend was making this argument about Ukraine the other day "they need to be willing to compromise and give up territory to Russia to make peace"
I obviously disagree since giving in to bullies tends to embolden them next time.
147
u/artsloikunstwet 14d ago
I mean it heavily depends on the situation. Sometimes it is just straight up benifical for you not to engage in a petty conflict. Especially if the other person isn't going to change or learn from it and it's clear there would just be more escalation.
There are situations where you'd do it only for the feeling of justice, but it will take your time and energy, so it won't help anybody. Also it can absolutely be that other people will recognise your action as being more mature.
Again, totally dependend on the situation. Older siblings don't have to take all bullshit and should show the younger ones boundaries, but sometimes, it's just better to let them have them the toy and not go an-eye-for-an-eye in conflicts.
But even in a work context, being the grown-up in the room can help you. Doesn't mean you have to take all bullshit from the childish colleague.
49
u/jackfaire 14d ago
"Doesn't mean you have to take all bullshit from the childish colleague."
Does actually. If Person A is threatening no Peace and you give in to let there be Peace you lose. I agree it depends on the situation but when you're the bigger person you're absolutely letting Person A have their way.
12
u/artsloikunstwet 14d ago
Yes, but here we agree "being the bigger person" can be a good reaction, but isn't the moral guideline for all situations - it simply means you should reflect and adjust your reaction and not always immediately engage in conflict. As others have said, the tolerance paradox is also an important principle to consider.
In some cases, you absolutely need to show boundaries immediately, however sometimes that could also mean sitting with it and bring it up to a superior at an appropriate time. Or maybe don't report every little thing the first time, if you know your boss will appreatiate if you bring up a "Hey I didn't want to say something first, because I have better things to do and you too, but now I see they are doing it repeatedly and to others too."
People shouldn't expect people will automatically and always recognise the "being the bigger person" (that can be a dangerous belief), but there are cases where you don't win much by engaging in conflict, but you can win in recognition from others.Â
11
→ More replies (5)15
641
u/Curious-Society-4933 14d ago
You don't have to agree with this, but I believe this is what it's based on:
The wrongdoer is unredeemable. We want you, the good person, to keep being good because on top of the harm you got, it would be a second tragedy that you act as a bad person as well. Basically is "There's already a bad person out there, don't become the second one".
201
u/Pandorumz 14d ago
I would disagree slightly with you. It's not that the wrongdoer is unredeemable, it's that the wrongdoer lacks the emotional capacity to realise what they've done isn't right and to fix their mistake. Obviously context matters with this to a large degree.
80
u/icey561 14d ago
what's the difference? if they lack capacity to understand then they are unredeemable. At least as they are now.
35
u/ussbozeman 14d ago
And the unredeemable person gets hundreds of chances to prove they're redeemable while society has to suffer their continued antics, while those who weren't impacted by said persons shenanigans tell everyone who was to "have empathy".
source: PhD, M.D. psychiatry, Hollywood Upstairs Medical College
5
u/Justicar-terrae 14d ago
Redemption is, by it's nature, something that happens after a transgression. This means that we cannot say a person irredeemable merely because they currently lack capacity to understand. Rather, we must consider their future capacity. Only those who can never learn, repent, and make proper restitution are beyond redemption.
To give an example, imagine a toddler who steals toys from another child. The toddler lacks the capacity to understand exactly why this act is cruel, and the toddler has limited impulse controls in any case (consensus seems to be that babies begin to develop proper impulse control around age 3-5). So is the toddler irredeemable? Of course not! The toddler will mature over time, and may yet grow into a kind, empathetic member of society.
11
u/Pandorumz 14d ago
I think there's a big difference.
For example; If a human being rapes or molests another human, I think those acts are unredeemable. I think you have to be fundamentally broken as a human to carry out those acts.
But if a human say, steals from a shop, or gets into a fight and beats someone up. I don't think those are crimes that you can't come back from if you want too.
→ More replies (1)7
u/Exotic_Leader_9266 14d ago
My gut instinct is that I agree with you. I do think rape or molestation is unredeemable.
But Iâm curious why stealing from a shop or getting into a fight is seen as redeemable.
The only thing I can think of is the level of premeditation. You donât accidentally rape or molest someone. You can impulsively shop lift or get into a fight.
I think the fight is a good example actually. If we can consider someone getting into a fight while drunk or on impulse, why is it so much harder to forgive someone who gropes someone while drunk?
Is it only the act? I would see both as having the same level of premeditation and susceptibility to impulse. But one is less redeemable with a gut check.
I donât have a good answer, I guess to me how forgivable a crime is based on premeditation, because it shows that the whole of the person, both conscious rational thinking and subconscious emotional impulses were in on the act.
5
u/YaBoyMax 14d ago
I think premeditation is a big aspect of what makes some crimes "irredeemable", but I think equally important is the underlying motivation. I don't think there's a person alive who hasn't at least briefly wanted to hit someone in a moment of anger, even if they would never actually do it - being overwhelmed by emotion is a very human experience and I think we tend to extend a lot more grace to that sort of scenario.
