Quote:
Originally Posted by ElijahRene
[FONT="Trebuchet MS"]I know this isn't going to be an easy subject, but I found this fascinating.
I once posed a hypothetical question to a friend about a discussion we were having along the same vein...I asked if you were on a ship with 2,000 people on board but only had enough life rafts to hold 1,000, would you save the 1,000 or would you attempt to overload the life rafts and in the end, no one survives?
She was immediately emotional and no longer wanted to finish the discussion.
I think this is how we, as a society, have come to operate...we want X, but have no logical way to make X happen. And no one wants to make the hard decisions, so we just ignore realities and think about kittens.
So there it is...My take on things, for whatever it's worth.
I am interested in how others feel about this? (Please read the article below before responding)
|
I'm not sure what else to contribute other than I agree with much of what the article had to say. On the one hand, I'm tempted to say that those with what seems to be a pathological need to be altruistic are a product of a time when a great deal of the Western world is middle class and lives in relative comfort. Helping those they perceive as disadvantaged or in need to help, in that case, might arguably come from their own feelings of worthlessness. Giving as a kind of "feel good" that is simultaneously selfless and selfish.
On the other hand, I think that kind of pathological altruism may also be a symptom of any person in any era and of any class, with a lower sense of self worth for whatever reason, and compensates through helping other excessively instead of addressing their own misfortune. Or perhaps someone who, for whatever reason, has difficulties with dealing with what's on their own plate, so instead opt to help others. I suppose it's always easier to try to help others than deal with things happening in your own life that you don't want to face. Except for eventually you have to deal with your problems, instead of burying yourself in other peoples' misfortunes.
It's kind of a tough call though, I'd imagine. On the one hand you can just say some people are more sensitive to the needs of others. On the other hand, I think too much of anything can be a sign of serious problems or (mental) health issues.
As far as you question over the life raft...so basically you're asking us, if we were on the Titanic, what would we do?
Hehe, honestly, though, I think it's a tough call if you haven't been in the situation. Kind of like those questions that ask you: "Could you ever kill another human being"? The only way you can know is when you're faced with that immediate situation. That said, if I could take a guess at my own reactions without having been there, I'd say I agree with the analogy made in the article about the parents putting on oxygen masks before helping their child/not trying to "help" to the point of doing more harm than good. If you can save 1000 people, it's "better" than your misguided "help" causing the deaths of 2000...especially if you know there's no way to make 2000 people fit onto a certain number of rafts.
Then again, I guess in those situations people will always ask themselves what more they could have done to help when tragedy strikes. I don't think that's an odd reaction. But there's a difference between that and what the article described, imo. *shrug*