Say a bunch of people are acting recklessly and stupid, but you don't care because it doesn't affect you, or anybody you know, so that's fine; then the issue becomes something that affects YOU or people that actually count, family, friends, at least somebody you personally know on decent terms, and then that becomes real, and that shit's gotta stop!
Is this kind of thinking common?
- Thread starter Zipper730
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Greg Boeser
1st Sergeant
Fairly typical, I imagine.
Most of us are focused on taking care of our own families, running our own lives.
Most of us are focused on taking care of our own families, running our own lives.
michael rauls
Tech Sergeant
- 1,679
- Jul 15, 2016
That kind of thinking is probably a necessity as it's a big world and you can't fight every battle it has to offer.
Kind of have to prioritize by degree of familial relationship and acquaintance.
The caviaght of course being that if it appears there is a high likelihood of impending harm even to a total stranger and it's in ones power to intervene then conscience dictates that one must do so.
Kind of have to prioritize by degree of familial relationship and acquaintance.
The caviaght of course being that if it appears there is a high likelihood of impending harm even to a total stranger and it's in ones power to intervene then conscience dictates that one must do so.
OTOH, if you save someone's life, that person becomes your responsibility for the rest of yours. It is you that cheated fate, and fate will try to wreak vengeance on both of you. Ask any Hindu, Sikh, or Buddhist.
Cheers,
Wes
Barrett
Senior Airman
Lt. Col. Dave Grossman ("On Killing") is a retired army officer with an international following for his motivational/practical speeches & writings. He espouses the Sheepdog Philosophy of trained, armed responders to protect the less motivated or weaker members of their "flock" however defined. The most obvious Sheepdog comparison is police, though he notes (correctly) that twice the Supreme Court has ruled that PDs have no legal obligation to protect anyone. But almost anyone can serve the Sheepdog role when wolves prowl the periphery...
mikewint
Captain
It would be wonderful to believe that we can exercise "universal love" or "universal empathy" toward everyone, without any discrimination or judgment or preference. Every human life is equally valuable to us, and there's no reason to prefer any one person over any other.
While this is a very nice and utopian view of humanity, it's not very reflective of how our minds actually work in the real world.
You don't care about everyone equally – you prefer some people over others. One of the most obvious examples of this is the fact that we often care more about the well-being of our family and friends over that of a completely random stranger.
The reality is that if you had to choose between saving the life of a family member vs. the life of a random stranger – you're going to show a clear preference toward your family member and secondarily toward a friend i.e. someone you know on a personal level.
Of course it is possible to empathize with anyone if given the chance. Anyone can theoretically become a friend. Basically, it's far easier to empathize with people who we can personally identify (with at least a name or a face), rather than if they are some abstraction (like a number or a statistic).
Let's say that you hear/read about 100 strangers dying from some other part of the world vs. 1000 strangers dying, your empathetic response doesn't become 10x more intense, even though there are 10x as many deaths. Once you start thinking about large groups of people, you're thinking about something abstract and numerical, not something you can empathize with on any real personal level.
Like it or not there are real limitations in your ability to care and empathize with everyone to an equal degree. When you care about a person in any meaningful way it takes up physical and mental energy – time, effort, planning, emotional investment, money, etc. Simply put no one has an infinite amount of these things to give to the world. Waiting for you is the existential trap of wanting to "save the world". When you inevitably realize that you can't it can make you feel very depressed and frustrated with everything.
In the spirit of altruism, it can be tempting to donate a little money toward every charity you come across. A few dollars here, a few dollars there can make you "feel good" about yourself and believe you are contributing and making a difference.
But if you are giving away time and money without proper discretion, and without doing research, you might be wasting a lot of your own time and money that could be spent in more effective ways. Altruism toward strangers is good, but within reason and using proper discretion.
While this is a very nice and utopian view of humanity, it's not very reflective of how our minds actually work in the real world.
You don't care about everyone equally – you prefer some people over others. One of the most obvious examples of this is the fact that we often care more about the well-being of our family and friends over that of a completely random stranger.
