Whose Compassion

[Mindonfire]

I would like to know from the people who visit Maple Leaf about their view on what constitutes compassion. Here is a short story with two questions. Feel free to answer them as you are led.

There is a well known addict who roams a particular neighborhood everyday begging for alms. One morning he walks up to a young man who resides in the neighborhood and begs for money. The young man talks to the addict for a while, but he refuses to give the addict any money and continues on his way. Some time later another young man who is on his way to work walks by. The addict walks up to him and begins to beg once again. The young man reaches into his pocket and gives the addict some money. The addict takes the money and goes on his way. That evening he is found dead from an overdose.

Now I have two questions.

Question #1 Who killed the addict ?

Question #2 Which one of the two men showed compassion?

[August1991]

MindOnFire, your example is weak because it turns on the definition of "well-known" addict, and then opens up the moral question of "assisted suicide".

For example, take away the "well-known" aspect of your example. A man goes into a grocery store to get Drano but lacks money. Is the grocery store owner compassionate if he gives him the Drano for free or refuses him the Drano? The answer might turn on whether the store owner knows that the man is about to drink the Drano or use it to unclog a drain.

This raises the question of our respoonsibility to others, and their wishes. A clearly thinking friend is broke. You buy him a gun so that he can commit suicide. Are you compassionate?

It seems to me that two good arguments justify Leftists: 1) A civilized society should steal from the rich and give to the poor. 2) A civilized society should sometimes decide on behalf of individuals, rather than let individuals decide for themselves. (This is obviously the case of children.) This second argument is at play in your example, and the examples above.

----

Let me broaden your idea out and provide what I think is a better example that gets to the heart of the issue - ethics. (The example is true too; it happened to me recently.)

You conduct a transaction in a shop and when leaving, you count your change and realize that the cashier made an error in your favour. You received $5 too much. You are faced with two options:

A: Return to the shop and return the $5.

B: Keep the $5 and keep on walking.

Which of the two options is more ethical?

(If MindOnFire answers this post, I'll explain what I did in fact.)

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear August1991,

MindOnFire, your example is weak because it turns on the definition of "well-known" addict, and then opens up the moral question of "assisted suicide".

Not exactly. The answer to #1 is, 'the addict killed himself', and to number two is, 'neither' (or, a tie).

It seems to me that two good arguments justify Leftists: 1) A civilized society should steal from the rich and give to the poor. 2) A civilized society should sometimes decide on behalf of individuals, rather than let individuals decide for themselves. (This is obviously the case of children.)

Garbage. You sound more like Hugo all the time. As for #2, Hugo, as a 'libertarian anarchist', felt children should not be forced to go to school, or forced to do anything, for that matter. If this were the case, the dropout rate would be about 100% in grade 2.

As to #1, is that what you feel about roadways, water and sewage treatment, education and 'democracy'? (Democracy is almost as communist as you can get, it benefits all equally whether they like the results or not, and it makes no profit, nor is it intended to, it only costs)

[August1991]

Dear August1991,

It seems to me that two good arguments justify Leftists: 1) A civilized society should steal from the rich and give to the poor. 2) A civilized society should sometimes decide on behalf of individuals, rather than let individuals decide for themselves. (This is obviously the case of children.)

Garbage. You sound more like Hugo all the time. As for #2, Hugo, as a 'libertarian anarchist', felt children should not be forced to go to school, or forced to do anything, for that matter. If this were the case, the dropout rate would be about 100% in grade 2.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Dear TheloniousMonk,

I was stating that Leftists typically rely on two good, justifiable arguments for their beliefs. And for this, you respond: "Garbage." Huh?

IMV, MindOnFire's example merely turns on the second argument - and the extent of its application. When a seven-year-old asks to borrow my lighter, I consider myself perfectly compassionate when I refuse.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear August1991,

It seems to me that two good arguments justify Leftists: 1) A civilized society should steal from the rich and give to the poor.

I was stating that Leftists typically rely on two good, justifiable arguments for their beliefs.

I don't see these as mirroring each other. Perhaps it is your wording, 'stealing from the rich to give to the poor' as an analogy for taxation. It makes you appear facetious, for I don't think you have, in the past, upheld this exact version as 'justifiable'. If you have, then my apologies.

However, I do not believe that #1 is justifiable.

