Yesterday, I went to donate a ton of clothing at the Salvation Army near where I live. I had to stand and wait in a very, very long line to drop-off the cloths. I waited at least 45 minutes just to drop of 5 or 6 peice of clothing, but many of the other people there were donating far more.
I waited patiently my turn in line. However, as I was leaving, I saw 3 people arguing with a lady, who had appearently tried to cut in line. She had just come into the building, yet she tried to “merge in” to the line near the front.
While this technically did not affect me since I had already dropped my stuff off, I still felt a bit of anger against her. Her actions were selfish and unfair.
However, her actions technically did effect me. So, my question is: what is it that still causes me to feel angry against unfairness, despite that fact that it does not affect me? Perhaps I’m feeling anger at the injustice, itelf?
empathy. you can imagine being the victim of that jerks selfishness and that it would suck. you know that to avoid such suffering, it is imperative that you go to the end of the line. you suffered yourself so that the people you could have budged in front of didnt. you did all that work to avoid hurting people and then some jerk ruins your work and hurts those people.
what i really want to know is why the hell does it take so long to donate clothes? i would have just thrown them at the front of the line and left, or shoved them into the bag of the person in front of me.
You donated a bunch of clothing, despite the fact that whether it actually reaches needy people “does not affect” you. We are dealing with a different -that is a non-material- meaning of “affect” here are we not? Both in your act of charity and in your visceral response to witnessed selfishness.
I was actually dropping off the the cloths for my mom. She has me do a lot of these small errands now that I can drive (I got my licesence in November).
The reason why the line to donate was so incredibly long was this: People are trying to squeeze out donations to get tax write-offs when then go to file their taxes for 2004.
BMW-Guy, I think there are two reasons why one should care about injustice. One is because it plays with another’s feelings and rights and the other reason is that one should try and find out what the basic problem concerning the perpetrator of crime is. For example, long time back there was this girl at this casino who walked away with both handfulls of loonies amounting to I guess about $80 of mine from my slot machine’s container. I stopped her and took my money back 'cause it was mine. Then I thought perhaps she needed the money and that’s why she did what she did. So after cashing my money I asked her if she wanted to have $80 and she took it. I noticed afterwards that she didn’t play with that money but went home. Now, would you have rather labelled her as a thief, criticized her, harboured dislike towards her or done what I did?
Evolution has no goal or end. Neither is it a working mistake or accident, for a mistake implies an intended type and/or goal: you wanted to drive to the movies but you crashed into a tree and that was a mistake because you were intending to make it to the theatre.
Evolution does nothing but create stronger types within averages. If you have a pack of wolves the group serves no other function than to produce a stronger wolf. ‘Strength’ doesn’t mean ‘closer to the intended type,’ for there is no such thing in evolution, but rather a subject that has a higher degree of capacity for performing and enduring among odds against the species: the stronger wolf will last longer in a food shortage, will be more likely to survive a fight with a rival, will produce healthier offspring, etc.
Altruism is the function of the masses to ensure that the higher type emerges. ‘Selflessness,’ in this case means: not capable of becoming stronger and existing only to be exploited by the strongest type within the group.
I am only saying that altruism is not the intention of evolution, but merely a temporary state required for the production of the higher type.
I neither agree or disagree with this, but I do find it somewhat troublesome in the case of the human being. It is precisely because human beings are aware that evolution has no goal that they should try to accomodate altruism as a moral necessity within civilization. In other words, even higher types are pointless.
You have a concept of the way society should be, should act, and when someone violates that concept you are angered.
Basicly, your bothered by someone not conforming to your views and beliefs on how society should be. This does not have to do with justice or right and wrong. Someone is violating the social code that you are a part of, that you respect and follow. Your angered because your obliged to follow this code and this person says to hell with you and all the rest of those who follow it. Your angered because you have to follow this code, this rule, and this person is getting around it – it’s an elementary response. As a child cry’s: “It isn’t fair! Why do I have to do this and he or she doesn’t?”
Furthermore, it doesn’t matter that your no longer in the line. You’ve allready waited and feel that this person should be forced to wait like everybody else. She is violating you because her act says I don’t respect the social rules that you respect, therefore I don’t respect you.
Of course, people tend to think of evolution as having some specific end or finished product in mind, and that we are that fully evolved product- I think neither is true. And the long term usefulness of altruism is still to be seen. Certainly social & political changes occur in societies at a much faster rate than genuine physical changes occur in us genetically. It’s conceivable that a trait that serves us well in one system may be a detriment in another. It may that the trait is survival-neutral, granting neither an advantage nor a disadvantage. It could simply just be the way we currently are.
I myself tend to become easily inflamed by events I see as “unjust.” My temper is fairly touchy and I suppose I’m more than a little self righteous. The world rarely comes close to my idea vision of it, and the disappointment gets to me. I’d have been strongly tempted to advise that woman that lines generally form in the rear and offer to show her where that is.
I think you care about injustice from a purely selfish standpoint.
You fear that it might happen to you, and so you do not want to see it.
I do not think you care about anyone else except that, selfishly, you want either: 1) to identify with someone you perceive to be above you in the “pack”; 2) the same for someone who you think can help you rise in the “pack”; 3) the same … to prevent you from losing your current rank in the pack"; 4) you want to be loved (in the sense that you have an instinctual need for love, protection, etc. as in the case of nonhuman animals) and you achieve a felling of being loved by giving to another human. You work from an unspoken assumption that the ones you give to will either love you back specifically, or will love you in a general sense.
Please show me more ideas about why we feel.
We don’t feel. We have a perspective that makes us think we are, but what is happening is a black and white process of the body. Most people envision themselves as socialite or cool guy or loser. But they really have no idea what or who they are. Human beings are designed to connect with each other. Male and female characteristics are swapped when their minds balance into one. We blend traits from others into ourselves as well. We share an identity. Our feelings are perfect reflections to the environment. They occur in such a way as to promote survival. We create an I out of this, but it isn’t ours. A feeling is nothing more than a sensation, correlating with positive/negative values we project onto what is.
What about if a person believes they are no different than anything else. The same in essence. They recognize their connection with everyone and so are governed by an idea of oneness. As opposed by an idea of identity, which would be a selfish standpoint. A lover declares his beloved to be his possession. This is a selfish standpoint of idenitity. A person governed by the idea/truth of oneness still carries the identity inside, but it isn’t the full encompassing belief what we are. They do not possess anything, it implies that selfish standpoint. If they possess anything they possess everything. A person who loves in their relationships truly, without expectation, will begin not to just act on behalf of themselves but on behalf of the other as well, as a whole. The others will is expressed through you, which is actually the harmony that we all instinctively seek, in mind and body. The publics will is expressed through the judge. He is not his personal identity in that chair. Love is an idea which reflects our oneness with another, to the point that what hurts them hurts us, that happens to them happens to us. We lose ourselves into not just a collective identity, which is the result of our form, but an absolute identity/non identity, which can be the foundation for our true expression and self awareness. That is who we are, but we still use our identity as we would a role in a play.