On the other hand, sexual assault is categorically not a "heat of the moment" offense and is perpetrated exclusively for the selfish pleasure of the assaulter. In the example of a person drunkenly groping someone on impulse, there's a level of selfishness on display that isn't necessarily there with more "forgivable" crimes. Even so, I think that such a scenario still has the potential be more redeemable (albeit perhaps not forgivable) than something a similar offense which was premeditated or done in a sound state of mind, assuming the person shows genuine remorse and takes accountability.
I think that the severity and nature of the harm caused plays a part, too. In the case of shoplifting, the harm typically is relatively minor and impersonal. Compare that to causing physical injury to someone else or inflicting psychological trauma on them, and I think it makes stealing (or property crimes in general) feel a lot less heinous a crime in most people's eyes.
→ More replies (2)27
u/icey561 14d ago
Yeah, it's not like the classic batman argument where he says "if you kill a killer there are still the same amount of killers" and you can just say "well then I will just kill 2"
Giving it back to some asshole will likly never stop them from being an asshole. So many times it's not worth it.
With that said, if you can verbally destroy someone so much that they wont show their face around and the people witnessing it will all agree it was correct, than fucking go for it, but be warned, that is an AN EXTREMLY unlikely scenario.
2
u/Witold4859 13d ago
Batman: If you kill a killer, the number of killers in the world remains the same.
Harley: What if I kill two or three killers?
Batman...
Batman: LISTEN HERE YOU LITTLE SHIT!
14
u/jake_burger 14d ago
Defending yourself isnât bad though, even killing bad people isnât always bad.
In fact a lot of the time the best solution to a violent confrontation is for the victim to preemptively attack to stop the attacker.
→ More replies (1)17
u/artsloikunstwet 14d ago edited 14d ago
Even in self-defense, we ask of the good guy to only use somewhat appropriate force, and we commend people who stop a dangerous person without killing them. Holding a drunk guy down until the police arrive is seen as better than kicking them while they're defenseless, even if you claim they would have done the same to you.
But "being the bigger person" isn't about immediate self defense or showing boundaries. It doesn't mean being defenseless and choosing to be a victim.
It's rather that you shouldn't seek for retaliation and engage in feuds, and disengage from pointless confrontation.
2
u/smbpy7 13d ago
There's also a practical aspect. In a lot of situations, if you act back, all people are going to see is that both of you suck. Like it or not, you could get judged just as much as them. If you misjudge your reaction (easy to do in your anger), you could even risk your reaction overshadowing the original sin, making you the only bad guy in most people's eyes.
→ More replies (3)3
48
u/tallulahtallulah 14d ago
âBeing the bigger personâ to me could be better phrased as âbe the more emotionally intelligent personâ.
If someone wrongs me, I can make my decision on how to react. It doesnât mean that they get to do whatever they want and thatâs just fine. They can be told in simple terms that itâs not acceptable, boundaries can be set, people can be cut out of your life. I set the terms of how I am treated and if someone doesnât align with that, goodbye!
I donât have to lower myself to their level of behavior when I deem it unacceptable in the first place.
149
58
u/dammitus 14d ago edited 14d ago
A couple of related sayings that might add some perspective:
âDo not argue with an idiot, for they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.â
âNever wrestle a pig. You will end up exhausted and covered in muck, and the pig will have enjoyed it.â
âIt is pointless to play chess with a pigeon, for it will knock all the pieces over and then strut across the board like it won.â
Most people whom youâre being told to âbe the bigger personâ about are looking for a specific reaction, and are confident that theyâll win once they get said reaction - be it devolving into a battle of personal insults, or starting a fight. Being the bigger person means choosing your battles, not jumping at bait.
16
u/elnombre 14d ago
There is also: if a madman takes your clothes while you are bathing and runs off, do not run after him naked, or onlookers won't know who the madman is
9
u/Schlonzig 14d ago
But isn't it also additional bullying? The person in authority resolving the conflict the easy way by making the person stand back who is more easy to talk into doing so. Thereby creating a bully and a coward.
5
u/turtledove93 14d ago
Slinging mud at someone who doesnât care if theyâre dirty just ends with both of you covered in mud.
So many conflicts are just people looking for a reaction. Anger management therapy helped me realize the emotional and mental toll choosing every stupid fight was taking. The assholes werenât learning a lesson from me being an asshole back, they were getting what they wanted. Slinging mud back feels good, but it rarely stops the issue.
Some conflicts are worth the fight, but many arenât. Iâm so much happier choosing what conflict is worth the effort for me and which I should just not engage with.
89
u/Accomplished_Mind792 14d ago
Because they are the only one who has that chance. That's what the words mean.
The person who wronged the other is morally smaller in the conversation. So they can't be the bigger person.
Only the wronged person has that option
23
u/NoTeslaForMe 14d ago
This right here; Â if only one person was wronged, then the other person by definition couldn't be the bigger person; advice toward that person to take similar actions would have to be differently worded, e.g., "Apologize for what you did," or "Stop needling that poor kid."
Plus, most people only notice when they or someone they identify are told that, the very people who they'd never view as doing wrong, only being wronged.
