To what extent is care for someone reasonable?

Pre-College Topics High School Life
1

<p>International strife. Syria. UN Security Council. Assad. Civil conflict. Israel. Bulgaria. Iran. Tourists. 37 lives - changed.</p>

<p>Domestic unrest. Colorado. 12 trajectories stopped midpath. 50 trajectories steered off course. Potentials - robbed. Time - stolen. Futures - unknown. Grief - overwhelming. </p>

<p>It is perhaps a small world. Coincidences - not only at the local level, but also at the international level. Paths coinciding. Odds - a million to one - overcome, shattered, annihilated - perhaps this is a divine signal. I would never have guessed such a coincidence on the international level. But thanks to the intersection of the two’s paths, now I know. And now I fear, especially in light of the recent acts of both international and domestic terror; will the spectators of the multi-nation (205, to be exact) event be OK? </p>

<p>It is honorable to wish the safety of anyone. But to what extent is concern for others reasonable? Should I really pursue my daily activities with concern lodged in the back of my mind? Is this healthy? Is this reasonable? Is this normal? Or should I wish well once, and leave the rest to whatever that turns or guides the axles of this universe, whether it be a physical being, a corporeal particle, something immaterial such as faith, or a preconceived blueprint? Alternately, does nothing guide the universe at all; does quantum uncertainty permeate every level of existence? Or do we forge our own realities daily - do we blaze our paths, steer our ships, and play the game? </p>

<p>Back to the subject of care. The deontologist would examine the motives behind my care. Do I care because I intrinsically value human life, or do I care because I value absolute physical perfection? Do I care because I value an irreplaceable combination of both mensa-level intellect and phenotypic (and likely genotypic, although I have yet to found out ;)*) perfection? Am I in violation of the second categorical imperative? </p>

<p>The virtuist would tell me to carve a middle path. I should not be overly burdened, neither should I be completely unconcerned. Ultimately, behaving correctly - adhering to the golden means - is a matter of habit rather than conscious decision for the virtuous person. So I must ponder - do I habitually extend my care to others, or is this an exception? </p>

<p>The teleologist, however, would examine only the consequences of my action, and likely tell me to do whatever that makes me happiest. Well, what would make me happy is that nothing devastating occurs. But I doubt that I can effect change with mere thought, and with each thought my anxiety only swells in me. So perhaps my care is futile. And perhaps it is, in terms of peoples’ safety. But perhaps in a way it is not futile; perhaps my care, and my writing this post, are means to reminiscence and validation - in writing this, I am able to reminisce, and in presenting this, I extend the task of validation to you, my readers :).</p>

<p>[size=1]*Ask me in three-quarters of a year? </p>

<p>Just kidding!! Haha I did get a little carried away with this post but have at it. Hopefully someone will appreciate the comedy behind the fa</p>

2

<p>Man, you lost me there. Didn’t get the just kidding part either. It’s been a long day :confused: Sowwy.</p>

<p>P.S. What’s a teleologist?</p>

3

<p>You know, from the frequency of your posts, and the intellectual philosophical querries you pose, I wonder? Are you simply bored? Or are you like this whenever you truely start thinking? Besides, I was lost a little in the first half after the examples…can’t you just have a debate without all of SAT-like words and unfamiliar professions? ^ ^</p>

4

<p>Teleology is the branch of ethics that focuses on the consequences of actions. The consequences dictate whether an action was moral. For example, if your intentions were golden, yet you end up causing widespread suffering, your action was immoral, in a teleologist’s eyes. In a deontologist’s eyes, however, your action would have been moral, as long as your intentions were good. An example of a teleological school of thought is utilitarianism.</p>

<p>The reason behind my frequent posts? Boredom is part of it. I’m also like this when I genuinely start thinking. These are my deep, inner thoughts, to which even my parents and friends are not privy. I don’t share these thoughts with parents and all but the closest of friends because one, they’re hard to decipher, and two, concern things that I’d find awkward to discuss with most people. Often times I feel as though I am the one person who understands myself. It’s overwhelming. It’s overwhelming to know that I have so much scholarship, wit, erudition, and romance harbored within me, and that no one I immediately know can genuinely relate, and understand the hidden jokes, and my subtle wit. The conventional concerns of a teenager, expressed with a deeply philosophical slant - who wouldn’t like it? That’s why I post on the Internet, in the hope that perhaps someone - perhaps not in the next week, or even the next month - will eventually read my posts, and understand, and smile :).</p>