[RB]

people are responsible for their own illicit behaviors and self - control. I mean folks are not born with habits they learn it.

I feel that everyone should make a contribution to the greater good of society and those that cannot contribute do find selfish ways to exit by themselves.

[Mindonfire]

MindOnFire, your example is weak because it turns on the definition of "well-known" addict, and then opens up the moral question of "assisted suicide".

For example, take away the "well-known" aspect of your example.  A man goes into a grocery store to get Drano but lacks money.  Is the grocery store owner compassionate if he gives him the Drano for free or refuses him the Drano?  The answer might turn on whether the store owner knows that the man is about to drink the Drano or use it to unclog a drain.

This raises the question of our respoonsibility to others, and their wishes.  A clearly thinking friend is broke.  You buy him a gun so that he can commit suicide.  Are you compassionate?

It seems to me that two good arguments justify Leftists: 1) A civilized society should steal from the rich and give to the poor.  2) A civilized society should sometimes decide on behalf of individuals, rather than let individuals decide for themselves. (This is obviously the case of children.)  This second argument is at play in your example, and the examples above.

----

Let me broaden your idea out and provide what I think is a better example that gets to the heart of the issue - ethics.  (The example is true too; it happened to me recently.)

You conduct a transaction in a shop and when leaving, you count your change and realize that the cashier made an error in your favour.  You received $5 too much.  You are faced with two options:

A: Return to the shop and return the $5.

B: Keep the $5 and keep on walking.

Which of the two options is more ethical?

(If MindOnFire answers this post, I'll explain what I did in fact.)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Good Day August 1991

I hate to burst your bubble but I am neither a Leftist or a Righty. I am not particularly interested in your man made political systems. I am more interested in truth than with political labels which mean nothing.

Secondly this does not have anything to do with assisted suicide. If a man wishes to kill himself then let him. It is his body. Whatever he wills for his body then let it be. He doesn’t really need assistance. He can accomplish physical death on his own.

Thirdly how does giving an individual Drano show compassion? Choose a better example.

Fourthly no one is advocating any type of stealing. You should wait for the explanation before you make foolish assumptions. You can keep your money, I don’t want your money.

Fifthly the choice that is more ethical would be A but most people would do B

[crazymf]

Well, I'm an honest person. I'd give the money back unless the cashier pissed me off by talking on her cell phone to her buddy while I'm waiting in line. Or I may not give her money back if the business owner owes me money. No compassion is shown either way.

I don't give beggars money. Unless there are more mitigating circumstances, they should look after themselves. In the circles I travel, I rarely see anybody begging, rural. Get a job.

[August1991]

people are responsible for their own illicit behaviors and self - control.  I mean folks are not born with habits they learn it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

RB, how do people learn habits? How can people apply self-control if this knowledge does not come at birth?

We are born with the ability to speak and understand spoken words but not the ability to read. Hence, we must teach our young how to read. Families can teach, but also the larger society.

I feel that everyone should make a contribution to the greater good of society and those that cannot contribute do find selfish ways to exit by themselves.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

RB, what is the "greater good of society"?

Perhaps it is your wording, 'stealing from the rich to give to the poor' as an analogy for taxation. It makes you appear facetious, for I don't think you have, in the past, upheld this exact version as 'justifiable'. If you have, then my apologies.

Governments tax for many reasons, and sometimes for no reason at all. One reason is to "take" from the rich and give to the poor. Is that wrong? I was born with all my limbs intact and the ability to see and hear. Not all people are so born. Is it wrong that I share my luck with those who, purely by chance, bear a different burden? Surely they would happily help me if the roles could be reversed.

[True anecdote ahead. I was leaving a Metro train in Moscow a few years ago, when an older man took my arm at the escalator and spoke to me. Astonished, I pulled away and asked him in Russian what he wanted. Hearing my accent, he asked me in beautiful French where I was from. Truly astonished, I turned and saw that he was blind. We chatted as we went up the long escalator and arriving at the top, I said all burdens in life are relative. My poor Russian makes it difficult for me and his poor sight makes it difficult for him. I then asked if he would help me buy some cigarettes, which of course he did. Once we were on the sidewalk, I recall him saying thank you and then walking off... ]

Thelonious, this is the essence of the Leftist argument of "stealing from the rich to give to the poor".