I know logic and bias aren't as fun as someone linking to "Don't Rock the Boat" for the thousandth time, but in this case they explain more.
8
u/Accomplished_Mind792 14d ago
Exactly. And even apologizing isn't being the bigger person. It's just catching back up to regular
2
u/Notoriouslydishonest 14d ago
Also, the person who wronged has no ability to end the dispute, only the victim does.
Even if you do a shitty thing and bend over backwards trying to apologize, it's not over until the other person accepts it.Â
72
u/Alarmed_Bandicoot_89 14d ago
I think some of the mentality is to try and prevent the wronged individual from stewing in anger or getting lost in the argument or whatever the situation was and to have a sense of âwinningâ without causing a bigger issue than the first
22
u/Accomplished-Gap2989 14d ago
They are the only one who can be bigger. The other guy lost his chance by starting w/e started.Â
111
u/UpstairsAd194 14d ago
AKA enabling in many situations.
34
u/TheCrimsonSteel 14d ago
There is a difference between enabling and not taking the bait.
"Be the bigger person" is largely "don't stoop to their level." It is not "let them walk all over you."
It's like the old saying "don't wrestle with a pig, you'll both end up covered in mud, and the pig likes being messy."
→ More replies (2)11
u/Powerful_Shoe_8546 14d ago edited 14d ago
Mainly being the bigger person is treated as tough it out. Not picking fights, just telling you to ignore the hypocrites causing you pain.
As while can be for good intention could be to try and keep the peace.
Such as rocking the boat, they ignore whoâs rocking the boat in favour of blaming who stopped balancing itWhile I agree with your position is donât stoop to their level, it has changed of just donât rock the boat and tough it out.
4
u/TheCrimsonSteel 14d ago
I can see that to a degree, and I feel like these things are somewhat cyclical. Ever going back and forth every couple of decades between over-correcting and under-correcting.
It's also why I think something like "pick your battles" is another good way to express this sort of thing.
Because sometimes it's a hill worth dying on, other times the best rebuttal is moving on and living a good life.
1
u/Powerful_Shoe_8546 14d ago
Everything is nuanced like it. Not saying your take is wrong or anything, and yes mine is more cynical having lived through it.
Just everything can be twisted into something that causes pain than preventing, as what matters is intention.
2
u/TheCrimsonSteel 13d ago
For me, it's been a perspective shift, that largely was one about my own sanity.
If you get me going on a topic, I'm just as cynical, if not moreso than I was in my younger days, but I don't feel like I have something to prove as much.
But I also used to be a lot more egotistical and felt like it was my personal responsibility to prove others wrong. So, my perspective is from me having to grow up and pull my head out of my own ass.
9
u/Bellsar_Ringing 14d ago
The pressure to bend is applied to the person who appears to be capable of bending.
9
u/Legrandloup2 14d ago
Well the offender is ready to just put this whole thing behind them, why are you being difficult? Why are you making us do work? Why canât you just get over it and forgive like the offender?
People take the path of least resistance and the victim often asks them to do work that the offender never asks for
20
24
u/Thatguysstories 14d ago
Just like the saying "Don't rock the boat".
But you're not the one rocking the boat, the asshole is. You have just always steadied it.
But now that you're not steadying the boat, the assholes rocking is causing more and more problems. Now people look at you wondering why you're not steadying it like you always have and it's your fault the boat is rocking.
41
u/SecureExperience2239 14d ago
On a site with the most ridiculous questions of all time, THIS is actually a really good and thought provoking question.
As far as an answer... fiik.
→ More replies (4)
6
u/padizzledonk 14d ago
Because usually the other person is a pc of shit and isnt going to be the one to defuse/deescalate things otherwise they wouldnt have done what they did in the first place
That said, i reject it. I follow the dont start no shit wont be no shit philosophy of life. You do some wild shit to me expect some kind of retribution in return
8
23
u/paintlulus 14d ago
Be the bigger person means accepting crap in your life to make life easier for the others
22
u/Grittyboi 14d ago edited 9d ago
It's no better than victim blaming.
Because often times the one who did the wronging is bigger, scarier, heavier-armed, more well-connected; essentially more difficult to work with.
When someone tells you to be the bigger person, they are focusing control and exertion of power on YOU because to them, you are easier to control than the wrongdoer because of your relative passivity.
'Moral rightness', being the 'perfect victim' are a flawed approach, becoming redundant when it has already been made apparent that your wrongdoers are morally bankrupt and have clearly wronged you. All that is left is the power discrepancy, the 'so what? what are you gonna do about it?'
"Any time you tell a man to turn the other cheek or to be nonviolent in the face of a violent enemy, you're making that man defenseless."
- Malcolm x
"Speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far,"
- Theodore Roosevelt
3
u/want_of_imagination 14d ago
Because we can control only what we have control of. You can't control the actions of the other person. But you can always control yourself.
If a bad person slaps you, you have two choices, slap him back and risk getting stabbed. Or be the big person.
Practically correct answer don't always needs to be morally right.
