What responsibility do humans have toward one another?

neo, Thank you for the personal invitation to your thread. As you know, I'm now traveling in Asia, and will be home on November 22.

That old saying about give a stranger a fish for a meal, and he'll want another fish, but teach him to fish and he'll fend for himself is a truism.

However, not all humans on this planet are in a situation to learn to fish, and they need assistance from other humans to survive - even in the US.

My two favorite charities are Second Harvest Food Bank and Habitat for Humanities, because they help people in need irregardless of culture, religion, race, or any other human groupings.

Those of us lucky enough to have been born and reared in a developed country have the opportunity to better our lives, and live better than the great majority of humans on this planet.

To be in a position to help others means we have done very well in this life. Some cultures help each other no matter what their own situation; those are the best cultures.

We have much to learn about humanity and humility.

Well said. Some of us in the midwest are land-locked with no lake for miles! lol.

Neo - Nice thread. It's thanksgiving time, I'll be thinking about this subject more, athen I'll post my own thoughts.

T
K
O

Re: What responsibility do humans have toward one another?


We live in a world that has increasingly divested itself of what the Bible describes as "natural affection." This is affection for those who should matter most: husband, wife, children, parents, etc. Why should people care about others if they don't even care for their own? I am not saying the responsibility doesn't exist. I am saying that most people are not interested in manifesting the responsibility.

No one has any responsibility for anyone else. To whom do you allege they would be responsible? Your imaginary friend?

It is a matter of enlightened self-interest to agree to a social contract, and to agree to or collude in the enforcement of its provisions.

You're playing a silly word game here. The people who sneer at anti-abortionists for their lack of "Christian charity" (as in, as cold as Christian charity) are simply pointing out the hypocrisy of those who rant about murder, and scream at frightened and bewildered young women attempting to enter abortions clinics, but won't put their money where their psalm singing mouths are. They are content to see the mother and child rot, and sink into poverty, depravity and crime, so long as their delicate sensibilities about abortion are not offended. No one suggests that they should beggar themselves to support mothers who could not otherwise afford to bear a child--but given the time, energy and money the put into harassing women who seek abortions or people who provide abortions, it seems a bit much that they will turn their backs on those women who listen to their mealy-mouthed advice and do not abort, but who ultimately cannot afford to support their offspring properly.

As for the efficacy of prayer, i enjoin you to "spit" in one hand, and pray into the other, and see which one fills up first.

You talk as though all women who have, or seek abortions are penniless people who will starve if they have a baby. Talk about naive.

I am raising 3 children who we willingly took in because of their situation. Two of them have been with us for 7 years and the latest for 8 months. I feel that I am doing my best, in difficult situations, to help as best I can.

Unfortunately, I cannot take in others that are also in need of a loving home. Hopefully, others will take up part of the load for the other children out there.

I say this in all humility and not to bring attention to myself. But, to point out that there are those who oppose abortion who DO care.

The only one here who is being naive is you. I haven't said that all women who seek abortions are penniless. Nor do i assert that all Christians are mealy-mouthed hypocrites. But many women who seek abortions are poor, and the numbers of Christians who are mealy-mouthed hypocrites are legion.

If nature is the ultimate authority, we have absolutely no obligation to each other. The only exception would be the biological desire to take care of one's offspring.

However, the question of what obligation we have to each other is not one that nature commands.

Societal and cultural elements now define what those obligations to each other are.

I do think that as a whole, the sum of contributions people make to each other is positive. This to me shows that what we do might not be driven by "obligation" or "duty" but instead other concepts such as "community" or "philanthropy."

T
K
O

more later... I'm full of chinese food, and in need of a big nap.

Could it not be compassion and/or empathy?

Full of. Oh, Chinese food.....um, carry on.

Certainly could be compassion or empathy, hence the use of the the words "such as" in my last post. I just don't think that we do much systematically because of obligation. The onl obligations we honor are the social contracts we have with our society/country.

T
Kung Pao chicken will knock you out!
O

opposing abortion is naive. no matter how much you care, abortions will happen. you choose whether it happens with a coat hanger or a doctor.

people with humanity and common sense will vote for the doctor. i understand, you care. so what? hey, i'm "against" abortion too, but there are other priorities that are more important to me.