I hate to burst your bubble but I am neither a Leftist or a Righty. I am not particularly interested in your man made political systems. I am more interested in truth than with political labels which mean nothing.

Secondly this does not have anything to do with assisted suicide. If a man wishes to kill himself then let him. It is his body. Whatever he wills for his body then let it be. He doesn’t really need assistance. He can accomplish physical death on his own.

Thirdly how does giving an individual Drano show compassion? Choose a better example.

Fourthly no one is advocating any type of stealing. You should wait for the explanation before you make foolish assumptions. You can keep your money, I don’t want your money.

Fifthly the choice that is more ethical would be A but most people would do

B.

MoF, I thought your example concerned the question: Is it compassionate to give money (or to refuse to give money) to a "well-known" heroin addict who subsequently dies from an overdose?

I replaced the word "compassionate" with the word "ethical", which I thought was the true meaning of your example.

Compassion surely must mean that if someone else feels good, then I feel good too (or if someone else feels bad, then I feel bad).

Ethics, on the other hand, ISTM, is concerned with what is right or wrong. And surely, the question here is whether it is right or wrong to give money to a heroin addict who may well die as a result of an overdose.

This brings me to the cashier in the shop. [Another true story.] At the time, I was with a child and I asked the child what we should do. She said that we should return the money. So we did. Then, I asked if we did the right thing. If the cashier makes a mistake once, she'll probably make others. No shop can function with cashiers making mistakes. The sooner the cashier finds a different job, the better for everyone.

"Is it good to hide mistakes?" In school, I asked, does the teacher ignore your mistakes or punish you for them?

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear August1991,

We are born with the ability to speak and understand spoken words but not the ability to read.

Not true. We are born with the capacity to learn both, but unless that ability is nurtured at a given time in development, it will not happen.

True anecdote ahead. I was leaving a Metro station in Moscow a few years ago, when an older man took my arm at the escalator and spoke to me. Astonished, I pulled away and asked him in Russian what he wanted. Hearing my accent, he asked me in beautiful French where I was from. Truly astonished, I turned and saw that he was blind. We chatted as we went up the long escalator and arriving at the top, I said all burdens in life are relative. My poor Russian makes it difficult for me and his poor sight makes it difficult for him. I then asked if we would help me buy some cigarettes, which of course he did. Once we were on the sidewalk, I recall him saying thank you and then walking off...

Thelonious, this is the essence of the Leftist argument of "stealing from the rich to give to the poor".

You confuse me here. Do you claim he stole from you or you from him? Which one was 'the poor', or did you both gain?

At the time, I was with a child and I asked the child what we should do. She said that we should return the money. So we did. Then, I asked if we did the right thing. If the cashier makes a mistake once, she'll probably make others. No shop can function with cashiers making mistakes. The sooner the cashier finds a different job, the better for everyone.

Another confusing one. If you returned the money, then you pointed out the mistake. The cashier would have equal opportunity to learn from the mistake no matter who pointed it out (the manager at the end of the day, or you. In fact, if the error was discovered at the end of the day, there is less chance that the cashier would remember what mistake was made, and therefore less chance of 'learning from one's mistakes'.) Suppose you had gone back to the store, pointed out the mistake, and waved the money in the cashier's face. Then you said, "Ha, I am going to keep this money so that you lose your job tonight, because no one should get away with making mistakes". The bitter, unemployed cashier would learn a lesson alright. That cashier would leave that job convinced that all people are ignorant pricks. (Not meaning you, of course, this is purely conjecture)

[Yodeler]

Fifthly the choice that is more ethical would be A  but most people would do B

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

How unethical would it be if John D. Rockefeller made that mistake and I chose to keep that fin?

[August1991]

You confuse me here. Do you claim he stole from you or you from him? Which one was 'the poor', or did you both gain?

Thelonious, nobody stole from anybody. My point was that most of us would gladly help others if we understood that, in similar circumstances, we would be helped too.

What's the old American line? A conservative is a liberal who was just mugged. And a liberal is a conservative who was just charged with child molesting.