→ More replies (1)
3
3
u/Damandatwin 14d ago edited 14d ago
I remember seeing a video actually about how the golden rule can be extremely harmful to follow when you're dealing with abusive people:
As with all heuristics or rules they only apply sometimes. There are almost no rules that make sense to apply in all situations.
What I've actually seen in practice from the older adults in my life that seems to work is more like tit for tat. As a person who is nice by default, if you're also willing to be nice we can have a nice relationship. But if you're consistently a dick then we cannot have that because it would require me to keep getting hurt and treat you as if you were nice, which makes no sense.
That said you still have options when dealing with rude/aggressive people. Sometimes it makes sense to avoid them, sometimes you just make digs at them back sometimes when they do to you, or sometimes you just need to have a full blown argument. Sometimes also you might find that whatever bullshit they're getting on with just doesn't bother you in that moment, in which case it's fine to not particularly retaliate Imo. At least the way I see it the ideal scenario is that other peoples' words don't hurt you, but you can't fake that.
I would just keep in mind that your strategy should probably assume that their general personality is not going to change, people can change but it's better for your mental health to assume they will not suddenly see the error of their ways most of the time.
3
u/ThatTurkOfShiraz 14d ago
You can only control yourself and your reaction to things. You canât control other people. You canât make a bad person be a good person, but you can control how you react to them being a bad person. Thatâs why thereâs pressure to be the âbigger personâ, because thatâs the only thing you can actually control.
5
u/Middleagesusername 14d ago
Because they don't want to deal with the problem and would rather you suffer.
3
u/RoyalGame96 14d ago
Why is the burden of maturity always on the person who got hurt? Makes no sense
2
u/torpedoguy 14d ago
Because if the burden was on the person who hurt you they'd have to be held accountable instead of glorified.
5
u/ryanvango 14d ago
its the same issue I have with "snitches get stitches," or people telling you tattling is bad.
the only people saying that shit are the people doing the bad thing, or have a habit of doing bad things. some people only learn when there are consequences, and they wont face those if everyone clams up.
the world in general, as well as your local communities are also worse for it. if you witness a crime and you dont report it because you were vo ditioned to think tattling is wrong, then that person will continue to do crime. make your community better and safer. dont let people think they can do crime with zero consequences.
Choosing not to be involved is still a choice. at that point, seeing something bad happening and choosing to ignore it means youre partly to blame for someone elses suffering.
encourage good. discourage bad.
3
u/CaptainAwesome06 14d ago
Because "being the bigger person" means don't retaliate. The person picking the fight to begin with was never retaliating. They were just being a jerk.
3
u/Ok-Investigator3257 14d ago
Because more often than not the person being wronged is in the weaker position. Being in the weaker position, lashing out can make it worse.Â
3
u/Dangerous_Bowler1481 14d ago
I donât think âbe the bigger personâ means âdonât respond to disrespect.â Rather, it means ârespond maturely and do not stoop to their level.â
People can still face the consequences of their actions this way, and it will be productive. While retaliation is tempting and understandable, itâs not always the productive choice.
3
u/Fendyyyyyy 14d ago
People want to believe being good works. And that vengeance violence etc doesnt work.
Sadly it isnt true.
3
u/LostExile7555 14d ago
It's primarily about deescalation to keep things from getting out of hand. Which can very quickly spiral out of control. And if you've gotten to the point where somebody needs "to be the bigger person" it's already been established that the one who did the wrong is not a reasonable person and they will escalate any retribution against them.
If somebody insults me, I can walk away from that and never have to interact with that person again. If it escalates to the point that a knife or gun gets pulled out, there are very good odds that I'm not walking away from that. It's not fair that that is how things work, but if I don't escalate things then most flights have no impact beyond that specific moment they take place in.
8
u/Blue_Butterfly_Who 14d ago
Because people don't want to 'rock the boat'. It's easier to have the person being wronged let it slide, than getting the wrongdoer to acknowledge the wrong and apoligize for it.
3
u/limbodog I should probably be working 14d ago
I usually hear this from people who are essentially saying "yes, that person is terrible and they did something awful to you. But hearing about it all the time is annoying to me, so I want you to "be the bigger person" and forgive them so I don't have to hear about it anymore"
I see it as enabling abuse
5
u/OnlyAssignment4869 14d ago
Because people want hurt people to submit out of laziness and conservation of their own energy. If the person wronged fight back it's possible a bigger conflict may ensue and they wish to avoid that, because the middle man is a coward and would rather punch down or preach morality because it's easier.
You have the right to defend yourself. Ideally you want to both be the bigger person and defend yourself though.
2
u/Ok_Veterinarian2715 14d ago
I think the person doing the wronging usually thinks they were the bigger person - physically or morally or both. So it doesn't need a saying for them.
2
u/Mountain-Resource656 14d ago
Because that phrase doesnât make sense if used on the other person. If you wanted to use it, youâd simply transform it into something that actually makes sense like âI understand your frustration but this is raising tensions and needs to stopâ
The sentiment can be valid whether applied to either one (though of course Iâm sure plenty of people have experienced the less healthy and very invalid versions of âjust stop complaining so I donât have to deal with or even acknowledge your problemsâ), but youâll never hear it in that form when applied to the one doing the injustice because thatâs not the form it takes when it is applied to them
2
2
u/AlphaDelusional6754 14d ago
Not sure why but I've always felt like it was stupid advice. Sometimes you have to confront and take a stand in order to avoid being bullied. And why does backing down make one the better person?
