Cause and Compassion: Thresholds, Standards, and Frivolity

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by Tiassa, Aug 29, 2010.

  1. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    33,264
    Many people can and do empathize with others that are having problems but are not able to help others because they are not there to do so in many instances.

    Some send whatever they can to help out if possible.

    There are those who are "desensitized" about what happens to others and never care at all about what happens to them.

    Why people do what they do is primarily based upon how they were treated, where they live and how things happened to them during their lives.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,053
    How do you know that? And if "many" do empathize, does that mean that "many" don't? How many is "many"?

    I daresay that if you asked 1,000 people at random, almost all of them, by far the greater percentage, would say that they "care" for their fellow humans, and they empathize with the plight of others. But do they?

    I mean, think about it for a moment; ...if all of the people who CLAIM to care or empathize or express an interest in helping others - if all those people actually DID care, then I doubt that there'd be so much misery, poverty, conflict, war, sickness and hunger in the world. That tells me that people who claim to "care" are simply lying ...simply saying what is expected of them ...simply following the dictates of their childhood indoctrination.

    Hell, just think ...if all those people who CLAIM to care actually helped the needy people within, say, a 500 meter radius, then there'd probably be few or no problems in the world. See? People claim to "care", yet there are umpty-eleven needy, destitute, sick, poor people right there in their own neighborhood. What does that tell you about people who CLAIM to "care"?

    So those people who don't express care and sympathy for people, for strangers, on the other side of the world are, what, ...defective? Or is it that the childhood indoctrination didn't quite take thoroughly enough? Or perhaps they are more rational, logical, reasoning individuals who see things as they are?

    How do you know that? And as noted above, if asked, I think that a vast, a great, a high percentage of people in the world would CLAIM to care.

    And once again we come up against the questions: What does it mean to "care"?
    How do you measure "caring"?
    If people claim to "care", how do you know they aren't just spouting the party line or saying what they've been indoctrinated to say?
    Is "caring" unlimited? I.e., if memory serves, over 3 billion people on Earth live in poverty and with daily

    hunger all the their lives. Can one person "care" for those 3 billion without running out of "care"?

    No one is really going to answer any of those questions or those points, are they? No, I doubt it. But my guess is that people will continue to make statements about "caring" and will continue to think the other people really "care" and that those who don't "care" are defective. And all of that without even the slightest shred of scientific evidence of "caring". And this place makes claims to being scientific and full of logical and reasoning individuals?

    Baron Max
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,884
    All complaint, no perspective, no solution?

    And what do you accomplish by that?

    And as I told you three years ago:

    Max, do you really think about every issue every day? No. I'm pretty damn sure you don't, because, technically, it's impossible.

    For many people, when an issue is put before them by the news, it's the first time they've thought about it either ever or for a while.​

    And your response was the same line you're pushing now:

    "Maybe they should do more thinking and less posting and talking, huh?

    Surely you're not suggesting that people react without thinking, are you, Tiassa? Because that's exactly what it seems you're saying ...or at least excusing actions without thought.
    "​

    Your cynicism is ridiculous.

    Theoretically, it actually is possible to die from caring too much. One can work themselves up to a heart attack, for instance. Or go out and get themselves killed by falling off a building trying to stop a suicide, or smashing their car into a tree because they've been driving too long or being too distracted.

    But people are only as manipulated by outside sources as they are by the rain. I see this all the time living where I do. It rains, people use umbrellas. I hate umbrellas. They're a pain in the ass to carry and keep track of, and they provide minimal protection at best against the rain. Yet millions of people around the world use them.

    That you don't like my explanation of caring doesn't mean it isn't there. This is a common sleight people seem to think works: If you don't like the answer, ignore it and repeat the question.

    Sure. Sarah McLachlan makes weepy television commercials, and probably donates some money. Mia Farrow yells at Steven Spielberg, and probably donates some money. Sean Penn moves to Haiti; Wyclef Jean accuses him of being a cokehead. People show their compassion in many ways, some rhetorical and some demonstrative.