Another confusing one. If you returned the money, then you pointed out the mistake. The cashier would have equal opportunity to learn from the mistake no matter who pointed it out (the manager at the end of the day, or you. In fact, if the error was discovered at the end of the day, there is less chance that the cashier would remember what mistake was made, and therefore less chance of 'learning from one's mistakes'.) Suppose you had gone back to the store, pointed out the mistake, and waved the money in the cashier's face. Then you said, "Ha, I am going to keep this money so that you lose your job tonight, because no one should get away with making mistakes". The bitter, unemployed cashier would learn a lesson alright. That cashier would leave that job convinced that all people are ignorant pricks. (Not meaning you, of course, this is purely conjecture)

Ah jeez. Learn from a mistake? Maybe what you learn is that you are in the wrong job.

My point was simpler. Hiding mistakes just leads to more mistakes and greater waste. The sooner we learn the error of our ways, the better the world is - the fewer mistakes occur and the less waste there is. Now, that idea offers an ethical measure we all can agree on.

If you are still confused, imagine we were not discussing a cashier's job but rather a heart surgeon's.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear August1991,

My point was that most of us would gladly help others if we understood that, in similar circumstances, we would be helped too.

That is the oldest gag in the book. Some dude named Jesus was credited with the line "Whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers, that you do unto me". Before that,

Confucius himself had a simple moral and political teaching: to love others; to honor one's parents; to do what is right instead of what is of advantage; to practice "reciprocity," i.e. "don't do to others what you would not want yourself";

(from... http://www.crystalinks.com/confucius.html )

Before that, Cavemen practiced it. It is the foundation upon all society and, therefore, Mankind, rests. And it is 'leftist', for it places 'commonality' ahead of 'individuality'. But it still doesn't equate to "stealing from the rich to give to the poor".

Like above, as Yodeler questions,

How unethical would it be if John D. Rockefeller made that mistake and I chose to keep that fin?

it is exactly as unethical (or ethical) no matter whom you place in position A or B.

Learn from a mistake? Maybe what you learn is that you are in the wrong job.

That could well be. As I said, returning the money is pointing out the mistake (albeit with possibly less dramatic consequences). To go to the extreme, perhaps the laws of the country are such that the 'offending clerk' could be shot. A quote from my "World Human Rights Guide" (1986) by Charles Humana, (pg 60), in response to the question "are the people free from"...Capital Punishment? [in China]..A:

"Executing people educates others" (official spokesman)

[Yodeler]

How unethical would it be if John D. Rockefeller made that mistake and I chose to keep that fin?

It is exactly as unethical (or ethical) no matter whom you place in position A or B.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There was no need to put that "(or ethical)" in there, was there?

Freudian slip? I think so.

Theloniusfleabag wouldn't give John back his fiver any more than I would!

[Yodeler]

Repeat of the above.

Sorry.

[Yodeler]

no matter whom you place in position A or B.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

"No matter whom you place in position A or B" ????

That's TWO Freudian slips in one sentence. I think.

[PocketRocket]

I would like to know from the people who visit  Maple Leaf  about their view on what constitutes  compassion.  Here is a short story  with two questions. Feel free to answer them as you are led.

I, as many others, dislike questions which are "leading".

There is a well  known addict who  roams a particular neighborhood everyday  begging for alms. One morning he walks up to a  young man who resides in the neighborhood and begs for money. The young man talks to the addict for a while, but he  refuses to give the addict  any money and continues on his way. Some time later another young man who is on his way to work  walks by. The addict walks up to him and  begins to beg once again. The young man  reaches into his pocket and gives the addict some money. The addict takes the money  and goes on his way. That evening he is found dead from an overdose.

You state that the addict is "well known", but most often, people who are not involved with drugs are not aware who is or is not an addict.

Is this question meant to stipulate that both of the potential donors were aware of the man's addiction???

If so, that is not made clear.

Now I have two questions.

Question #1 Who killed the addict ?

Question #2 Which one of the two men showed compassion?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

#1: The addict killed himself (Unless it's a CSI show where someone may have held him and forceably injected)

#2: This is a gray area because, as stated above, it was not stipulated that BOTH MEN were aware of the addiction.

If they were, then it would partially depend on the amount handed to the addict.

If the guy gave him $1.00 to buy a coffee, I would say that constitutes compassion.

Likewise if he gave him $5.00 and pointed to a deli and said "Buy yourself a sandwich", or some such.

(I would doubt that either man would hand over $50.00 and say "Go get wasted")

Interesting side story in this vein. I was once accosted by a guy (won't mention race) near a liquor store.

