Should we have concern about the welfare of strangers? Why?

Post Reply New Topic

I have seen many emotional arguments on PPR that I'm suppose to have concern about the welfare of strangers.

I'm suppose to care that some stranger, somewhere might be hurt if I don't support a government program.

Today, many people will die that could of been saved by a government program. So what?

Why do I owe those people? Why should I pay for them?

Make your case, thanks.

Wow. You don't get it at all.

Ayn Rand claimed that she was for egoism. She was actually for self-flagellation and masochism.

If I am sick, I am going to take government assistance. That saves me money. Ayn Rand would want me to "Take it like a man." Why should I? How is that in my self-interest?

Conservatives One Minute: Socialists are just greedy, selfish manchildren who want stuff for free!
Next Minute: Greed is good!

Fact: Capitalism is good for billionaires. It is bad for absolutely everyone else. That likely includes you.
Fight against the lobbyist scumbags. Don't do it for others. Do it for yourself. Sometimes people get together and fight for interests that they share. Egoism can and often does lead to spontaneous teamwork.

"History is not like some individual person, which uses men to achieve its ends. History is nothing but the actions of men in pursuit of their ends."
- Karl Marx

You didn't answer the question.

That looks especially bad for someone who tells people "you don't get it at all".

Go back and re-read the topic.

i would think that a society where people care about each other is less likely to totally fall apart when faced with an outside enemy, than one that doesn't care.

it's good for unity, however important that may be.

though this is probably unrelated to government programs. what kind of govt programs are you talking about?

part of my opposition to extensive use of such is related to the ease of becoming overdependent on them and the possibility of keeping one trapped in a vicious...poverty cycle...making poverty more escapable is more important than merely making it more tolerable.

i like having creature comforts, thanks.

Reciprocity/altruism vs selfishness is a false dichotomy. Both are valuable commodities to a social mammal.

I'm sure this is all debated.

However, the philosophy dictionary claims, I quote: "Altruism is the opposite of egoism"
http://www.iep.utm.edu/egoism/

Except egoism is the argument that humans should (or can only) act in accordance with their interests and needs/desires, which can include the desire to be thought of as charitable or useful or the need for people to be beholden to them by way of some form of social debt - i.e. reciprocity. Humans also seem to have an innate or constructed need to be thought of as "good" or "moral".

If altruism benefits the entire species (or collective) then, by extension, it also benefits the altruist, ergo we can define altruism as serving egoism.

Wow, this is a toughie (tough question).

First, generally speaking, I feel it's very important for us to take care of each other----BUT, I also believe-in "First, to thine own self, be true", in that if we don't take care of ourselves, we are no use to others.

Now, that being said, the OP seems to be specifically speaking about government programs----so, in that line-of-thinking, I support the majority (meaning, if a majority is gonna be hurt by the discontinuation of a program, then I would, most likely, support NOT discontinuing it [it's totally a case-by-case basis, to me, though; I might support its discontinuation]; if, however, the implementation of a program is going to hurt the majority [ie, higher taxes; which would hurt ALL of the working poor, for instance], then, most likely, I would NOT support it).

Also, I agree with adifferentname, in that altruism serves the ego----all-too-often, it seems people only help others, to make themselves feel better about themselves.

Well, I can't magically make you care through the power of persuasion or shaming. But the fact that you live on the grid means you benefit from having standards for working water and electricity, which were provided to you by others.

To benefit from things that are provided to you by others while discounting the idea of being considerate of others means it would be hypocritical of you to advocate for society abandoning all concern for strangers. Also, it defeats the purpose of rugged individualism and would actually be more like parasitism, which is ironically what rugged individualism accuses the disadvantaged of.

As a social species, even the individualistic things we take on were made possible through some sort of a social structure. You can survive in the wilderness on your own with the right tools, training, etc. but all the knowledge and materials necessary to do such a thing were developed by society. I personally have a theory that individualism as a paradigm was developed from society being able to afford it.

Why one should care about the wellbeing of strangers is the ultimate reason why one should care for the wellbeing of any person. We are beings created for the purpose of advancing goodness in the world and hold an essential responsibility to Morality (the universal independent form and force which determines what is right). Our wellbeing is thus constituted as important to this moral order, and thus one holds a responsibility to do what is within ones reasonable power to protect and aid the wellbeing of others.

Let me flip it round. Why would you want a stranger to suffer when their suffering could be avoided?

Is the total welfare of a society a zero sum game?

I'd like to make the case that you directly benefit from caring about other people. I'd rather get that issue out of the way.

Yes....because they are fellow human beings.

Alright, well then, guess we should support Donald Trump then.

The fact of the matter is, if you do not have an inborn sense of empathy, sympathy, or social responsibility, you probably won't be able to fully comprehend the whys. In fact, one of the most difficult "disorders" for mental health care professionals...and the criminal justice system to treat, is psychopathy. Psychopaths are devoid of the qualities listed above, and because of that, they have a difficult time understanding why they should not hurt people when hurting them serves their purposes (as mundane as they may be). The logical reasons as to why they should care, or be socially responsible, or not murder people as a past time, really just don't hit home with them.

If mental health care practitioners are skilled enough and patient enough, they can succeed in turning some of these individuals into a functional psychopath/sociopath. People who are devoid of the qualities above, yet understand that it's in their direct interest to, at the very least, follow the law. Not because if they break the law, they will be punished, but if they follow the law, they will be otherwise unimpeded in their pursuit of that which they want.

So, my question to you is, do you have the capacity to comprehend the explanations?

Define stranger.
Is that a person next door,next block,next city?
Around here people stop to help a stranger broke down on the road.
It's a sad world where people won't help someone who is down.Who knows when you may need help.Miss Rand did eventually.