I have noticed this can be a highly debated topic, so I thought I would throw it out there:
Do you think that society suffers at all for protecting the weak or creating laws that, essentially, ''protect people from themselves" (seat belt, helmet, drug laws, etc…) ??
Compassion is a wonderful quality to possess, but can acting on it all the time lead to long-term lowering of the status-quo (or slowed evolution) by allowing certain ‘unfit’ people to reproduce and pass on those ‘unfit’ traits?
I think I will refrain from this topic because I always seem to come across as unsympathetic and a horrible person, but I would like to see what others have to say on the subject.
I think “Social Darwinism” is a paradoxical idea, because society is designed to run contrary to the forces of natural selection. If we really wanted it, we’d simply allow people to kill one another and such; the point of social organization is to work together, which requires respect for the people you’re going to work with. You could compose a method of excluding people who wouldn’t help society much, or not giving them power, but to what extent can you be certain of that method? As certain as the current system (which does this with prisons and the economy), or more so? Personally, I don’t think we know enough about how people work–or have the potential for work–to do more to control the way people work than we do.
Feeling compassion and showing compassion are two different things. Hopefully, even when we don’t have the luxury of the latter we can’t avoid the former.
Keep in mind that the pervading science of that day did not have the physics capable of predicting the collapse of the universe. As such, the consideration of “evolution” as it pertains to the organism was separated from the evolution of the universe as a whole. Ultimately there is no division between the organism and the raw material provided by the universe for the existence of the organism, and where the universe will eventually destruct…so too do the events proclaimed to be “evolving” within it.
So I ask: what is the purpose of evolution where it will inevitably cease to occur?
Now, of course this remains a theory, however by the very fact that it is possibly true, it must also be true that evolution, in the sense that it is considered an endless moving-forward, is in fact not.
My point is that Darwinism does not work as a teleological explanation for existence in general, but it does elaborate quite well on the practices and progressions of the animal kingdoms meanwhile.
So sure, the “strongest survive,” but the “surviving doesn’t survive” if the collapse is determined.
“Compassion” is a tricky subject. I once turned Fritz on his head when I told him that my refusal to attack was a result of not being threatened. He scratched his head and shouted “impossible!” I sat him on my knee and whispered into his ear:
“Imagine being so powerful that nothing could hurt you”
He called me a liar. I called him short…and told him to trim his moustache.
how valuable is compassion for others to you? does the “good samaritin” not feel good after helping others, is it not at all possible they enjoy doing good for others? beyond the “warm feeling” one gets when helping someone overcome their plight, compassion is useless, how does being compassionate improve,or even help sustain my life?
sure being compassionate is a "good " charectoristic, but good in relation to what? is it “bad” to worry more about myself and devote my energy to making the best of my situation? any good that comes out of compassion is purely sentimental.
I think compassion is necessary for human civilization to exist. We are all aware of ourselves, and intellectually we all inherently have the cognitive powers to surmise that others have similar feelings, but without compassion we wouldn’t care about that. Without some ability to see a part of ourselves in others and empathize with their feelings, social interaction wouldn’t work.
I wasn’t debating wether compassion is good for “society” but i was debating how benefitial it was to me personally. how does helping other people help me succeed? In business you always have to be a step ahead of the other guy.
If you have to ask the question, then compassion probably isn’t a natural part of who you are. Being a “step ahead” is easier when people trust you and a man/woman of his/her word has greater long term success than a manipulative grifter. In my experience, a fake is always exposed in the end.
Trevor, that depends on what it is you want to accomplish with yourself. If you want to make money or amass some other form of material wealth, then compassion probably isn’t the best path, although I don’t think that will give you much fulfillment.
I believe being compassionate isn’t necessarily the best thing in all circumstances.
Take a drug addict for instance. Let’s say this addict overdosed and was sent to the hospital emergency room. When this “addict” descends from his high and needs another “fix”, he will experience withdrawls. The decision of the hospital personnel to administer drugs to facilitate the effects of his withdrawls will likely do nothing to lessen his addiction.
A person in the aforementioned situation would likely benefit from the “cold turkey” treatment rather than the compassionate approach of administering drugs to lessen his pain.