Letting People Fend for Themselves

[LHX]

What is the problem with letting people fend for themselves?

Why do so many people develop that 'heroic' tendency to swoop in when there is a perceived injustice?


For me personally, when I see somebody drop money or a credit card, or if I see somebody dent a car and then speed off - I don't do shit.

In fact, I am liable to keep my eyes on the dropped money and try to swoop in and grab it if nobody is looking.


BUT

When I see people being personally and needlessly interfered with - a woman on the bus getting harrassed by a drunk, or a kid getting his ass whooped by bigger people, I can't stop myself from stepping in.



Personally, again, there is a deference between a person being directly and unnecessarily interfered with that prompts me to action, whereas anything to do wiff property, or anything that is the result of a person's own ignorance, I am more than content to sit back and let nature take its course.


What brought this to mind was a discussion I had recently about what 'justice' would be like in a society with no laws.


There is a difference in situations that I can't exactly describe in words.

But it has something to do with the difference between
a) people being disrupted or preyed upon unnecessarily
b) people walking face first into their own trouble
c) letting grown people have the opportunity to fend for themselves
d) letting nature take its course



Any thoughts on this?

(Postscript: also possibly related to this discussion: sociopaths who have no feeling of attachment toward anything)

[LHX]

also of note:

people and their notions of 'family':

some how - if your blood relative is a idiot and walks into trouble, why the hell would you bail him out in preference over another person?


it is notions like that which fuck the whole thing up

maybe the idiot relative needs to be left out to dry so he/she can learn a lesson or three

[DJRubberducky]

Did you ever get to see the movie "Threads"?  It's set in Britain during the Cold War, and explores what would happen if in fact the bombs went off.  One scene near the middle-end talks about how food in Britain would be rationed - anybody able to work would get 1000 calories a day, and anybody not able to work would get 500 calories a day.  One man objects that 500 calories wouldn't keep a flea alive, and the answer is effectively "if they can't work, we can't afford to have them around".

I bring this up because I suspect that a few centuries ago, when it was a lot harder to get the resources you needed for daily survival, folks would be more likely to let the idiot relative hang out to dry and learn a few lessons, because there was less room to tolerate those in the community who didn't contribute sufficiently.  Once folks got to the point where their basic needs were being met regularly, then they started paying attention to abstract concepts like justice and/or honour.  Maslow's Hierarchy and all that shit.  I wish I could talk to a medieval peasant and find out what *he* thought of chivalry and/or codes of honour.

The "contribute or go away" attitude is still kind of there, in the general disdain that a lot of people have for the homeless and single moms on welfare, but I think if we ever end up back in the Dark Ages, you'll see that lack of tolerance re-emerge more tangibly.  Though if that happens, we might end up rather surprised at which among us ends up unable to contribute sufficiently.

[P3nT4gR4m]

For me personally, when I see somebody drop money or a credit card, or if I see somebody dent a car and then speed off - I don't do shit.

In fact, I am liable to keep my eyes on the dropped money and try to swoop in and grab it if nobody is looking.

Disagree. I always put myself in the victims positon first. If they look like a wanker I'll take the cash but, if it's an average joe who might need the cash I'll prolly give it to her in the hope that she might invite me to give it to her.

Same thing with the car, depends if it's just your average car and the poor tosser that drives it might end up losing his job cos he can't afford the repair bill then I'll stick the license number under his windsreen wiper. If it's a fking jag or a beemer I'll whoop with joy.

'Judge not lest ye be judged' I do get judged and I have no compunctions about returning the favour.

[Jenne]

I don't think there IS a problem with letting others fend for themselves.  Invariably those who shouldn't be bailed out and learn their lessons only harm you and themselves when others step in.  I'm not sure if the examples you gave are those of a helfpul, "learn or burn" nature...returning someone's stolen property doesn't make you an enabler in stupidity, per se.

I also don't think it's terribly heroic to stop injustice or perceived injustice.  It's something you have the character and moral basis for, or you don't.  You are acting on preconceived notions of right and wrong, and unless you're putting yourself in mortal danger by helping someone out, you're really just acting on morality and value judgments.

Sociopaths, to me, are those that have some semblance or even total dissociation from society and people in general.  They can't relate to friends in the positive or negative way that would be culturally acceptable.  Instead, they either passively aggressively ignore those around them, choosing to individuate their experiences to the exclusion of most positive social relationships, or they destroy what relationships already exist.  They have attachment to themselves only.  No one else.  Or as few as possible.

Family, now, that's a complex creature.  I think many take every opportunity to help their family members, and some quite the opposite.  Having not really studied any subculture other than my own, I can only suppose that it's a microculural phenomenon that fosters a sense of "save the brothers/sisters/cousins" first...

[Cain]

Personally, again, there is a deference between a person being directly and unnecessarily interfered with that prompts me to action, whereas anything to do wiff property, or anything that is the result of a person's own ignorance, I am more than content to sit back and let nature take its course.

This is the crux, of course.  Someone who is so stupid as to leave their wallet lying around or think they are secure enough in their job to fuck around cannot exactly cry if something goes down and they end up fucked because of it.

Thats very different to the main breadwinner being hit by a speeding car with drunk drivers inside and having to take 6 months off work because their back and hips are totally fucked, for a first hand example.

Also, SillyCybin makes a good point too.  Because everyone has off days sometimes, if they look like they might actually suffer alot because of something, I may step in.

What hasn't been touched on here is the interesting area of game theory vs justice in society.  There was an interesting experiment done recently where 2 people were offered a hundred dollar bill - if they could agree on how to split it between them.  Now, according to the theory, this is a relative gains transaction, so you should be just as happy with getting 10% of the cash as 75%. 