He reeked of booze. Asked for a buck for a coffee. I refused to give it to him.

I did, however, walk over to the Tim Horton's next door, and returned with a coffee, which I handed to him.

I got roundly cursed out. Obviously it was not coffee he wanted.

[Yodeler]

Interesting side story in this vein. I was once accosted by a guy (won't mention race) near a liquor store.

He reeked of booze. Asked for a buck for a coffee. I refused to give it to him.

I did, however, walk over to the Tim Horton's next door, and returned with a coffee, which I handed to him.

I got roundly cursed out. Obviously it was not coffee he wanted.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Here on the Left Coast there are two brands of coffee that many people swear by, Tim Horton's and Starbucks. No respectable Starbucks addict will touch Tim Horton's coffee and vice versa. Here it would be considered rude not to ask first which they'd prefer.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Yodeler,

There was no need to put that "(or ethical)" in there, was there?

Yes, because the statement

Theloniusfleabag wouldn't give John back his fiver any more than I would!

is untrue, and your response is an example of Hume's 'ethical relativism'.

That's TWO Freudian slips in one sentence. I think.

No slips. Everyone's 'moral code' is different.

"No matter whom you place in position A or B" ????

There is no difference to me, but to you, it seems, it matters. What if it were the 'junkie' who dropped the five dollars?

[PocketRocket]

Here on the Left Coast there are two brands of coffee that many people swear by, Tim Horton's and Starbucks.  No respectable Starbucks addict will touch Tim Horton's coffee and vice versa. Here it would be considered rude not to ask first which they'd prefer.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So many people take coffee way too seriously, like they're professional wine-tasters or something.

To me, coffee is something to be made strong and hot, and consumed when I need to wake up.

As a beverage, it's certainly not something I drink for enjoyment (unless it's liberally dosed with Sheridan's or Crown Royal or Bailey's or Kalua or.......)

[August1991]

Dear August1991,

My point was that most of us would gladly help others if we understood that, in similar circumstances, we would be helped too.

That is the oldest gag in the book. Some dude named Jesus was credited with the line "Whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers, that you do unto me". Before that,

Confucius himself had a simple moral and political teaching: to love others; to honor one's parents; to do what is right instead of what is of advantage; to practice "reciprocity," i.e. "don't do to others what you would not want yourself";

(from... http://www.crystalinks.com/confucius.html )

Before that, Cavemen practiced it. It is the foundation upon all society and, therefore, Mankind, rests. And it is 'leftist', for it places 'commonality' ahead of 'individuality'.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

"Oldest gag in the book. Jesus, Confucius. Commonality, individuality. Left and Right. OMG!"

Look Thelonious Monk,

You make it appear as if the question is about "doing the right thing", about being a good, moral person. Treat others as you would have them treat you. You imply that this is an old problem.

First. There is no question whatsoever that people accomplish much, much more when they co-operate and work together.

Second. Unfortunately, people tend to lie and cheat. They say they'll co-operate and work with you but then they don't, not really. (Fortunately, some do, in part because they're honest souls; and those few become true friends.)

Third. Several thousands years ago, a guy discovered "prices" (numbers and math) - a magical solution so that dishonest, cheating liars wind up co-operating and working with everyone else.

Fourth. Several thousands years later, the guy's "price solution" to the cheating, dishonesty problem is still confusing to many people (usually Leftists who complain that greed will destroy the world). True, the guy's "solution" doesn't always work.

Fifth. The guy's solution is so good that human co-operation now threatens the planet's previous equilibrium. (In a sense, our planet was better off when we were cavemen who didn't co-operate so much.)

----

I tend to think that Moses and Homer provided the first musings about this "price solution". Buddha, Confucius, Jesus, Plato, Socrates were further musings. Mohammed provided the last thoughts, before the modern European reaction.

----

To return to my original point about helping others, I was thinking about what insurance policy you would have purchased if you were in your mother's womb. If you didn't know that you would be born with sight and four limbs, would you have bought insurance - while still a foetus - against such a risk? I would have. And that's why I helped the blind guy up the stairs.

The language issue was just a reminder about how we are born, and what we have.

But it still doesn't equate to "stealing from the rich to give to the poor".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

While in my alcoholic mother's womb, I wanted some insurance. Born from her, chances were that I would have major problems in life. So, I made a deal - I bought an insurance policy.