The reality is that if you had to choose between saving the life of a family member vs. the life of a random stranger – you're going to show a clear preference toward your family member and secondarily toward a friend i.e. someone you know on a personal level.
Of course it is possible to empathize with anyone if given the chance. Anyone can theoretically become a friend. Basically, it's far easier to empathize with people who we can personally identify (with at least a name or a face), rather than if they are some abstraction (like a number or a statistic).
Let's say that you hear/read about 100 strangers dying from some other part of the world vs. 1000 strangers dying, your empathetic response doesn't become 10x more intense, even though there are 10x as many deaths. Once you start thinking about large groups of people, you're thinking about something abstract and numerical, not something you can empathize with on any real personal level.
Like it or not there are real limitations in your ability to care and empathize with everyone to an equal degree. When you care about a person in any meaningful way it takes up physical and mental energy – time, effort, planning, emotional investment, money, etc. Simply put no one has an infinite amount of these things to give to the world. Waiting for you is the existential trap of wanting to "save the world". When you inevitably realize that you can't it can make you feel very depressed and frustrated with everything.
In the spirit of altruism, it can be tempting to donate a little money toward every charity you come across. A few dollars here, a few dollars there can make you "feel good" about yourself and believe you are contributing and making a difference.
But if you are giving away time and money without proper discretion, and without doing research, you might be wasting a lot of your own time and money that could be spent in more effective ways. Altruism toward strangers is good, but within reason and using proper discretion.
- Thread starter
- #7
I never thought that's how they viewed it. I viewed it as, I had the ability to help out, and it was the right thing to do, and I figured I probably wouldn't get too mussed up in the process (that or I just figured what was being done was so wrong, something had to be done -- who else is gonna do it?).
I don't see it as cheating fate: Fate is inevitable; my ability to stop what happened was "evitable".
That said, I don't think it's good to stick your nose in everybody's business: Some people don't want it, and sometimes you'll bite off way more than you can chew.
Last edited:
michael rauls
Tech Sergeant
- 1,679
- Jul 15, 2016
It's true some people don't want or apreciate it. Once I pulled a woman out of a car teetering on a steep/ high embankment. It wasn't high enough to call a cliff but certainly high enough to really mess up her day had the car gone over the side with her in it and mine to if it had gone over while I was pulling her out( the door would have whisked me away also)she had come to rest with a small tree pinning the door closed. The tree was quite small, easy for me to bend away to open the door but I guess she couldn't get the leverage form inside to force it open. Anyway, she didn't even bother to say thank You. Kinda irritated me at the time, the lack of appreciation after I risked possible injury or who knows maybe worse to help her but then I realized the best way to look at this kind of thing is you try to do the right thing and then whatever happens , hey at least you know you did the right thing........can't control other peoples reaction.
People suck. That's why I work on aeroplanes at night, when everyone else has gone to bed.
(That's a joke, by the way, with a tinge of reality slipped in for good measure)
AMEN! And those suck worst who work in maintenance administration in the daytime, don't know you, never see you, and consider you some sort of vile, filthy, untermensch. Wrenching, hauling parcel freight, or flying a red eye, I've always liked the back side of the clock.
Cheers,
Wes
michael rauls
Tech Sergeant
- 1,679
- Jul 15, 2016
I'd like to put in a partial good word for humanity here. There's alot of good people out there but yea, you've got to wade through way too many a- holes to get to them.
Case in point: our Director of Maintenance was a good egg, but his staff were a pack of junkyard dogs who jealously guarded access to his office and didn't want "filthy grease monkeys" to cross their threshold.
The president of the company kept his own toolbox in the shop and had his own shop uniform with the derogatory nickname we called him behind his back on the name tag. He would walk in on us unannounced at 1 or 2 AM and ask the duty supervisor what needed doing. His enthusiasm exceeded his talent by a mile, so he was always given dirty menial tasks such as servicing lavatories on the larger planes or degreasing cabin outflow valves, which he did with a smile and a cheerful attitude. Cabin outflow valves on the bigger planes got incredibly filthy, even after smoking was prohibited. The 1900s weren't so bad, as they didn't have a galley, a wiffie, or a flight attendant.
Cheers,
Wes
