Moralizing vs. Compassion

[God of Mr. Hanky]

So I got in a little trouble with a co-worker today when she was going on about how our city wasn't doing enough to help the homeless.  She claimed she was passionate about helping the homeless.  I thought this was great because I too am passionate and regularly help the homeless in Detroit by bringing them gift bags of essentials and offering time in shelters.  

However, as she went on she claimed she never even met a homeless person in downtown, goes out of her way to avoid them when she visits and never been to a shelter but read that there were only two and that wasn't enough.  I applauded her concern for issue, but I perhaps mistakenly corrected her in that I didn't feel she was passionate about the homeless but was merely moralizing.  She got upset with me, but I did my best to explain it to her.  

The word compassion carries with it these dual senses about making an absolute moral judgement about something AND being prepared to do something about it. So you have compassion in the face of poverty when you make an absolute moral judgement, 'That is wrong! It shouldn't be like that,' and then you're moved from the depth of your being to do something about it. If you're not moved from the depth of your being to do something about it, you don't have compassion, you have moralizing.

She didn't like my explanation.  Curious your thoughts here on it.

For some it isn't whether they are prepared to do something to help the homeless, but whether they are realistically in the position to. Maybe you don't get that, if you've never faced difficulties which are as real as those faced by people who you can actually observe because they are already in the street. When you have to struggle to avoid that situation, you are completely alone. It isn't until you are completely down that people start to care, when there are photo opportunities in it for them, and gold stars for their resumes! I'm glad you aren't ignoring those who could actually die this winter as a result of being outside, but please don't rain piss down on those who have to spend all their time working just to avoid becoming the next to join the street crowd, or are working as much as they can and still can't keep up with the bills. When you're in that situation, there isn't much you can do that would be kinder than to pretend you don't see them. For those who fall in-between, not being a chest-pounding, elitist asshole about it may help recruit some into helping out with what you do. In the meantime, I hope you will be directed by your conscience to fight for the rights of every person in your country to have a roof over their head, even if that means making homelessness just one more of history's grave horrors.

Also, some people are better at raising awareness of the homeless situation than lugging soup pots and goodies for the homeless around town. If the most you can do is talk about it, and the awareness you raise inspires strong kids who can help to volunteer, then that really is more than just talking about it.

[robvalue]

I think it is possible to genuinely care about something, yet be able to mentally operate as if such a problem doesn't exist and to do nothing about it. The human brain is incredibly good at cognitive dissidence. It's kind of an essential evolutionary trait, to be able to "block" things from your mind, at least temporarily. If it wasn't for that, anyone with any empathy wouldn't be able to function under the crushing amount of suffering going on in the world.

So to be able to operate, we block things out to some extent. This can lead to us doing nothing about the problem we really do care about, or even adding to that problem.

The above isn't supposed to be an excuse, but rather an explanation. I totally agree that thoughts alone do not help anyone. But they do help spread a general message of caring, which is very important. Actions speak much louder when setting an example, and it's actions which make a difference in the end. I too am very frustrated by people who say they care about certain issues but don't take even the slightest step to do anything about it, even when such opportunity easily presents itself.

[Jenny A]

I look at it this way. I give to charity out of moral compunction. I give to people I see out of compassion. The motives are different. That is why economically mixed neighborhoods lead to better help for the poor. Segregate the poor and only moral compunction is left.

[bennyboy]

 That is why economically mixed neighborhoods lead to better help for the poor.

. . . also, better access to valuable goods.

[Kingpin]

Don't take this the wrong way Kingy but you might just have the makings of a pretty fine atheist.

Lol, no offense taken.  I know some pretty great atheists

[Kingpin]

I get your point about the difference between words and actions, but in pointing it out to her, she may have felt as if you were judging her -- which in one sense you were. You were right in your point itself, but perhaps (as noted above) she was looking for praise, and was let down or even hurt by your point, which I do think could have been made more artfully: "Oh, you're not volunteering right now? Let me know when you can, I work with a couple of charities which could sure use some help" -- said with a smile, y'know.

I think that is exactly right Thump.  I was making a bit of a judgment basically pointing out her lack of action without expressly calling it out.  Her and I talked more today and she is going to come with our group next weekend when we deliver our goody bags to the homeless downtown and I'm going to introduce her to the shelter managers we work with to see if she can find a place she can offer help that's comfortable for her.  She flat told me she is scared of the homeless people in downtown and would never go by herself which I fully understood.  Downtown Detroit isn't exactly safe, especially not for a 30 something woman by herself.  So she will join our group of about 15 people and meet some of them, get to hand deliver some supplies and volunteer at the shelter.

[MTL]

People get used to being congratulated just for expressing correct ideas.  You'll get 5 dudes with $2000 computers sitting their drinking their Starbucks douche-o-chinos and talking about the desperate plight of Tibetan Buddhists or whatever.  However, the chance that any of them would send money, or so much as touch an actual Tibetan outside a sanctioned charity event, is a little less than 1%.

That being said, we ALL hold values we don't fully act on-- because that would automatically mean a life of poverty and complete dedication to a bunch of causes.  So you have environmentalists buying Apple products made in Chinese factories, vegans buying vegatables from farms that kill thousands of rodents with pesticides, etc.  Tell one of those vegans they aren't really vegan because they are failing to act, and you'll get a strong negative reaction for sure.

