Sphere of interest.
It seems rather intuitive that the sphere of interest is a limiting concept in the realm of ethics and morality. We only care about the people that are closest to us. If some random stranger off the street asked you for a hundred dollars for some reason, you wouldn't oblige. But, if your son or daughter or wife or husband asked you for the same favor, you would think twice. Why is this?
Based on this reasoning it would seem intuitively clear that this is a moral 'should' that needs implementing. It is morally right in some sense to want to increase the sphere of interest to encompass your fellow citizens and humanity. Thus, if there is a philosophy or school of thought (think classical conservativism for example) that encourages or negates these tendencies to increase the sphere of interest, then it seems that a judgment can be passed on their moral worth.
What do you think?
What can be done to enlarge our sphere of interest, and if anything should be done at all?
Based on this reasoning it would seem intuitively clear that this is a moral 'should' that needs implementing. It is morally right in some sense to want to increase the sphere of interest to encompass your fellow citizens and humanity. Thus, if there is a philosophy or school of thought (think classical conservativism for example) that encourages or negates these tendencies to increase the sphere of interest, then it seems that a judgment can be passed on their moral worth.
What do you think?
What can be done to enlarge our sphere of interest, and if anything should be done at all?
Comments (129)
P1: We should care about other people to be good moral agents.
P2: Our sphere of interest limits this concept.
P3: We should strive to increase the scope of our sphere of interest.
C1: Therefore, the philosophies that limit the scope of our sphere of interest are morally wrong.
I think you know why that is. It is because they matter more to us. And they matter more to us because we have a closer relationship with them.
Quoting Posty McPostface
Yes, to some extent, but there's quite a difference between, say, arguing against cuts to benefits, and arguing that it should make no difference to someone whether it is their own mother asking for a hundred dollars or a random stranger off of the street.
Quoting Posty McPostface
For one thing, vote for the Labour Party, or whatever your nearest equivalent is.
There are hundred of groups who are poor, suffering, oppressed, hungry, thirsty, stateless, homeless, etc. I can't help them all and I can't tell who won the aristocracy of suffering award. Guatemalans? Mexicans? Burmese minorities? Somali? Syrians? Nigerians? Laotians?
How should I decide, Posty, who is most deserving, or if any of the candidates are deserving?
Perhaps, to be more precise, we care most about those closest to us. We reserve a special place, a primacy, to those whom we know best and with whom we interact most often and most intimately. If this is the case, I could understand it since I don't know everyone, and couldn't possibly do so or interact with all the world's citizens intimately even on a monthly basis.
"... But, if your son or daughter or wife or husband asked you for the same favor, you would think twice..."
I think you meant that I wouldn't think twice. However, you'd be mistaken. With experience and maturity working for me at over 65 years of age, I know better than to act without consideration of ALL kinds. I choose to be careful, to be discerning, late in life. I think it's a duty by now.
"...It is morally right in some sense to want to increase the sphere of interest to encompass your fellow citizens and humanity..."
I can't really argue with that; it seems self-evident. I would want the whole planet to treat my grandchildren and their children as they would each other, with equity, justice, beneficence, non-maleficence, etc.
"... Thus, if there is a philosophy or school of thought (think classical conservativism for example) that encourages or negates these tendencies to increase the sphere of interest, then it seems that a judgment can be passed on their moral worth..."
Does classical conservatism restrict to favour only those known to them? If so, and it's not demonstrated in anything you've offered thus far, are they different from liberals in that way? Perhaps you are conflating provincialism with a desire to see one's own flourish by devoting the limited resources each of them has to that end. It doesn't follow that classical conservatives have little or no positive regard for 'strangers'.
its not for everyone
Yes; I agree. But, on an individual level, why is this?
Quoting Sapientia
I guess you can take my argument as in favor of a type of social democracy or political affiliation. I kind of had this in mind in making the OP.
Quoting Sapientia
Agreed.
Cool. You seem to be of that type from what I gather.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Even if this means voting for a socialist who wants to introduce something like Universal Basic Income, or some other redistribution scheme of politics?
What is this a failure of? The amount of knowledge that one has about the needs of others or something different?
Quoting gloaming
Depends on the type of person you are. If you do care about others then, I see no problem with that.
Quoting gloaming
What do you mean, gloaming?
Quoting gloaming
Cool
Quoting gloaming
Yes, perhaps you are right. I once heard that religious conservatives contribute the most to charities, moreso than liberals. So, I might be wrong here.
what do you think that means?