As it turned out, I have been fortunate in life. I view taxes in part as my insurance premium, paid after the fact. I call that "stealing from the rich to give to the poor".

Dear August1991,

Like above, as Yodeler questions,

How unethical would it be if John D. Rockefeller made that mistake and I chose to keep that fin?

it is exactly as unethical (or ethical) no matter whom you place in position A or B.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I have never quite understood why "ethical" is defined as "the rich should pay more".

Should we take more from the beautiful than the ugly? Should taller people work longer hours than shorter people? Should thin people give money to fat people? Should blue-eyed people pay higher taxes? Should bald men pay less taxes? Should blondes compensate brunettes? Should smart people compensate stupid people? Should older people pay less taxes? (In Canada, they do.)

I have a precise sense of "stealing from the rich to give to the poor". It concerns my mother's womb.

Dear August1991,

Learn from a mistake? Maybe what you learn is that you are in the wrong job.

That could well be. As I said, returning the money is pointing out the mistake (albeit with possibly less dramatic consequences). To go to the extreme, perhaps the laws of the country are such that the 'offending clerk' could be shot.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Finally, my view of "morality". An 'offending clerk could be shot' - what a loss for humanity! The clerk could have had a child who would have fallen in love with my daughter, or discovered an antibiotic to treat my grandson.

True immorality is lost chances, and wasted efforts.

The sooner a cashier who is bad at math finds a new job, the more moral the world is.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear August1991,

You make it appear as if the question is about "doing the right thing", about being a good, moral person.

That is what the thread was originally about, as I understand it.

I have never quite understood why "ethical" is defined as "the rich should pay more".

I don't believe I implied that, in fact I implied that John D. Rockerfeller is equal to anyone else, rich or poor, in this case. I suppose one could argue that 'a fool and his money are soon parted', and one should have let Rockerfeller learn his lesson the hard way.

I once gave a ride to someone who ran out of gas, to a gas station and back to their car. They offered me cash, but I refused. They asked, "How can I repay you?", and I replied "By helping out someone else down the road". To me, the morality began and ended there. I don't care what that person, or you, think of me. I do not write this for accolades, nor did I make it up. I just try to practice what I believe. I don't believe in karma, either. None of that matters to me.

Here's a 'moral poser'... suppose a very strong man from a villiage happens across two other people, a midget and an old nun from the same villiage. They are dragging a wounded elephant on a pallet to the vet, and ask for assistance. (They depend on the elephant to plow their field, say). The man has a choice to agree or disagree. He also could say, "I'll help, but it is not fair that I be expected to pull harder just because I'm stronger. I'll only pull as hard as the old nun."

Or, the nun and the midget might be from a rival villiage, and the strong man could slay the nun and the midget and take the elephant.

Is this 'fair'? Absolutely. Is it 'moral'? It depends on your outlook, and what you yourself would do in either position, and it matters not what others think.

[August1991]

TheloniousMonk,

Dear August1991,

You make it appear as if the question is about "doing the right thing", about being a good, moral person.

That is what the thread was originally about, as I understand it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

True, the thread started with a question about giving money to a drug addict. What should one do?

Jews wonder about how to do the "right thing", to be "good", to be "moral". Heaven and Hell, Good and Evil are basic concepts for Jews, Christians and Muslims. (The three religions, and their various splinters, have refined criteria for deciding what constitutes Good and Bad.)

You make the question appear to be about Good or Bad, or "doing the right thing". Thelonious, you frame the question in religious terms.

Aside from religion, and Good or Bad, the question remains: "What should one do?"

Here's a 'moral poser'... suppose a very strong man from a villiage happens across two other people, a midget and an old nun from the same villiage. They are dragging a wounded elephant on a pallet to the vet, and ask for assistance. (They depend on the elephant to plow their field, say). The man has a choice to agree or disagree. He also could say, "I'll help, but it is not fair that I be expected to pull harder just because I'm stronger. I'll only pull as hard as the old nun."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

To each according to his needs, from each according to his means. Jewish, Christian, Muslim morality in the extreme. (What morality?

It is good/moral to give but according to different, more sophisticated criteria.)

