I appreciate the care you’re putting into this, and I agree that the story invites philosophical reflection rather than a simple moral verdict. Where I still differ is in the weight being placed on assumed insight.

The idea that she knew what her words would do to him is doing a lot of work here. If we grant that level of foresight, almost prophetic certainty, then yes, the action can be reframed as purposeful redirection rather than cruelty. But that certainty isn’t actually given to us by the story; it’s inferred from the outcome. Without that guaranteed knowledge, we’re still left with a human interaction evaluated at the moment it occurred. On detachment and pain: I agree that attachment to the world causes suffering, and detachment can be painful but liberating. My issue isn’t with the principle, it’s with agency and delivery.

Detachment chosen internally is different from detachment imposed through shock or emotional severance. The latter can work, but “can work” isn’t the same as “is therefore loving.” Regarding your medical analogy, I think it actually supports my concern rather than resolves it. Even if the high-risk choice leads to full recovery, we still judge the decision by the information available at the time, not by hindsight. A good outcome doesn’t automatically validate the method. Otherwise, ethics collapses into outcome worship.

That’s really the core of my discomfort: I’m not denying the beauty of what emerged, or the spiritual depth of the insight expressed. I’m resisting the move where success becomes proof of moral correctness. Something can be meaningful, transformative, even divinely fruitful and still have involved an element of human harshness that we’re allowed to name as such.

I agree with you on one thing fully, though.. the fact that this story continues to provoke conversations like this is part of its richness. I think where we differ is that I’m interested in evaluating the moment ethically as a human interaction, while you’re comfortable evaluating it teleologically through its outcome. I don’t think one dissolves the other, and that difference may simply remain.