It is possible that the uncompassionate thing to do is the right thing to do, right? Or is misguided compassion in the short run always self-defeating?

I may be misreading Ramesh’s post, but he seems to be suggesting that the truly compassionate thing to do is always consistent with reason. I just don’t know that that’s the case.

I can imagine an argument — I’m too lazy and busy to make fully here — which might go something like this: the compassionate thing to do for Schiavo is to put her to death (I still reject this starving-is-better stuff). But because of slippery-slopes or bad precedents or the need for bright lines the compassionate thing to do for millions of un-named individuals, some yet to be born, is that Ms. Schiavo must endure her current predicament. I could see it the other way around as well. That the compassionate thing to do is to let her live, even if that will have deleterious consequences down the road. People of good will disagree about what the compassionate policy regarding Schiavo is. But perhaps the compassionate policy and the right policy aren’t automatically the same thing? I don’t know the answer to that.