<p>So call it narcissism. I like to be heard. Also, there is a bit of thrill in writing and posting these essays; I never know who might just be reading my essays. There is a remote possibility that some people may have caught on to my real-life identity. Having people know me in such an intimate light through these essays makes me feel naked. Paradoxically, I don’t want some people to know my true self. But then, I do want them to know. There really is more to me than what one might superficially perceive, and that’s one thing I’ve been battling; I’m more than just another person - I’m a deep, emotional, and interesting human being. <em>Sigh.</em> First impressions … and Facebook, and Twitter, and the Internet. Today, we form superficial relationships. Intrinsically unsatisfying. How am I supposed to condense my erudition into 140 characters? No. Let’s meet at Starbucks. I’ll buy you a latte. You don’t need to wear any eye shadow or eye liner. Those things are distracting. I just want to get lost staring into your beautiful grey (brown?) eyes while stripping myself of the preconceived notions and the fa</p>

5

<p>

</p>

<p>I’ll PM you an explication of this essay ;).</p>

6

<p>I respect your posts and think you’re a fantastic writer, but I think even you would admit that your writing is a bit pretentious. Also, if I were to critique this, I think this is the second or third essay where you opened with a bunch of self-serious telegraphic sentences. That’s kinda 'hack writing" if you ask me. Also you start many sentences with conjunctions (I’m guilty of this too, honestly) and you’re kinda beating me over the head with questions, some rhetorical. </p>

<p>Just trying to give constructive criticism. Again, very good writing, but a few nasty habits that you may wanna fix.</p>

<p>Shouldn’t you be working on the items in your summer progress thread? ;)</p>

7

<p>care for someone is never reasonable.</p>

<p>reason isn’t inherently good.</p>

8

<p>I agree with you that the introduction was hastily thrown together in a poor attempt at profoundness. Short, choppy sentences … a unique way to open a piece, but perhaps not the best. I can’t, however, find any objection to starting sentences with conjunctions. </p>

<p>I ask the questions for many reasons. One, I don’t want to explicitly answer them myself. This isn’t a Q&A session with me. Second, some of them are meant to provoke thought - and mirth. But in later pieces, I will start to move away from rhetorical questions. I’ve been overusing them. I think that in every one of my pieces, I’ve used at least several rhetorical questions. Good devices, but perhaps overused (by me). I appreciate the suggestions, and I’ll take them to heart in the future :). I’m not going to comment on whether my writing is pretentious; I’ll let you, the readers, decide. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Could you elaborate :)?</p>

9

<p>as in, there is no logical reason to care for someone or something</p>

10

<p>The egoist would perhaps wonder why I would care about someone. To sacrifice yourself or something of yours for someone or something is anathema to the egoist. </p>

<p>First, however, we must define sacrifice. Sacrifice means giving something of greater value for something of lesser value. A dollar for a penny. My livelihood for a mere acquaintance. Not my livelihood for a good friend.</p>

<p>By caring, I’m causing myself anxiety over a friend. Is this a sacrifice; am I sacrificing my emotional well-being for something of a lesser value? I value equally my emotional well-being and others’ physical well-being. Therefore, this cannot be a sacrifice.</p>

11

<p>Wow…IceQube, do you want to major in literature? You’re a very good writer…and profound thinker. As for the question, I think it’s okay to care and that it’s reasonable. In fact, I think that’s been on many of our minds since the Colorado shooting. I’m not sure if you were reffering to the Olympics , but if you were, I do think that people will be concerned with all the hostility that’s been going on, but we all do know that the Olympics is to bring countries together, set our differences aside, and have some healthy competition. :)</p>

12

<p>I think that the reason we care is because it is engraved into our sense of humanity. We are wired to have sympathy, empathy, and concern for others. Those who do not, those who scoff at these occurances lack something as humans. I think we unconsciously, or perhaps consciously wonder if us, or a friend had suffered the same peril.</p>

<p>Moreover deontology=/= good intentions. Kant hated the ideas of intentions, they’re flimsy, and hard to decipher the exact intention with the complexity of the human mind. Thus he created a “code” of morals. You seem to be familiar with the imperatives, but do not mistake action for intention. An example I learned is that if someone saves a baby from a burning building, their intention is irrelevant because the act is inherently moral. Even if the guy did it to be famous or otherwise.</p>

