Is this a rational way to think?

Although it's not the way I personally see things, it's a reasonable way to see things.

How so?

Quote from: Incan on November 15, 2015, 10:48:16 AM

Although it's not the way I personally see things, it's a reasonable way to see things.

How so?

I think if people want to live life only caring about themselves and their family, that's okay. Sure it might be a selfish in a way, but it's human nature to act in such a way I suppose.

This is a difficult question to answer, because what qualifies as "Affecting" somebody varies from person-to-person. For me, just because I'm not directly impacted by something, doesn't mean I don't consider it having an effect on me. Generally, I don't believe apathy towards something terrible going on in the world is a smart or moral way to think.

Most usually it does effect you in a subtle way. Unemployment is high, but you have a job? It's still going to effect the world around you, and thus you. It's also proactive to your self interest in the event it happens to you in the future.

At the same time though life just doesn't function well if you had to care about everything and everyone.

Care about =/= care for. It doesn't take much energy to put your foot down and say, "This issue concerns me."

Whether or not you actually do something about it is up to you, but hopefully, from your concern, you will.

It's a selfish and inhumane way to think, I'd  say. We feel, or we're supposed to feel, sympathy and empathy for a reason. We're social creatures by nature and wouldn't be where we are if every person only thought of themselves.

People like that shouldn't be cared about.

I like the way you think.

The only notion of irrationality is that it might one day affect you, but you wouldn't know because at the time it didn't affect you, and thus you completely ignored it.

Quote from: Casper on November 15, 2015, 11:21:42 AM

It's a selfish and inhumane way to think, I'd  say. We feel, or we're supposed to feel, sympathy and empathy for a reason. We're social creatures by nature and wouldn't be where we are if every person only thought of themselves.

Nice arguments for humans, and emotions, but this thread doesn't mention humans or emotions directly.

It doesn't mention anything directly. I do that on purpose to bring about the most discussion possible. You're supposed to interpret the question in your own way and from a variety of different angles.

Perfectly rational way to think

How?

Quote from: The Meta Madman Destyyy👌 on November 15, 2015, 12:05:37 PM

Quote from: Casper on November 15, 2015, 11:21:42 AM

It's a selfish and inhumane way to think, I'd  say. We feel, or we're supposed to feel, sympathy and empathy for a reason. We're social creatures by nature and wouldn't be where we are if every person only thought of themselves.

Nice arguments for humans, and emotions, but this thread doesn't mention humans or emotions directly.

It doesn't mention anything directly. I do that on purpose to bring about the most discussion possible. You're supposed to interpret the question in your own way and from a variety of different angles.

Let me quote you verbatim.
Old.

This is old news.

Everybody already knows this.

What was my reply doing? If anything, it was imposing a different way to see things. I could've started arguing how emotions are there for a reason, and it's not because we're inherently good. Emotions are there for a reason and we are good as a result. I instead chose to question Casper's way of thinking about the situation, or the OP. "There are other ways to look at this" is what I essentially stated with my reply.

Quote from: The Meta Madman Destyyy👌 on November 15, 2015, 12:37:03 PM

"Are there other ways to look at this" is what I essentially stated with my reply.

You probably should've said that, then.

Aside from bad grammar, my ambiguity, or indirectness is the largest factor to why my replies are unintelligible.

I don't know why I keep doing it. I am strange in some ways when it comes to confronting people.

maybe if you're a psychopath

I'm pretty sure a psychopath would laugh at you if you ignored your friend's fortune. A psychopath would try to get involved, whereas a normie would think "good for him, but he can do whatever he wants to do with his money".

I've got a question here, since this is a discussion after all. It relates to what I said earlier, based on the distance and proximity factors of events in relation to you.

I ask, why do you think that caring about an event that's far away from you, and out of your range, has any point to it? Let's break it down here. Just an example. Big tragedy happens. It's far away.  And you say you care. Soooooo, then what?

That's the thing I'm not sold on. Because after that, nothing happens. You say, "Oh well jeez I sure care about what's happening over there." And then your life resumes.

I dunno about you. But that seems tirelessly pointless, and accomplishes nothing.

In my personal opinion, your true care, and the need to actively care about others around you, should be based on how far you can personally reach. Essentially, how much of a physical presence you can hold in any given area around yourself is where you should focus your care, because that sphere of influence, is the one that allows you to truly accomplish something when you care about something.

Anything beyond your reach to physically influence in any given area, is less worth caring about.

This is just an example of distance. When it comes to closer things, things inside of your active area, then you should take more notice.

Which is why I say that there isn't a clear cut answer to this mindset being good or bad to hold.

It all comes down to the time and the place, essentially.

Quote from: Sandtrap on November 15, 2015, 02:28:47 PM

I dunno about you. But that seems tirelessly pointless, and accomplishes nothing.

First of all, the idea is that it gives you the motifivation to do something about it.

Second of all, that's not the point. Whether or not it accomplishes anything, people should still care. Just on principle.

It beats being a heartless and selfish waste of flesh.

Obviously what you accomplish is going to be of more value in the end, but caring for your fellow man can go a long way, even if it seems "pointless". That's what I think.

First point is fair, I guess. If nobody did care then people who actually do get up and about and do something about things wouldn't happen.

To me though, personally, care means nothing, and is ultimately pointless until you do something with it. That's what seems to make sense anyway. Otherwise it just seems like a contradiction. You care about what's happening far away out of your hands, but not enough to go and help.

Real helpful and productive, that is.

Honestly, that seems on par with praying next to a hospital bed for somebody to get better rather than helping them medically.

Then again, this all comes down to personal views and functions. I know for me, I tend to show care more through actions rather than sentiments.