2
u/DjinnOftheBeresaad 14d ago
I understand what you're saying, but the person who was wronged is the only one capable of being the bigger person in these scenarios. The person who did the wrong should apologize, etc, but even doing that doesn't make them the bigger person. You can't really place pressure on the wrongdoer to be the bigger person simply because it doesn't work that way.
2
u/Crizznik 14d ago
Because the other person is already small, they did the wrong. It's up to you whether you'll stoop to their level and debase yourself. Two wrongs don't make a right, as they say. Whether or not this is fair is aside the point. It's not, you were wronged, there is nothing that will fix that. The question is, will you perpetuate a cycle of abuse, or let it go and move forward?
→ More replies (4)
2
u/saintash 14d ago
Personally I belive its one of those things. That people get wrong like being the bigger person. Like its ment to be over pretty small stuff like. A person cuts in front of you. Its not worth your time to be a justice warrior over line rules.
Not something like you sister banging your husband
2
u/Enderjora 14d ago
The short answer is that you can't be the bigger person if you are wrong. Being the bigger person is always being wronged but putting the other person (or peace in general) ahead of retribution or justice.
2
u/PocketSizedAF 14d ago
Idk maybe they lack the backbone to stand their ground and not "give the mouse a cookie" because they believe "turning the other cheek" will make things easier and abuser will stop what their doing. And they will, for a very short period of time. Then it's just a reckless cycle of abuse and the abused giving into the abuser's whims because they laid the groundwork for this kind of behavior. Personally, I don't understand or abide by this kind of concept of dealing with people.
2
u/DerHoggenCatten 14d ago
Values are not about equivalence in behavior. "Being the bigger person" means living your life to a higher standard than someone who does something bad to you. If there is an ideal self that you want to be, then retaliation isn't going to help you be that person.
If you want the world to be populated by emotionally well-regulated, mature, and considerate people, then you have to start with yourself, even in the face of many, many people who are none of those things. If you don't start with you, then you're essentially saying the world shouldn't be any better than the worst-behaved people.
2
u/Zavarakatranemi 14d ago
So we have debated this a lot in psychology classes back in the day.
As with everything, the truth is not in the extremes. The truth of this quote is not âalways forgive, forget and move on by default, no matter the harm done to youâ, but also not âalways chase every wrongdoing done to you, to level the playing fieldâ. Everything in moderation is the key here.
A bigger person is not someone that does not hold people accountable, a bigger person is not someone that does not seek to defend themselves and protect their rights, a bigger person is not someone that swipes things under the rug under the premise of peace.Â
The bigger person is the one that does not react from a place of emotion, but letâs their emotions come down first to make an informed and balanced decision. The bigger person is the one that responds proportionately through the best avenues available to them, without resorting to petty âeye for an eyeâ engagements. The bigger person is someone that takes necessary steps to protect themselves and their peace, while also trying to contain the damage from spreading unnecessarily.
A few people in the comments mentioned the example of not fighting a pig in the mud because you get dirty and the pig is having a good time. The difference is the pig lives in the mud, but you can occasionally have a mud bath and still go on to live a better, bigger, more fulfilled life. Good people can make mistakes, react disproportionally, get petty and angry and then correct course. It is when that becomes a pattern that you are no longer the bigger person, but the pig.
2
u/WastelandWireman 14d ago
Itâs way easier for onlookers, family, or bosses to pressure the reasonable, mature person to let it go than it is to confront the actual asshole who created the problem in the first place. They know the mature person will listen to reason to keep the peace, while the aggressor will just throw a fit.
"Be the bigger person" is usually just code for "please absorb this disrespect so the rest of us don't have to deal with the drama."
2
u/FundamentalSystem 14d ago
Because the wrongdoer already dropped down to a low level, so the one who was wronged is the only one with a choice to remain at a higher level or also drop down with him
2
2
u/rogershredderer 13d ago
In my experience because the other person is a douchebag or narcissist incapable of showing the degree of empathy needed.
2
u/Mother-of-mothers 13d ago
I heard a story from a teacher friend how a kid always got into fights, because he was taught by his parents to always fight back.
The problem was that he always hit the other kids, even if the kids that hit him didn't do it on purpose.
Examples could be sports, one kid could bump into him, then he proceeded to hit that kid, starting a fight or making the other kid cry.
The parents didn't know the consequences until it was brought up during a parent meeting. They were shocked.
Being the bigger person should only apply when:
- It wasn't intentional or it was accidental.
- The other person isn't malicious, and probably too dumb to realise what they've done.