Turn the tables, would you expect someone you did not know to give you money. Would you asking them for it be immoral?
classical conservatives has a positive regard for "strangers" for sure, just not necceserily by the people that are able to help these "strangers"
Me neither. Please read what I said again.
It just means what it says. That religious conservatives contribute more to the welfare of others in certain domains than do liberals. The same may be true of liberals wrt. to redustributive political schemes such as Social Security, Medicare, and education.
I meant this figuratively. Just rhetorical tripe, hehe.
I not suggesting we can or should abandon our emotions, but we should at least try to temper the impact.
To be honest, I am not sure if there is anything we need to do. Most people I know help to others to the extent that they are able, if not financially by giving them things they need or helping to look after them in some way.
As individuals, do we really have a moral obligation towards the rest of humanity?
But it is an interesting question.
Well, it's both, I think. We can reason that someone needs more than they already have (a homeless); but, we don't feel like giving to them at risk that they spend it on drugs or alcohol. Emotion wasn't at play in any of this reasoning.
Surely, we do. To some extent. Not saying we should just abandon self-interest, just that would be the ethical thing to do.
Well, it might help them emotionally. I'm not sure if in the long run, it would help, as you describe.
What's interesting about it? We just don't know where the money will go, so we don't give. If we had assurance, that it would be spent on necessities or the betterment of their situation, then wouldn't you be more inclined to give them money then?
OK, to what extent? Who should be making the decision or how should it be made? Is there a standard formula for it?
Speaking politically then isn't the rational solution, mores socialism?
Are there beggars where you live? I don't mean the guys hanging around asking for money, I mean real beggars.
Quoting Posty McPostface
So if you knew then you would give?
Quoting Posty McPostface
Alcoholics NEED booze, would it be moral to help them acquire it?
They aren't all thieves. Just saying.
Yes.
On an individual level? I'm not sure what you mean by that. Like gloaming said, we naturally have closer relationships with those whom we know best, interact with most often, and most intimately. We trust them more than others, care for them more than others, are more connected. Although, again, I'm sure you already know this. As an individual, I am no different than most others in this respect. I would give my own mother preferential treatment over a stranger on that basis.
Yes, because Universal Basic Income is... universal -- for everybody. No group is being favored. Besides the UBI isn't a benefit program for unfortunates. It's a macro-economic plan to deal with the consequences of structural economic change.
Speak emotionally then. Social mores have been the backing of many a maiming and many mutilations
in the begging industry throughout history.
What would be more immoral? Having an aging man dressing up as a clown to tell jokes on a bus and then ask for a few coins or giving the old timer a few coins while he sits by the road begging?
Making our personal sphere of interaction and interest would , as some pointed out, do little or no good. The fact is that there should be no asking for money. A functioning society would take care of its own as a society not as individuals.
No, we don't because 7.4 billion people is a bit much to take on. Besides, "the rest of humanity" is a non-group made up of non-people. Maybe we have an obligation to the unfortunate people who live on the north side of town, or maybe not -- but at least the 700 people who live up there are numerable and knowable. We can decide whether their situation is deserving or not: Maybe they are all liars, thieves, knaves, scoundrels, crooks, and pimps and deserved to be arrested en masse. Or, maybe their situation deserves assistance -- a tornado wrecked their part of town (and, coincidentally, they are no more dishonest than anybody else).
:grin: Do you have the time to teach him? That is what needs to be done. Handouts from the government do not solve the problems. Make people that ask for money as a way of life learn to be a productive member of society would help more.
I would rather give some spare money to an old man or woman that cannot help themselves than to my daughter to buy more tennis shoes with. But I don't get into the places where these people live too often.
Sometimes they help, if structured right. I'm an example.
The old timer sitting in the dirt begging was previously a clown subjecting innocent people to the horrors of incompetent clowning. He was beaten up and thrown off the bus by the indignant and by no means indigent suburbanite riders. It was awful watching the women stomp on him with their spike heels.
that sounded pretty brutal.
That is the best any of us can do. But if you had nothing to spare after those you love were taken care of, how far would you go to help?
Quoting Bitter Crank
A few years ago my house was almost wrecked by a 7.8 earthquake. The government offered assistance and then suddenly there was a forced takeover/change of president and it never came. I don't think that it was immoral of me to ask for money, but I did not expect it to be given to me. Some of my workmates actually did make a collection and I was rather embarrassed about receiving it.
Not everyone is dishonest, but not everyone has a valid reason to be asking for money from strangers.
:lol: OK, if you say so.