<p>As for your topic, I have trouble seeing the application to deontology. Perhaps the 3rd categorical imperative? We are upset that these people are not striving towards a kingdom of ends? I have trouble applying emotion to deontology. I feel that emotions cause bias at times, which Kant vehemently opposed and tried to avoid</p>

<p>Sent from my Desire HD using CC</p>

13

<p>Rachel, it’s refreshing to meet someone familiar with ethics :). </p>

<p>Emotion and empathy are very real parts of being human. But what is unfortunate is that the magnitude of our empathy drops off steeply with distance. Distance can be broadly defined; distance can refer to kinship, emotional distance, or even physical distance.</p>

<p>If my brother breaks his leg, I care - a lot.
If my cousin breaks his arm, I care. </p>

<p>If my girlfriend gets a sunburn, I care a lot.
If a nemesis gets a sunburn, I don’t care. </p>

<p>My neighbor gets shot. I care.
Someone is murdered in Russia. I don’t really care. </p>

<p>It’s worse than linear decay; the steepness at which our empathy falls off with “distance” resembles an inverse square law. </p>

<p>However, I disagree with your reading of Kant and his system of deontological ethics. The value of any action is judged by the will, or intention, behind the action. </p>

<p>In my original post, I was, somewhat satirically, analyzing the morality of my extending my care, or my concern, for the person’s welfare at the London Olympics. Foodlover01 nailed it. I am speaking of the Olympics, because someone I know is in attendance. I analyzed my extending my care from a deontological perspective by analyzing the motives behind my action. I asked why I cared. Here, I bring in Kant’s second categorical imperative. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Kant’s second categorical imperative can be thought of as “anti-Machiavelli.” It states that one should never use others as stepping stones; one should never use another as “a means to an end.” An example I’m sure that everyone can relate to is the friending of people by others who wish to know what the homework was in a class they missed. </p>

<p>Gregarious female: “Hey, I know we’ve never talked, but let’s be friends”</p>

<p>Awkward male: “Cool! And hey, did I ever tell you how pr…” </p>

<p>Gregarious female (interrupts): “Hey, do you know what the homework was for last night; I was totally texting during class and missed it”</p>

<p>Awkward male: “Oh, pages 444-445, problems 1-5”</p>

<p>Gregarious female: “Thanks!”</p>

<p>The gregarious female skips off in the hallway and out of sight</p>

<p>The two never talk. Again. For the rest of their lives.</p>

<p>So in recognition of the second categorical imperative, I rhetorically ask myself if the reason behind my extending my care is that I value human life in itself. Do I extend my care because I take a non-objective view of humanity - every human is intrinsically worth something, no matter how handsome or pretty they might be, or how ugly they might be? To be a teenager, as I am, and answer yes, is rather disingenuous. The more likely answer is that I care because I objectify that person in attendance at the Olympics. I value not her status as a human being as much as her stunning beauty - her “phenotypic perfection.” Thus, I am in violation of the second categorical imperative. Although I did not directly convey this in my original post, it is implied (rather bluntly).</p>

14

<p>

</p>

<p>From a teleological perspective, the person’s saving the baby is a moral action, no matter what his intentions. However, a deontologist would denounce his action as immoral - if he saved the baby to be famous, or to be otherwise recognized. The deontologist would argue that we have no control over the consequences. The building could have just collapsed while the person was in there with the baby. However, we do have control over our will - our intention. Therefore, we should take control of our will and make sure it is not contaminated with desires of fame, recognition, etc. </p>

<p>For those who may be a bit lost in our discussion of ethics, here is a classic example I like to use to explain the various schools of thought in ethics. He sees a bikini-clad woman drowning in the ocean. The man is joined by six philosophers. The man, naturally, consults the sagacious philosophers for advice. </p>

<p>1) The egoist (Rand) - Don’t save the woman if there is significant risk of losing your own life. Sacrifice is immoral. (I define sacrifice in an earlier post in this thread). </p>

<p>2) The deontologist - For your action to be considered moral, you must save the woman not because you want a kiss or something from her afterward, but because you value humanity in itself. </p>

<p>Note: Kantian ethics fall within the broad category of deontological ethics. </p>