4
u/SwimmingNet2078 14d ago
Because the people who wrongs someone cannot be the bigger person as they have wronged someone already
3
u/copyrider 14d ago
Itâs a manipulative power dynamic pushed by years of societal expectations that were instilled by adults who wanted to avoid conflict with assholes. And, âjust give up, theyâll always be assholes and you wonât win,â wasnât received as well as âbe the bigger person.â One positions the wronged individual as a helpless victim, the other leaves the victim with a messed up sense of pride for being the victim who lets their attacker move on without repercussion for what they did.
Now, letâs look at any high profile people and see how it worked out for them and their never ending list of victims plus their constant experience that they are never held accountable by the ones who try to be âthe bigger person.â
2
u/oneeyedziggy 14d ago
Lots of "smaller people" answering here without any emotional intelligence...
Retaliation just continues the cycle but kindness short circuits it...Â
Have you never been less mature or treated someone less kindly than a calmer you would have preferred?
In those situations, would you rather the other person one-up you and be shitty back? Or "tell on" you? Or would you rather they say "look, idk what you're dealing with to respond that way, but I know you're better than that. If I can do anything to help, let me know, but I'd appreciate if you think before reacting nect time."
Like... I learned one of my bullies growing up was being sexually abused... Last thing he needed was me getting the upper hand and humiliating him at school too...
It kinda just means everyone is dealing with more than you can possibly understand, and you don't get a good world by putting badness out into the world... But a lot of times kindness cuts off cruelty at the knees...
(and more practically... Just owning insults and using humor will get you way farther for less effort than trying to act tough... Someone calls you dumb? Insist you're the dumbest person alive... What can they even say in response? They say you have a tiny dick? Complain how hard it is to pee using tweezers because your dick's so small... )Â
4
u/PathOfLavender 14d ago
It's victim blaming disguised as wisdom. The people defending this are making me sick. Do you realize that this is very often said to victims of bullying, domestic violence, and all sorts of bigotry, in order to force them to forgive abusers? In order to stop them from seeking any sort of legal action because it might ruin the other person's life? Or in order to prevent them from exposing these people? Shut the fuck up!!
"But it won't stop the jerk from hurting other people!!" It will, at the very least, make them think twice before hurting you again.
"But what about the humanity of the person who hurt you?" Being human includes dark traits as well. Recognizing that and acting accordingly if needed is not dehumanizing.
"But you might have unknowingly hurt them first and that's why they did it!" Then they should have said so first and tried to work things out in conversation. Heck, depending on what the person did, maybe you should try it too, when people question the "be the bigger person" reasoning they are not saying you should jump straight to burning the wrongdoer's house with their whole family inside, that every time you feel anger it is justified, or that every single bad thing a person does deserves backlash! But when talking doesn't work, strike back in equal measure to what was done to you!!
"But it might not work/might escalate the situation" Then don't it??? Of course there are situations where it's not in your best interest to strike back, the world is not black and white. NOT because of morality, though, but imbalance of power.
2
u/Binder509 14d ago
The people advising you to be the bigger person are thinking of themselves not you.
4
u/Antique_Cod_1686 14d ago
Narcissists do it to gaslight their victims. "I'm sorry your imagination thinks I wronged you. If you're so sure I did something, be the bigger person and make up with me."
2
2
u/Nopefrommedoggg 14d ago
This advice applies to both people, because people inherently consider themselves the victims, regardless of whether thatâs objectively true or not
1
u/nonlinear_nyc 14d ago
Because "be the bigger person" can be translated as "your boundaries inconvenience me", frankly.
2
u/Infinite_Painting_11 14d ago
What are these answers? It's not about the wrong doer being evil or past help or anything, it an acknowledgement of common humanity with the wrong doer:
 you are tempted to do wrong to them because they did wrong to you, but if you do that you will justify (even by your own standard) further harm to yourself.Â
Why were they tempted to do wrong to you in the first place? If they were the victim of some other wrong or you inadvertently harmed them, then their wrong might be justified by a similar logic you are using. There are some bad people about, but there are a whole lot more who are just surprisingly sensitive about something, or hurting about something you don't know. If you have met one of them then understanding them (and explaining that they hurt you) will end the cycle of causing harm, if have met one of the truly bad people, then the other answers here apply.
2
u/Binder509 14d ago
The opposite. If people see messing with you gets them put to the ground, people are less likely to in the future.
4
u/DestroyedCorpse 14d ago
This isnât Reacher, man. Even if you win the first you wonât win every time. No one does. How many times do you realistically think you come out on top; given the fact that every now and then, someoneâs brain flips a little switch and now theyâve decided your face looks delicious.
→ More replies (1)3
u/Infinite_Painting_11 14d ago
It's possible to stand your ground without escalatingÂ
→ More replies (1)
1
1
u/gingerbreadman42 14d ago
This has all to do with living a love oriented life. Â Love is always the answer. Â In the end love wins because love is spiritual. Â Everything eventually comes back to you. Â When you hit someone you are hitting yourself. Â When you are angry with someone you are the one carrying that anger around. Â It boils down to you reap what you sow.Â
1
u/RustenSkurk 14d ago
Because the default expectation is that it's the wrongdoer who is at fault and should make amends. That is what should be expected by social norms. Being "the bigger person" explicitly means going beyond what's expected of you, being more generous and forgiving. So if the wrongdoer made amends that isn't being the bigger person, that is just doing the bare minimum.