There is. How can you be satisfied with things as they are? Is this your version of utopia? I hope not.
Quoting Sir2u
But that's anecdotal evidence, so a relatively weak point. And it contradicts my own anecdotal evidence, which effectively means that they cancel each other out. I actually find yours hard to believe, which makes me suspect that we're interpreting "the extent that they are able" differently. Maybe you mean something more like "the extent that they can live with".
Quoting Sir2u
When the situation calls for it, yes. If there were a deadly virus which would wipe out the rest of humanity, and you could easily prevent it, wouldn't you feel obligated to do so?
I think UBI, is the ultimate is increasing our so-called 'sphere of interest' in a capitalist based economy. The very ultimate being communism, I think. I could be wrong.
Any and all attention is good, @Aleksander Kvam, especially for the poor and needy.
They work with them or they work on them?
From what I have seen of those people they probably spend more time fucking them than feeding them.
And I have nothing against the catholic people, it is the goddamned church I cannot stand.
Give generously when you can and when, by one's best judgement, the gift will be well used. (When I give a man on the street a dollar, I assume there is a good chance he will buy beer and not invest it in growth stock. Were I in his shoes, I'd buy beer for sure.)
Agreed. What kind of society would that look like, politically?
Yes, and I'm another, and there are plenty more, so what he said is evidently wrong, or misleading at best.
Same here. Although, I'm not furthering my life anymore. Kinda gave up on that.
I don't like seeing homeless people, and if more welfare would change that for the better, then by all means.
Quoting Sir2u
How can you reconcile those two seemingly contradictory statements?
So, what can be done to enlarge one's sphere of interest then? Seemingly, if more people on an individual level cared about others then the problem would eventually get solves, no?
Catholic Workers is around...90 years old. They're old enough to have had some significant failures. In general though, they aren't part of the Roman Catholic hierarchy, and they attract Catholic and non-catholic volunteers.
There are various people doing various kinds of legitimate good work who can use a donation.
Life is hard.
Why do I need to widen my sphere of interest? Maybe you situation is better than mine, but I have little to spare and I see no reason to go without so that someone that asks me for money should be obliged.
As I have already stated, I do try to help when it is possible. But why should I go out of my way to do so?
Quoting Sapientia
What is the "this" that you refer to?
Quoting Sapientia
Do you honestly expect me or anyone else to provide any other kind of evidence. I am not even sure it could be called evidence because it is not used to prove any point. But we all know that you use non standard definitions most of the time, so I will just ignore it.
Quoting Sapientia
Who gives a shit what you believe.
Quoting Sapientia
Or maybe you don't understand what I said?
Quoting Sapientia
We were talking about the man asking for money, not some stupid situation invent by a third rate scifi writer.
So tell us, when was the last time you forked out a fiver for some old codger that could not even walk to the corner shop to buy food?
Hang on a minute while I get my crystal ball. Sorry, not even that helps. No idea then. :chin:
when you give money. you dont see the effect it does when it has arrived. so your not investing in anything(and im not talking about money). you literarly woundent know if it "got lost" on the way, or if in the end it was all for nothing. one theory I guess, true or not, who knows..
Best plan, work one on one. Nobody can do things for everyone so why try?
I think it's socialism? No? At the very highest of peaks, it's communism, no?
Maybe. But that seems too simplistic. You could write a book on this topic. To get people to enlarge their spheres of interest, you'd have to persuade them to do so in some way, and that's where political parties, the media, literature on the subject, discussion forums such as this, people you associate with, and so on, come in to the equation.
I once gave out some cigarettes to homeless people. Seeing the happiness on their faces, really struck me as a profound feeling of happiness on my own deed. Even if it was just cigarettes.
Well, you gotta start somewhere. And, I think that enlarging one's sphere of interest is a good thing. Seemingly people do agree with this from what posts I gather, perhaps exempt Sir2u.
I have done that to, but it dosent give me any satasfaxion....
In what way do they contradict each other.
Is it morally correct to take more money of the people that work to give to the ones that don't?
LOL! The help I received enabled me to go to college and get a well-paying job and pay lots of taxes over the course of my erstwhile career.
Well, the profoundness of the feeling, originated from seeing someone else be happy from my own deed. What do you think about seeing people as happy from something you did?
All too often, we think that homeless people are just scrounging for another fix or alcohol; but, that's not entirely true. The deeper issue is mental health, and no amount of goodwill or deed from an individual can fix that. Hence, socialism?
now your starting to sound like me therapist :)
Given a utilitarian rationale, yes. If the money is spent on bettering the lives of other people, instead of starting wars or such.