Many Tibetans travel to Lhasa, because their main temple is hereMany of those take two years to come here from the outlying areas, because their religion believes they must come to pray at the temple at least once in their life time. They prostate themselves on the roads and near all the temples to pray.

Many are farmers from far away, and they bring yak butter, yak meat, grains, and other donations to the temple.

The poor who visit the temple can stay at the temple for one month; get their shelter and food for free.

Culture has much to do with how one treats their fellow man. We can learn much from the Tibetans.

Our social obligations have nothing to do with Natural Principle. Nature has nothing to do with it. At least I find no instinct to feel obliged to our fellow humans, with the exception of infants and small children. The human species would not have persisted were this not so.
But everwhere anthropologists have looked humans feel or are expected to act like they feel obligations to their group's members. It is as members of societies that we are trained to cooperate, to obey interaction imperatives (i.e., not kill, return favors, respect privacy requirements, protect the group against invasion by foreigners, etc.). This is more a matter of socicology than biology. We are expected to behave in ways toward members of our society but not necessarily to outsiders. Neighbors are not killed; strangers perhaps.

Nature and nurture cannot be separated.

C.I., nature and nurture surely do interact, but they are not two words for the same thing.

Our sole responsibility towards our fellow humans is this: Let them suffer their fate. My freind wants to take so much drugs that he's useless to do anything but take drugs. He's even taken so much drugs that he's starting to mess up his drug-taking.

My girfriend tried to kill herself. She jumped out of my window in front of my eyes. I tried to stop her, but I was too slow. She fell ten metres, that's about thirty feet, onto the pavement. She broke her leg, her jaw was shattered, but she survived. Now she loves life, even though she has more fractures in her jaw than can be counted, and will not be fully healed in another six months.

The greatest injustice we can do to our fellow humans is to hinder them in meeting the fate they're steering towards, because that meeting, be it a life as a drug addict, or as the next president, will teach them what they need to know to change and grow into better individuals.

It may sound harsh, and in truth it is. But the worst evil is to hinder someone in walking their path just because you see the hardships they will have to traverse. There is no more pity left in me. Face your demons, conquer them or die trying, and let me do the same. And we can meet as equals, as friends.

Cryacuz, I agree that pity is an expression of feelings of superiority to the person pitied (cf. Nietzsche). Compassion, however, is an expression of equality: when I feel compassion I'm feeling empathy, meaning I'm equal in the sense of sharing (at least imaginatively) the other's state of mind.
I guess to feel compassion does not necessitate interference with the other's behavioral track even though you may want to. Respect, as you suggest, is a gift in itself.

I believe compassion is a fleeting emotional response that has very little real value to most humans.

It's a momentary emotional response without any long-term effect.

I've cried watching a movie; it was just for the moment.

C.I., I would agree if you were talking only about vicarious empathy. But compassion TO ME AT LEAST is a general persistent orientation, an attitude that reflects the state of one's "soul", as it were. I know compassionate people and people who are not. Both types can experience passing moments of empathy.

Maybe empathy is merely an intention we can never fully realize. What I mean is that while I might have a good grasp of another's situation, that other person might not see it so clearly, which adds a certain condescending quality to my empathy.

Is it empathy to make allowances for the lies we tell ourselves, for the fears that grip us? Or should we challenge them, in ourselves and in those we meet?

I think it is right to respect the feelings of other people. But sometimes empathy cannot be empathy without a measure of indulgence, and I wonder if I am helping my friend with the drug problem by trying to empathize with his situation. He is where he is because he makes excuses and lies to himself, to maintain his sense of dignity, even in the face of great embarrasment. To maintain his sense of accomplishment even though he has nothing to look back at but failure. Sometimes I cannot bring myself to support him, because I fear it will be the justification he needs to keep doing his mistakes over and over again.

It is probably evident from what I say in this post that I am having trouble navigating this particular area of social interaction these days.

Drug addiction is an illness; it's not about your friend's ability to stop taking drugs on his own. He needs outside help, but he must want help for it to help him. Some form of treatment may be available through the local community - usually county services.