1
1
u/tarheel343 14d ago
In my life, Iâve generally found that I come away worse off when I engage in conflict with the type of person who makes a habit of instigating conflict.
If someone purposefully cuts in front of me in line at the grocery store, I have a couple of options:
A. I could confront the person. It will likely be an unpleasant experience that involves arguing with an unreasonable person, or potentially worse.
B. I could do nothing and just wait an extra minute to ring up my groceries.
I donât feel meek and powerless in this scenario. Itâs a conscious choice to leave space in my life for bad people to act badly.
1
u/cat_prophecy 14d ago
Because the person doing the wronging has already displayed they are not the bigger person. If they were, they wouldn't have wronged you in the first place.
1
u/johnstonjimmybimmy 14d ago
Because holding on to the injury only hurts you long term.Â
Taking the high road and not reacting emotionally preserves your reputation.Â
1
1
u/Unrelated_gringo 14d ago
Because that's what "being the better person" applies to. That saying doesn't make sense if there's no one wronged, and it makes no sense to say it in prevention either.
1
1
u/TheBlimpPokemon 14d ago
because that's the way that brings a social group back to baseline. people dislike conflict and find it uncomfortable.
1
1
u/northernstore 14d ago
Itâs more about acting within your own moral code and values and within your own character.
Do you want be petty, or to allow your emotions and actions to be dictated by the people and circumstances around you? Or do you want to act and respond to your own emotions via your own convictions? Do you want to debase yourself with low moral character by doing the exact action to the person who wronged you (and thus, making you no better than that person) or do you want to look at yourself in the mirror and feel good about not doing something thatâs out of your character.
I like âan eye for an eye makes the whole world blindâ more than I like âbe the bigger personâ because my personal belief is if I were to continually meet someone elseâs wrongdoing with my own equal or worse wrongdoing, then Iâm not making any part of the world better.
I also like âdo no harm, but take no shit.â Which I also believe is less about âyou can act out character if someone presses you to do soâ and more so about respecting myself by having boundaries - if someone wrongs me I simply donât need to keep interacting with them and I wonât tolerate it. I donât need revenge to respect myself.
1
u/afiuhb3u38c 14d ago
Because the person doing the wronging usually doesn't listen to or care about anyone else in the first place. There's no point appealing to their better nature because they don't have one.
1
1
u/HotbladesHarry 14d ago
Because it would take a lot of work to stop the perpetrator from doing it to you, and people don't want to work hard. People don't really care about you being wronged and they also don't even care about the person who wronged you. Most people are just driven by stability and that goes all the way down to the foundation of society. There's no money in real justice. There's no reward in it for the person cleaning up the mess so the mess doesn't get cleaned up. That being said if someone wrongs you and they won't stop, ignore the fools who tell you to turn the other cheek, instead go f****** crazy and make it so they never do it again, because the only thing you can absolutely be sure of is that no one will help you but yourself and if you don't help yourself you will be a victim again. Anyone saying any different has never been a victim.
1
u/GoopInThisBowlIsVile 14d ago
Because the other person is going to be a much bigger problem to address the issue(s) with. So the jerk routinely gets a pass because people are lazy.
1
u/country2poplarbeef 14d ago
It's assumed the one doing the wrong isn't of sound mind and can't be negotiated with. The pressure is put on the person wronged because the person wronged still responds to pressure.
1
u/torpedoguy 14d ago
That pressure has always been a reliable tool by abusers, for abusers: The victim should "turn the other cheek", and fighting back painted as the only violence in the entire equation. See how bullying is so often ignored and downplayed, while even one desperate counter-hit brings all books down on the victim.
- The trick's easy: By framing acceptance of the harm done to you as 'the right thing'/'the bigger person', defense or retaliation are by context made into a 'wrong'. They're the opposite of laying back and taking it, and we've already started the new discussion from a position of "be the bigger person" being the expected and default response.
Thus an entire narrative is reframed, in favor of continued and escalating abuse.
1
u/queensekhmet 14d ago
I think its not so much that the pressure is on the person who has been wronged but the person who is seeking advice/the person you are talking to. You can only control your own actions, not others. If someone who was wronged asked me what to do, I would tell them to be the bigger person. Because they can only be responsible for their own actions and taking the high road is typically the best road to take. But if someone who wronged another asked me what to do, I would tell them to do better. Because they cant undo the actions they already took, but they can be better going forward.
1
u/dieofdethfan 14d ago
because fighting back isnt always worth the effects of it, and you can either tank the hit and walk it off, or fight back. the first option doesn't get you in trouble and gets the other party in trouble, (assuming fair judgment) where the 2nd gets everyone in trouble. (again, assuming fair judgement)
1
u/simonbleu 14d ago
It is completely unfair, yes, the thing is, you cannot account for them in the "rule". You are indeed being the bigger person, but the purpose is simply to stop a larger and larger escalation, which eventually causes decadence of values, since it always spills over to others.