(True anecdote ahead: Waiting for a city bus in Colombo, Sri Lanka once, I had an argument/discussion with a bourgeoise from Colombo 7 about this very issue. I had given some money to a poor woman and the bourgeoise told me to give money to poor men instead. "The women just get pregnant. The men have problems." How to decide when you can't be Good always?)

Or, the nun and the midget might be from a rival villiage, and the strong man could slay the nun and the midget and take the elephant.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It is good/moral to give, but only in my clan.

Is this 'fair'? Absolutely. Is it 'moral'? It depends on your outlook, and what you yourself would do in either position, and it matters not what others think.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Fair. Thelonious, I chose to respond because you used that word.

Fair play. How Anglo-Saxon, how wonderful. (Aside: I believe the issue of Quebec's independance depends ultimately on the shaky French-Canadian understanding of the English term 'fair' or 'fair play'.)

The word 'fair' does not exist in French, Russian or Arabic. In English, it is complex. Fair-haired. A public fair. A fair dealer. (In French, it is badly translated as équitable)

So, is it moral/good to be "fair"? Is that how the modern world defines "compassion"?

Morality is defined by an English word. Fairness. How suitable.

[BHS]

I would like to know from the people who visit  Maple Leaf  about their view on what constitutes  compassion.  Here is a short story  with two questions. Feel free to answer them as you are led.

I, as many others, dislike questions which are "leading".

There is a well  known addict who  roams a particular neighborhood everyday  begging for alms. One morning he walks up to a  young man who resides in the neighborhood and begs for money. The young man talks to the addict for a while, but he  refuses to give the addict  any money and continues on his way. Some time later another young man who is on his way to work  walks by. The addict walks up to him and  begins to beg once again. The young man  reaches into his pocket and gives the addict some money. The addict takes the money  and goes on his way. That evening he is found dead from an overdose.

You state that the addict is "well known", but most often, people who are not involved with drugs are not aware who is or is not an addict.

Is this question meant to stipulate that both of the potential donors were aware of the man's addiction???

If so, that is not made clear.

Now I have two questions.

Question #1 Who killed the addict ?

Question #2 Which one of the two men showed compassion?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

#1: The addict killed himself (Unless it's a CSI show where someone may have held him and forceably injected)

#2: This is a gray area because, as stated above, it was not stipulated that BOTH MEN were aware of the addiction.

If they were, then it would partially depend on the amount handed to the addict.

If the guy gave him $1.00 to buy a coffee, I would say that constitutes compassion.

Likewise if he gave him $5.00 and pointed to a deli and said "Buy yourself a sandwich", or some such.

(I would doubt that either man would hand over $50.00 and say "Go get wasted")

Interesting side story in this vein. I was once accosted by a guy (won't mention race) near a liquor store.

He reeked of booze. Asked for a buck for a coffee. I refused to give it to him.

I did, however, walk over to the Tim Horton's next door, and returned with a coffee, which I handed to him.

I got roundly cursed out. Obviously it was not coffee he wanted.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Once again, going back to the orginal story/question:

1) I think everyone agrees, at this point, that the junkie killed himself (though no doubt unintentionally). Suggesting that the fellow who gave him money killed him (the only other option, given the story outlined) is ridiculous, unless the fellow giving the money intended for the junkie to buy junk, and knew that the junk would kill him on this particular occasion. Intent is everything. It's like saying a father who buys his 16-year-old son/daughter a new car has killed his own child after an accident occurs, when the gift was clearly NOT intended to kill. Even junkies have legitimate needs for cash beyond purchasing junk, and so merely giving cash to a junkie (even if you KNOW they are addicted) cannot be considered tantamount to murder. It just doesn't wash.

2) Why can't both men be considered compassionate? The first man gave of his time and associated with the junkie on a personal level. The second man gave money to someone claiming a need. Are these not acts of compassion? Does compassion necessarily have a price tag, and involve material sacrifice? Is compassion defined by the act or outcome?

[BHS]

Regarding coffee: anyone who doesn't recognize the difference between Star Bucks and Tim Hortons clearly adulterates their beverage with unnecessary additives. If you drank coffee the way it was meant to be drunk, you'd know that Tim Horton's coffee tastes like burnt pond scum mixed with dishwasher detergent underneath all of that sickly sweet cream and sugar. I've had instant coffee in lukewarm tapwater that tasted better.