    Some people care about an issue enough to write about it on the internet; we don't know what else they do. Others care enough about the fact that people care to complain about it on the internet. Life goes on.

    Sure. Seems like neurotic cynicism.

    Diverse people, diverse outcomes.

    We don't. Certainly, there are some cues. Some might claim to care about certain outcomes, and work to prevent those outcomes by advocating the conditions that bring them about. In such cases—and the American evangelical Christian right wing is often an obvious example—it isn't so much that they don't care, but that a neurotic complex hides from them the actual object of their caring because their pride would buckle if they actually looked it in the eye.

    That reminds me of a stripper I once dated. She, too, couldn't see beyond such questions. Sure, you might not be able to stop them, but why object? Why condemn? Why do you care enough to make what you acknowledge is a futile gesture of opposition?

    You care enough to condemn people for caring. But why? To use your example:

    Sure, people are often hypocritical, but we can set that aside for the moment. Don't worry, we'll come back to it.

    The millions of other animals suffering horrid deaths in the world are what they are. There are diverse causes leading to such outcomes. In truth, people can't wrap their heads around the whole thing any more than they can the fact of starving children around the world. But Bob Barker reminds to spay and neuter, which cuts the number of animals society feels the need to put down. Sarah McLachlan campaigns against animal abuse, which cuts the number of animals that society feels the need to put down. No one person can contain and manipulate all the information needed to prevent tragic outcomes.

    But when it comes to a Michael Vick, or a girl throwing puppies in the river, or even some batty lady cramming a cat in a bin, such incidents put a face to a problem. And it's not a problem with the animals. It's a human problem. And human problems are much more affecting to most people than animal problems. Colloquially, people see these humans as psychopathic, though that's generally an inaccurate formal diagnosis. But there is, in these incidents, an observable measure of human cruelty, and that is largely what people are responding to.

    And there is a "no-kill movement" working to change animal shelters around the United States; it's having its effect in King County, Washington, where officials are working to find ways to drastically reduce the number of animals euthanized by shelters. In the end, though, the vast majority of these animal deaths is the product of human problems. Still, though, it's a different issue compared to Michael Vick, or the Bosnian teenager, or the British lady.

    People do prioritize, Max. Indeed, that seems part of what you're complaining about.

    It's not an invalid proposition, but it also addresses a complex psychological arrangement. People's priorities are constructed according to diverse components and methods. Certes, there is hypocrisy about many people's outlooks. I would even accept that some degree of hypocrisy is a universal human trait. But your assessment of hypocrisy is not definitive; in the end, it comes down to how one arranges their priorities that determines if and how much one is hypocritical. And I don't blame you for not proposing a solution to that.

    For the time being, I stand by my earlier explanation.

    Apply your principle to your own crusade against hypocrisy.

    Rather, to point out one's presumption of dishonesty or insincerity. Whether or not a given occasion is the first time seems irrelevant.

    Depending on the circumstances, you might be referring to different issues. Or, perhaps, it is simply a matter of how acutely a given circumstance expresses the issue.

    In some cases, online expression is the first, obvious, or even only outlet people perceive. To the other, though, can you really say, without doubt, that this is the only thing any one person is doing? And when it comes to a Michael Vick, or Bosnian teenager, or British lady, what, really, do you expect people at large to do? Shall we all fly to Europe to stage interventions? Maybe we can get a TV show on A&E.

    So, you have a complaint. What solution do you suggest?
    ____________________

    Notes:

    Ervin, Keith. "Euthanasia rate at animal shelters falls to all-time low". The Seattle Times. March 12, 2008. SeattleTimes.NWSource.com. September 15, 2010. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2004276339_euthanasia12m.html
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,053
    Ah, Tiassa, you just had to get into making snide personal comments and personal attacks, huh? You just can't have a discussion with anyone without doing that, can you. Other people get banned for it, but... Oh, wait, you're a moderator, you can get away with breaking the rules. No hypocrisy around this place, nosireebob!

