Compassion and what follows....

i was married to a social worker at one time, and he educated me a lot about what happens to the homeless in america, but time has passed so quickly-i rather doubt anything much has changed, though. the medical community will treat them of course-because if the state is willing to pay there is no difference in the customer. one time a fellow set fire to his beard while he was drunk, and suffered bad burns. so of course they have to be taken to the doctor. they may still come in to see their counselors though they dont stay in a home anywhere. we can try and rehabilitate them, and i believe programs should be in place, but most of them truly are not in a position to be able to accept rehabilitation. i dont believe forcing it on anyone is going to be fruitful.

someone i used to work with made friends with a homeless young man, and invited him to dinner for christmas with her family. he was a vietnam war vet, very intelligent, from a wealthy family with a good background, such potential, but apparently wasted by the experience of the war, now an alcoholic. she used to stop and talk to him on the way home from work for some time before this. anyway, he accepted the invitation, and showed up at her house drunk as a skunk and caused a terrible scene. so there are limits as to how far you can go as far as becoming personally involved-this is an example of what not to do. you have to be realistic.

having compassion means staying within the limits of respecting another's wishes and how they want to live and behave, even if it doesnt fit into mainstream society, and as long as they arent any danger to anyone or themselves, i dont see why we cant accept them as they are.

in your case, to have to lock the door on your own father must be terribly traumatic, and you will face a lot of flack from people because of it. but they would also condemn you if you let him go-this is one of those situations where you can never win, i am afraid. so dont count on anyone's approval. you are doing the right thing in trying to find the most compassionate thing to do, but in your case you really havent any choice. if you were able to keep him with you that would be the best, but very few people would be able to do that-and you having a daughter, whom i assume is still fairly young, it would be out of the question to put her in danger.

For me, compassion is the expereince that makes us truly human, humane - not just animal state, but the compassion being the fullest expression of our intelligence. There is love and hate, there is fear and excitement, but compassion is the moment where all of one's resources (emotional, intellectual, material) must be employed in artful and coordinated manner in order for its expression to be effective. Inviting homeless people to Christmas dinner is a wonderful sentiment, but it does require having a particular set of attitudes and resources available.

What people think of my decision is not something I am concerned about. Looking myself in the mirror is my concern. If I have done my very best, I can live with criticism.

compassion to me is feeling the pain of another no matter what the reason for it and wishing to alleviate it. but too many times people project their own desires onto others. that is where respect for the alternative choices of others comes in. we can wish to alleviate suffering but not automatically assume that we know how to do it. that is the crux of the dilemma, as you know.

Ah Salima. that is right we can't presume that we know how to do it. That is the dilemma. Yet, for my personal situation, the issue became moot when you pointed out the danger to others factor. Something I completely ignored because I was blinded by trying to act on behalf of another.

There are very few situations one can assume the responsibility for another with real success. Yes we can assume it for a child, for the victim, but there is usually a point when that ends. The child grows, the victim becomes empowered, etc. At some point that responsibility is transferred back to the individual since it originally belongs to them in the first place. When do we decide that the person is autonomous again? One sees this conflict between parent and child all the time. The child argues they are old enough etc. and the parent argues they are not sufficiently capable to decide and so must abide by their rules. There is a negotiation that takes place. Goodness, even the state negotiating aboriginal rights seems like this form of discussion.

The combination of acting compassionately and assuming responsibility for another (or absolving one of their responsibility) takes place in society all the time. I guess I wonder when this is acceptable when no one really can know the full wishes of the other and it can lead to so much abuse of authority. In order to avoid this abuse, should we not vow (as an individual or a nation or whatever) never to interfere except in the utmost extreme circumstances? From this point of view, would acting compassionately be viewed as acting indifferently? How can we know the difference?

For example, the World Health Organization led a series of development projects in the third world to help the poor there. One of those projects was building a dam on the Ganges River where people lived poorly, but self sufficiently on the banks of the river. Once the dam was built the people suffered greatly and the area suffered some serious environmental impacts. From our point of view, their condition was extreme, but once we interfered their condition worsened further. In this case, leaving the poor in their current state would have been a more compassionate action. Using this as an example, shouldn't we vow not to interfere - only council?

dams are a big problem in india, and millions of people are routinely being displaced. whole villages are submerged and the people are relocated, often to areas where there is no drinking water and no way for them to make a living. this is done by the indian government alone without any 'help' from outside.

i dont know if the WHO can do anything without permission, but permission often comes from those who want to exploit the interests of the ones who are being 'helped'. so even if one comes with good intentions it can go wrong.
bringing industrialization and progress has not been done to my knowledge in the interest of helping the poor, but only to make the rich more rich, and has in that succeeded. it is only a secondary hope that some of the benefit and profit will trickle down to the rest of society, and i suppose eventually it will. but the growing pains are quite severe. if there were true compassion it would be thought out more carefully and done a better way.