<p>However, Kantian ethics entail so much more than mere intention; one must always follow rules of action that can be universalized. Example: say you were a strict Kantian and you wanted to decide whether to run a red light. A Kantian would ask you whether you should allow everyone to run a red light. Your reply would rationally be no, because that would cause traffic chaos. Therefore, you should not run the red light. </p>

<p>3) The teleologist/consequentialist - the morality of your action will be judged on its consequences. </p>

<p>4) The virtuist (Aristotle) - a virtuous agent always acts morally. A virtuous agent acts not out of conscious decision but out of the strength of his character. An important character trait for Aristotle is courage, the golden mean between cowardice and excessive fearlessness. Saving the woman would be an act of courage. However, the virtuist would also be sure to weigh the risks of saving the woman - if there are twenty sharks surrounding the woman, the virtuist would perhaps be a little hesitant about saving the woman - twenty sharks essentially reduce your odds of saving the woman to 0, and excessive fearlessness is not a virtuous character trait. </p>

<p>5) The pragmatist - stop thinking and dive in the water to save the woman! Every moment you waste is another second closer to her drowning!</p>

<p>6) The existentialist (Sartre, et. al.) - do what you want to do. Do what you really want to do. The ethical person follows not the circumscribing rules imposed on him by society but his own moral code.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I would be really, really, upset, and emotionally distraught if someone decides to use the innocent civilians at the London Olympics as means to an end. I would be on edge for days if someone decided to terrorize London; I wouldn’t be able to stand the uncertainty - the possibility that a particular person might just be hurt. </p>

<p>Terrorists use people as means to ends. Terrorists harm innocent people to convey a message. Terrorists, therefore, are in violation of the third categorical imperative (below). </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Kant did vehemently protest emotion. Emotion is too subjective to form the basis of ethical action. Emotion, as I’ve demonstrated, is too fickle. Do I want to save her? “Meh … I don’t feel any particular fraternity with her … I think I’ll pass.”</p>

<p>That’s exactly the kind of thing Kant rejects. Kant believes that cold hard reason is better. Thus, his hypothetical and categorical imperatives. Could one universalize a rule saying “If I don’t particularly like a person, I don’t have to save him or her from harm”? Most rational people would say no. At least police officers would say no. Police officers don’t decide whom to save. They save, without discrimination. </p>

<p>However, the excision of emotion is also the fault of Kant’s philosophy; as you’ve mentioned, we are very much emotional beings, and the excising of emotion from ethical action leaves us with a very austere, very inhuman ethical code. I cannot be convinced by the thought that someone’s action may moral even if he accidentally brings harm on someone else. But thus is deontology.</p>

15

<p>Ah fun stuff, normative ethics. I’ll probably chime in later, but, just because it’s a natural question, do either of you debate LD?</p>

16

<p>Can’t wait for your thoughts :). </p>

<p>What’s LD?</p>

17

<p>

</p>

<p>but the assumption that everyone’s emotional well being is of the same value is not a logical assumption. the assumption that different people’s emotional well beings have different values is not logical either. neither ego (valuing your own emotional well being more than others) nor compassion (valuing others’ emotional well being) are logical. they are both emotions. neither can be explained by logic.</p>

18

<p>

</p>

<p>Thank you for using the term I was desperately trying to find :D!!!</p>

<p>I was using all sorts of awkward phrases such as “extending my care” when the word I was looking for was “compassion.” I feel compassion toward the person, the subject of my previous posts. I feel compassion, and I value not only the person’s emotional but also physical well-being :).</p>

19

<p>LD is Lincoln-Douglas debate! It’s a form of debating that has you debate against another person who has either the for or against on the topic. It’s based off of well, the debate Lincoln had with Douglas.</p>

20

<p>Lovely. Taking a break from ‘the Canterbury Tales’ and I stumble across this. Let’s see if deciphering this is anything like deciphering that.
I don’t believe in the big picture. Caring for a whole world of people will drive you mad. Thinking that every soldier in every war is a person makes you feel something like ill.
Watching the news hurts my stomach. The things beings do to one another and for what?
I’m off topic here though adding my own beliefs to my round about answer.
To no extent is it reasonable. You are you and to think about anyone else but you is unfathomable.
You can’t truly understand another being. Never can you know all of their wants. So how can you really truly care for them? You can’t know what is best for them or that they won’t betray you. You only know what they let you see. Do you really care about anyone or do you simply care about the image you perceive of them?
Then is that truly caring about them?</p>