    Well, there you go, Tiassa, you've answered the very issue that you raised in the OP. Which makes me wonder why you posted this thread in the first place.

    And, yes, it is and was mostly what I'm complaining about - both in this thread as well as the threads that the OP mentions. And, Tiassa, if you acknowledge and accept the prioritizing, then you surely shouldn't complain if others prioritize a little differently than you do. Oh, sure, you CAN complain, but then doing so just makes it perfectly obvious that you're a freakin' hippo-critter. They are doing the same thing as you, just a little differently, that's all. Or, wait, perhaps you're saying "I'm right, and if you don't agree with me, then you're wrong!" No, surely you couldn't be saying/implying THAT. (Seems to me there was a thread about that issue, but you closed it after only a couple of hours or so!?)

    But see, that's at the heart of the OP itself ...prioritizing empathy. And, of course, the good ol' "I'm right, you're wrong!" In the OP you asked how people could react differently about an issue, yet here, in this post, you answer that very question!

    Come to think of it, the basis for almost all of the posts at this is "I'm right, you're wrong!" ...LOL!

    Whenever anyone claims that they care about something outside of their immediate circle of influence and association, we call them a dirty, rotten, stinkin', lousy, malicious liar and then challenge them to a duel with swords or pistols or clubs with nails embedded in them.

    Baron Max
     
  8. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    What about those clubby-bladed things on Star Trek? Don't mean to blow my own horn here, but I'm pretty sure I'd be an Admin now if I could claw my way up through the ranks with one of those; I'm good with the torn-shirt fighting and dirty tricks.
     
  9. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,884
    Futility

    I would ask what you're on about, Max, but that would be futile. Instead, my advice is to take it up with the administration.

    Perhaps you could clarify your argument a little?

    Why complain that other people's priorities are different from yours? Does the fact of their priorities automatically make them hypocrites?

    An interesting reading. Perhaps you might explain what you're talking about?

    That's useful.
     
  10. Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,053
    Sorry, Tiassa, you ain't worth the effort. But if you really want to know, read my other posts.

    Baron Max
     
  11. Jenyar Solar flair Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,833
    I would argue that caring what the news or the tabloids care about is not really 'caring' - it's just responding to an emotional prompting. Moral masturbation. Nothing provides moralistic stimulation like the media (just look at what Paris and Lindsey got up to this time).

    We like things that rile us up emotionally and we respond because we like to act like good people. The public arena lends itself an aura of extra importance, and everything in the spotlight seems to carry greater significance.

    The rest of the time, "morality" is just a vestigial organ excreting good intentions.

    Surely, the unimpressive boring everyday things, like how I treat my neighbour's cat or its disagreeable owner, isn't that important? (Excuse me while I just put this cat into that bin there.)

    Here in South Africa there's a very popular idea that "it's not wrong unless you get caught" - and even then, getting caught is the real crime.

    Humans have an incredible corporate capacity for good and evil. We all recognise that at some level. But the global village stretches beyond our reach, so we rely on broadcasting our indignity to make up the distance. Public outcries soothe individual impotence. Social media helps us justify this moral megalomania: "Anonymous is not pleased", so we can feel pleased about our global indignity and global outrage.

    But while certainly providing moments of humanistic euphoria, that kind of exaggerated responsibility is paralysing to most people. We can feel everything but do nothing. And whether it's a cat, 50 dogs or a million Jews, agonising over their demise is pointless unless you treat them better yourself. Whatever their relative value to you, the moral burden is always the same.

    Instead, a global outcry often only amounts to vague personal mumbles of disapproval, perhaps a publicity stunt or two, and in the end it's all up to local laws and authorities.

    I think the only way to judge is by looking at our own threshold for caring and avoiding double standards. "Caring" is a word that should only be used in retrospect, in gratitude, and from someone else. If it's not an action, it shouldn't be used as a verb.
     
    Last edited: Oct 8, 2010

Share This Page