No, I have not heard of them before. After looking at their webpage, I find it incredible that all of their branches are in developed counties. Maybe that is why they manage to do some good. I don't know if they work in the third world countries but if they do they are probably not have much success.
And there is the problem with putting political names on things. Everyone automatically looks under their bed.
Both of those systems have been proven to not work well, one more than the other obviously.
Would a functioning society have to fit into one of the niches that have been around for so long?
The United States has had several episodes where it legislated and funded programs to reduce raw need. The Medicare and Medicaid programs are two such programs, both passed in the mid-1960s. Food Stamps (not the official name any more) is another. Disability, social security, unemployment, and general and specific welfare programs (like the discontinued Aid For Dependent Children - AFDC) all did that. Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has built millions of apartments across the country to house the elderly and disabled.
Unfortunately, the US has a mediocre record of maintaining these programs and keeping them fully funded.
The European social democratic model is a better example of what a society looks like that assumes the responsibility of caring for people. Taxes are high, and the social programs are generous and both general and focussed. For instance, France allocates funds to provide prenatal care to pregnant women. This is as much as a social investment in healthy children as it is a personal help.
Most western European governments do a pretty good job of assuring a minimum level of security, cradle to grave. Perfect? No. Better? Yes.
The critical difference between societies that provide social security (as a generalized condition, not as a program) collect far more in taxes from individuals and corporations than the United States does. My understanding is that most countries do a better job of distributing benefits to citizens evenly across the board. Southern US states generally are niggardly and pay out benefits well below the average of Northern states.
These societies do "look different" because they have significantly different histories. Social programs in the US are never going to resemble those in Sweden.
The US has the continued problem of highly disproportionate taxation benefit. One of the reasons the 1% of US citizens are so rich is tax law. Tax law can and should be changed, but it takes a strong popular liberal commitment and liberal control of congress and the white house to achieve it.
And just where did I say that I was in disagreement with enlarging ones sphere of interest?
You are duly excused then. Feel free to keep on wanking without government handouts. :cool:
That's not what I asked. I asked how you can be satisfied with things as they are, which is one way of interpreting your remark that you're not sure whether there is more to be done.
Quoting Sir2u
That suggests that you believe that there are people who need help. So, why did you say that you're not sure whether there is more to be done?
Quoting Sir2u
The current state of things in terms relevant to what we're discussing - politically, ethically, economically, socially, culturally. The status quo.
Quoting Sir2u
Do you honestly believe that that would be such an outlandish expectation? There is probably data out there, and this is a philosophy forum after all.
Quoting Sir2u
Why bring up an anecdote relating to the topic in this context if your intention wasn't for it to be considered as evidence towards some kind of point relevant to the topic? We're not down the pub, you know.
Quoting Sir2u
Ah. I wondered how long it would take before you resorted to that level of response. Better cut it off here then.
Are the other peoples lives in need of bettering because they don't want to work, or because they have so many kids that they have to stay home and look after them.
Would it be moral to give money to both?
So why did you quote from it then? :worry:
The skills required to take care of people in developed countries (like the US) are quite different than the skills needed to help people in 3rd world countries. In East Africa, or Central America, for instance, a central task is "building capacity" in communities -- teaching people how to manage sanitation problems, increasing garden crop yields, building community knowledge of health, training low-level health workers, improving education resources, and the like.
The problems of the very poor in very wealthy countries revolve around family dysfunction, drugs and alcohol, mental illness, and a poverty of public services to address them. Anyone who falls off "the social ladder" and ends up homeless on the street always has a very poor chance of re-establishing themselves without outside intervention. The distance from the gutter to the first rung of the ladder is too high for most people to leap.
I knew a delightful woman who was a music teacher who had had a good career; she fell on hard times (no alcohol, drugs, or MI -- just misfortune) and came very close to being homeless. Lutheran Social Services helped her out with housing, and this made the critical difference. She was able to put things back together after that.
The homeless drunk or homeless uncared for mental patient has far greater need than the music teacher. There are a whole group of agencies: Catholic Charities, Lutheran Social Services, Salvation Army, county hospitals, social welfare agencies, and the like who provide assistance to people in severe need. There are also small groups from all sorts of backgrounds that do the same thing on a smaller scale.
Now that I know what you are talking about.
Quoting Sapientia
I have not stated that I am in anyway satisfied with any of the situations you stated here. I am not even discussing those topics. We are talking about the morality of giving money to people that are unknown to us as opposed to giving it to those we know.