However, people never did.  They always went as close as possible to the 50% margin, even though it carried with it the possibility that the transaction would then fail.  People seem to have an innate sense of fairness concerning such transactions, which can guide them into making decisions.  This has an important sociological role in maintaining a relatively stable society, it was theorized.  You may want to search for the paper (it was mentioned in several newspapers about a month back), it may have some interesting insights.

[hunter s.durden]

also of note:

people and their notions of 'family':

some how - if your blood relative is a idiot and walks into trouble, why the hell would you bail him out in preference over another person?


it is notions like that which fuck the whole thing up

maybe the idiot relative needs to be left out to dry so he/she can learn a lesson or three

People who do anything for their families, reguardless of how much they've fucked up, are as stupid as nazi's. How? They pick something arbitrary and worship it. "unconditional love" (another rant of mine) is as dumb as fervent nationalism.

You don't pick you nation, why die for it.
Same goies for family.

[LHX]

what is family then?

what is a relationship that has value (if one were to look for that)?


some might suggest that people that move the same way and in the same direction are closer to being family than people from the same blood lines


a distinguishing between the term 'family' and the term 'relative'

[LHX]

What hasn't been touched on here is the interesting area of game theory vs justice in society.  There was an interesting experiment done recently where 2 people were offered a hundred dollar bill - if they could agree on how to split it between them.  Now, according to the theory, this is a relative gains transaction, so you should be just as happy with getting 10% of the cash as 75%. 

However, people never did.  They always went as close as possible to the 50% margin, even though it carried with it the possibility that the transaction would then fail.  People seem to have an innate sense of fairness concerning such transactions, which can guide them into making decisions.  This has an important sociological role in maintaining a relatively stable society, it was theorized.  You may want to search for the paper (it was mentioned in several newspapers about a month back), it may have some interesting insights.

good point

i got this feeling that if presented with a sudden disappearance of law, there would be a initial phase of bedlam followed by a impending phase of strange fairness

[LHX]

I also don't think it's terribly heroic to stop injustice or perceived injustice.  It's something you have the character and moral basis for, or you don't.  You are acting on preconceived notions of right and wrong, and unless you're putting yourself in mortal danger by helping someone out, you're really just acting on morality and value judgments.

you think so?

or do you think there could be more to it than a value judgement?

from what i gather, its common for people to have a physical reaction when they see somebody wiff a open wound

as though their body instinct is to start healing it


like when kids see strange looking people and they stare as though they are trying to determine what is wrong

(and generally when people see something wrong, they begin considering ways to right it)


seriously

i can be doing my thing and see two dudes get into a tussle over somebody getting their shoe stepped on, and not think twice about intervening

but flip the situation and have some dude tussling wiff a old woman or something like that, and the situation somehow changes


nothing particularly unexplainable
but its like the body reacts when it acknowledges some sort of lopsided equation


like taxi drivers delivering babies
or women gaining the strength of hulk when their baby is threatened
or like how you can tell the difference between a well-fed homeless person and a dude who is on the brink of starving

[Jenne]

And there are people worldwide who allow rape/murder to go on right in front of their eyes/within earshot and do not a fucking thing.  They teach women in self-defense classes to yell "Fire!" instead of "RAPE!" for this very reason.

I think it's conditioning, I really do.  There are those that abandon their children in dumpsters.  Why?  Because they have no innate sense of heroism?  Nah.  I think they are acting on instinct.  Why are there good samaritans, after a fashion, who will "save" you from your own situation when you're in mortal danger?  Because they are conditioned to do so.

I really thing it's a value judgment, and a learned one.  I think the old Darwinian principle of saving the bloodline actually holds more weight, thinking on it, than a visceral, altruistic notion of "how things oughtta be."

[Triple Zero]

does it really matter whether it's nature or nurture?

when you look up close to it, it may seem a fine line anyway.

although there is one difference.

nurture can more often be corrected, even though it is sometimes very hard.

but you cannot make an old fox loose its tricks, or the scorpion ferrying the frog to not eat it or something like that.

[Cain]

Actually, I would say the nature vs nurture distinction is VERY important.  Because if its nurture, then a radical overhaul of the education system could, in theory, solve many ills.  However, if its nature, then it becomes a problem of deterrence instead of education.  This has ramifications for prison, welfare, mental health, the military, social policy in general.....virtually the whole body politic, not to mention ethical philosophy and biology.

[Triple Zero]

hm you're right, if it's nature that makes people act like that, it sheds a different light on it.

deterrence implies making rules that have to come from an external source. and that's, afaik, something discordians detest: "it's only a good rule if i could have figured it out by myself" (the "think for yourself" idea)

basically, the fork lies like this:

- if it's nurture, then basically deprogramming and operation mindfuck could potentially solve these problems. (if done well)

- if it's nature, we would be forcing people to act against their nature. going against the grain, imposing our will on them. even though the results might be good in a way, it sounds like a bad thing.

RAW kind of "solves" this problem of nature/nurture in his books by speaking about neophobes and neophiles as being two different kinds of species. the neophiles would be people "heroic", kind and creative by nature, where the neophobes are the little grey vinegar pissing bastards. dunno, sounds kinda scary.
otoh he also speaks about fnordconditioning, which would imply nurture.

does the principia itself speak about this nature nurture neo phile/phobe stuff?

and since discordians should neither listen to RAW nor to the PD, what do WE think?

people-badness: nature or nurture?

another age-old question, probably.

[LMNO]

000 - remember, in Illuminatus!, RAW also posits that Graud was the first-ever Neophile.

Just because someone isn't afraid of new ideas, doesn't mean those ideas are good ones.