Let me ask you this-- do you own a car?  If so, how many sandwiches could you buy if you sold the car and made other transportation arrangements?

I've made this observation, too, many times: 

basically, unless a person  lives like Gandhi, they can't really say they're blameless.

Our society is such that we are consuming resources from the day we are born
while children in other parts of the world are starving as a consequence
of the unequal distribution of wealth and resources around the globe,

....and also such that simply by living in a modern-day house, and using energy,
or owning a car,
you are contributing to the damage of the planet,

....and simply by shopping at the supermarket, you are directly or indirectly contributing
to various  unethical and cruel industries...

All we can do is gradually try to improve, as much as possible, whenever possible,
on a conscientious, consistent and continual basis,
to offset the damage we cause (as part of the system)
with some responsible choices and contributing to worthier causes.

Also, Benny, you made a point about how there are those who will give until they have nothing left to give, anymore
...even to the point of their own death,
rather than keep ANYTHING for themselves, whilst living in a world so full of need;

Let me point this out:

Bill Gates, for example, has far and away more wealth than I do....obviously.

He has luxury upon luxury upon luxury.

The cost of just one fine suit out of his closet could feed thousands of children.

Yet he has also been able to donate FAR more than I will ever be able to donate
...billions of dollars in philanthropic work.

I read a quote from a wealthy person once,
to the effect that poor people like to preach about how money is the root of all evil;
but she opined that POVERTY was the root of much of the evil in the world,
and MONEY unfairly takes the blame;

that it is how money is used or ABUSED that makes people unfairly cast the blame on the money, itself.

I must admit, I see her point.

If I want to be really selfless,
I can paddle out to a remote island cannibal colony somewhere, and let them eat me.

...but I wouldn't be around to help anyone else, after that.

If I win $1,000,000.00 dollars tomorrow, and give away every dollar of it,
I can help a lot of people.

But if I ethically invest and multiply that fortune,
and CONTINUE to do good with it,
I can help far, far more people.

If I become a billionaire,
then that's a billion dollars that is under my control to do with as I see fit,
...and it's a billion dollars that is NOT under the control of some warlord or drug cartel.

I learned the hard way, in the last ten years or so,
that when you give absolutely everything you have to give,
holding back nothing for yourself,

it may SEEM selfless,
but then someone else then has to help YOU...

...and you're effectively not doing the world as much good
as you would have been doing if you were at least carrying your own weight.

I always used to feel guilty about competing for a promotion or a raise,
feeling like someone else probably deserves it more than I do;

but I realize that since I could do more to help people
if I was better off,
than I am able to do, at present,
then it is not only not selfish to seek to prosper,
but, if you share your success around,
it is actually something of a responsibility to do as well as you can.

As long as we are not corrupt, indifferent, or greedy, of course;

I suppose working hard and taking scary risks to increase your net worth,
and then putting as much of that fortune as is reasonably possible, to work, for good in this world,
is actually far more selfless, and far more of a challenge,
than simply giving away everything you have
and perishing of want, yourself.

It reminds me of the movie "Schindler's List"
wherein Oskar Schindler started out in the beginning of the movie as a shrewd, self-serving businessman,
but by the end of the film was weeping because he hadn't exchanged every last possession he had
to save just a few more Jews.

Certainly, it is difficult to justify owning ANYTHING superfluous to our survival,
as long as there is even one more life that could be saved by sacrificing that superfluous item;
so how do you make peace with having a fortune
as long as people are perishing?

it is a moral dilemma, indeed;
but I maintain that you can help more people
by being prosperous, yourself,
than by simply being poor, yourself.


I also wanted to acknowledge something Evie said...

Sometimes a person who is poor or depressed, themselves,
may want very much to change the world,
but just can't, in their present circumstances.

Just because a person can't cope, doesn't mean they don't care.

[brewer]

Some sit on the bench and cheer, others get into the game. Denying that there is a game I don't understand. To each his own. I prefer to be in the game when I can.

[TrueChristian]

I actually don't believe the two are linked that closely at all.

Compassion seems purely a good thing. I believe the Latin words that form the root of "compassion" comes from literally means "to suffer with."

When one feels compassion, it is always caused by human suffering, and one is generally moved to alleviate said suffering.

"Moralizing" isn't always bad. Sometimes bad things need to be pointed out, people need to be corrected.

It doesn't have the same moving connotation as "compassion" though. It often implies self-righteous petty outrage over stupid things like decrying rock music, violent video games, and girls who wear mini-skirts.

There is a difference IMO

[bennyboy]

I'd like to talk about MTL's observations about Bill Gates.

Undoubtedly, among the rich he is a shining example. But it is partly because of him that maybe billions of computers have been sold. They were made in factories which pump out pollution. They use power which in many parts of the world increases the carbon footprint. They require shipping, which definitely increases the carbon footprint. They require rare minerals, which are often mined using chemical processes that do great damage.

I love Bill Gates, don't get me wrong. But not even in his case can you definitely demonstrate a net positive influence, and he almost for sure is among the best of the human best.


Another example-- I'm vegetarian. I've realized that if I calculate the amount of grains and vegetables I consume, then consider where they come from, I'm indirectly responsible for huge amounts of poison and a massive carbon footprint-- maybe more animal deaths than if I ate locally-produced meat.

My point is that even the good people probably do more harm than no people. What we really need to do is fill up massive spaceships with millions of people and send them off to Mars and beyond.

Or just stop making babies.