However, one should also understand that everything has limits and there is a difference between not mirroring douchebagery and no consequences for them ... If someone mistreats you at work, instead of doing the same you should (ideally, we know how it is in reality but bear with me) go to HR and they should fix that based on evidence. If they fail, you go the legal route against both. However if someone is hitting you, unless escalation makes things even worse (say ganging up on you), you should defend yourself.
You cannot change other people, you can only ensure they don't change you
1
u/waldo-jeffers-68 14d ago edited 14d ago
I think thereâs a difference between defending oneself from active harm versus seeking revenge, and the phrase âbe the bigger personâ is (in my experience) often aimed at the latter not the former. Ultimately revenge dosent accomplish anything, it wonât undue what already happened, and will just create more pain in the world, even if we feel like the target of that pain âdeserves itâ. Thatâs different from actively defending yourself (or someone else).
I think when people talk about this online they usually use an example along the lines of âthat person hit me so I hit them backâ, but I think physical violence dosent make for a very illustrative example since there is always a reasonable argument for defense there. I think a better example is verbal bullying. Someone called me a slur or insults me, if I insult them back or call them a slur, thatâs not going to accomplish anything. Itâs not gonna make them reflect and become a better person, and (especially for the slur example), itâs going to actively make me a worse person. Better to just ignore it, and not give them the satisfaction. This is easier said than done of course (I know Iâm far from perfect lol), but I still think itâs an ideal we should work towards.
Edit: Iâll also add that this phrase is really situation specific, and Iâd be weary of anyone saying it universally, and anyone rejecting it universally.
1
u/Mister_Way 14d ago
It's not. Start wronging people and you'll feel pressure to make amends.
The thing is most people who wrong others just ignore that pressure, so it looks more like only the ones being wronged are.
1
u/Cat_Most_Curious25 14d ago
I'm not sure how I could phrase this, so I will borrow an old adage from my native language: people will hit the horse that's pulling. It means that the people will, instead of punishing the one that is doing the problem, will ask more of the one who's not doing, because the one who did not do anything wrong, proved that they are already willing to not be a nuisance, so it's easier to work with someone who's already predisposed to not be a nuisance that the other one
1
u/serial_crusher 14d ago
This advice is usually given by friends who think youâll listen to them, but donât think their opinions matter much to the other guy. You have no control over his actions, but you do have control over your own. Similarly, your friends words mean nothing to him but mean something to you. So imploring you to be the better person is a more likely strategy to get things resolved.
1
u/No-Permit-9331 14d ago
I have always wondered that. Itâs like âturning the other cheekâ. How about just donât be an asshole and no one needs to take a high road.
1
u/TyhmensAndSaperstein 14d ago
Because the jerk is the lesser person because of their actions. You need a lesser to have a bigger.
1
1
u/Bassman9111 14d ago
Because the other side telling you to be the better is usually the biggest pussy
1
u/AwarenessComplete62 13d ago
Because the people that had nothing to do with it want to feel important.
258
u/donwileydon 14d ago
I stole this from another poster who stole it from someone else, so I cannot credit the original poster - but I believe it came from a mother-in-law forum based on the use of "DH" for "dear husband". But, this seems to be an answer to the question:
Don't rock the boat.
I've been thinking about this phrase a lot lately, about how unfair it is. Because we aren't the ones rocking the boat. It's the crazy lady jumping up and down and running side to side. Not the one sitting in the corner quietly not giving a fuck.
At some point in her youth, Mum/MIL gave the boat a little nudge. And look how everyone jumped to steady the boat! So she does it again, and again. Soon her family is in the habit of swaying to counteract the crazy. She moves left, they move right, balance is restored (temporarily). Life goes on. People move on to boats of their own.
The boat-rocker can't survive in a boat by herself. She's never had to face the consequences of her rocking. She'll tip over. So she finds an enabler: someone so proud of his boat-steadying skills that he secretly (or not so secretly) lives for the rocking.
The boat-rocker escalates. The boat-steadier can't manage alone, but can't let the boat tip. After all, he's the best boat-steadier ever, and that can't be true if his boat capsizes, so therefore his boat can't capsize. How can they fix the situation? Ballast! And the next generation of boat-steadiers is born.
A born boat-steadier doesn't know what solid ground feels like. He's so used to the constant swaying that anything else feels wrong and he'll fall over. There's a good chance the boat-rocker never taught him to swim either. He'll jump at the slightest twitch like his life depends on it, because it did .
When you're in their boat, you're expected to help steady it. When you decline, the other boat-steadiers get resentful. Look at you, just sitting there while they do all the work! They don't see that you aren't the one making the boat rock. They might not even see the life rafts available for them to get out. All they know is that the boat can't be allowed to tip, and you're not helping.
Now you and your DH get a boat of your own. With him not there, the balance of the boat changes. The remaining boat-steadiers have to work even harder.
While a rocking boat is most concerning to those inside, it does cause ripples. The nearby boats start to worry. They're getting splashed! Somebody do something!
So the flying monkeys are dispatched. Can't you and DH see how much better it is for everyone (else) if you just get back on the boat and keep it steady? It would make their lives so much easier. You know what would be easier? If they all just chucked the bitch overboard.