Quoting Sapientia
No it does not suggest any such thing. It states that I help the people that I know need help. It implies nothing at all about people I don't know except that I do not know if there is anything I can do to help them.
Quoting Sapientia
So if you are interested in anything more that anecdotal evidence why don't you provide us with some.
Quoting Sapientia
So which was the statement I made that required the evidence you said I gave?
Quoting Sapientia
If you don't like honest, that sucks. Get used to it.
Oh, sorry that I misinterpreted you here.
Quoting Sir2u
Isn't that irrelevant? I don't know of any welfare kings or queens. Besides, if one were to address the issue of people scrounging off of welfare, then that's a small minority, I think.
But there is hardly a day passes when there is not another scandal from the churches (all inclusive) coming to light.
Not if it is someone of them that is asking you for money. Would you really give someone money if you thought that they did not deserve it. If you had plenty, maybe. But not many of us have plenty to be giving away.
Quoting Posty McPostface
It is basically the same thing as asking a stranger for money, only they have to fill in forms. Is it moral for them to do so? Are they in need because not enough people have expanded spheres of interest?
Sleep tight everyone.
If only people's voting better reflected that. In the last general election, around 800,000 more people here voted for the Tories than Labour, and the Tories won 56 more seats, winning them the election, despite their awful manifesto, which included, for example, snatching away free lunches for school children of a certain age from families who can "just about manage, but worry about the cost of living", and a vote on overturning the fox hunting ban.
"Yuck! We don't want hungry poor children and foxes in [I]our[/I] sphere of interest!".
That's nothing compared to the damage Trump has done. Count your blessings over there in the UK. USA, don't care. The welfare state for the rich is too damn important to change.
Good point. You needed a Sanders and we needed a Corbyn. Still do.
Good luck with that.
Straight out of the "demonizing stereotypes for use by right-wing morons" playbook. :roll:
Asking a simple question is not and never will be demonizing. And I am neither right nor left wing anything, I leave those petty nuances to the humble minded. All politicians for me are the same. So next time read the whole post or stop taking things out of context.
Quoting Sir2u
What I am really surprised about is that you failed to call me out on the mistakes, are you getting sloppy in your old age?
Let me point them out for you.
Apostrophe missing.
Are the other people's lives in need of bettering because they don't want to work, or because they have so many kids that they have to stay home and look after them? Question mark missing.
Or maybe you don't want to mention my mistakes because then you would have to mention other people's mistakes as well.
Quoting Aleksander Kvam
Quoting Sapientia
Yeah really, right on man.
Is that possible?
Yes, certainly empathy is needed. I wonder how much that can be worked on, given that it's an emotion. Is there anything that can be done rationally, that would increase one's sphere of interest?
Undeniably true. It's just a matter of preference then, I suppose. How much are you willing to carry and do, is a personal choice. But, since it's moral, then why not? I don't claim to be an adherent to carrying the world on my shoulders, just that if I could then why not? Is it irrational to do so? Maybe that's the issue?
Another important concept, 'compassion'. Thanks.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-clarity/201703/compassion-is-better-empathy
Interesting stuff.
https://chopra.com/articles/whats-the-difference-between-empathy-sympathy-and-compassion
Why not? What does strength have to do with being compassionate?
As I stated earlier, I don't think that too many people can.
Think about it, even if you wanted to help the guy living by the dumpster on the corner, what could you do? How much do you have to offer?
Most people, at least most normal people, do try to help the owns they know. Starting with family, then extended family, then depending on the capabilities to do so friends and neighbors. After that it is usually a matter of "If I have some spare change in my pocket" to help strangers.
The ones that maybe would have the chance to help others are the ones that have excessive resources. Unfortunately a lot of them think that keeping their millions in the bank is more important.
I think that while some may say that it is lack of empathy I would call it self preservation. I might be willing to go out and help the homeless but I would not do it knowing that my loved ones would end up suffering because of it. I often work with some of my neighbors and the just as often work with me on some project. But I am not going to take a day of work to do so.
If we`re talking about money than it dosent have to be much, as long as others do it to. But I dont want to sound like a hypocrite, because I dont do much to help "strangers". And I have my reason(s) for it, that I have stated before. If the reason(s) are justifiable is a matter of debate offcourse.
So you are one of the normal people I spoke of earlier.
I am sure that if you found a starved child you would do whatever you could to help out, but like me you are not going to invite a homeless person to sleep on your couch unless you know the person and their circumstances.