Helping, hurting, being indifferent ...

[Chisti]

Some views on the other thread got me thinking. Helping ... we know what this is, to help people in need, provide monetary or emotional support, to empathize, and so on. Hurting ... being sadistic, to bully or harass ppl, to exploit them etc.

What of indifference? Let's say a person is indifferent - he doesn't help, but neither does he hurt anyone. If he sees starving mouths, he doesn't care. If he sees people being bullied, he doesn't care. He reasons: as long as I am not starving or bullying anyone, I am fine. I can't go out of the way to get involved.

How would you view such indifferent people? These people keep their conscience clear by not hurting anyone, but they refuse to help anyone (because they feel 'not hurting' is in itself a great contribution without having to add 'helping' to the list).

 

[Shuddhasattva]

I think the only rational attitude is satyagraha in this respect; one maintains an attitude of compassion towards both the indifferent and the bullies, and by force of this compassion's manifestation in word and deed causes the fire to be spread to other minds.

If we were to condemn, or to be indifferent, to the indifferent, we place ourselves in the same category and are defeated by our own logic; I see no other answer.

 

[s2a]

Some views on the other thread got me thinking. Helping ... we know what this is, to help people in need, provide monetary or emotional support, to empathize, and so on. Hurting ... being sadistic, to bully or harass ppl, to exploit them etc.

What of indifference? Let's say a person is indifferent - he doesn't help, but neither does he hurt anyone. If he sees starving mouths, he doesn't care. If he sees people being bullied, he doesn't care. He reasons: as long as I am not starving or bullying anyone, I am fine. I can't go out of the way to get involved.

How would you view such indifferent people? These people keep their conscience clear by not hurting anyone, but they refuse to help anyone (because they feel 'not hurting' is in itself a great contribution without having to add 'helping' to the list).

See: Ayn Rand (below), or more topically, the radical right wing of the Republican party today

"I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine."

and...



"If any civilization is to survive, it is the morality of altruism that men have to reject."

-- Ayn Rand ("I'm ok, so to hell with you".)

 

[Sir Doom]

I think that indifference isn't really possible. At least not as a third option to helpful and hurtful. A lack of intervention can either help or harm. There is always some triggered effect of inaction.

There are not a lot of examples of inaction resulting in help, I would say. Most of these would have to do with enabling someone to be challenged rather than 'cheating' with intervention. Forcing growth and development, in other words.

A good part of the time inaction enables harmful behavior. Harm is usually the easy route to cheap and fleeting power. Enabling this sort of behavior makes it seem even easier, thus it continues.

I think that most of us know that this is the case when we decide on inaction. Indifference that results in harm is usually a product of fear. For those ruled by fear, I have pity. Though I can't say I'm out of those proverbial woods, myself either.

 

[Quintessence]

Given that I often am one of those "indifferent" people, I obviously have no problem with it. Live and let live. Let people do (or NOT do) what they want. "Problems" will always exist in the world regardless of attempts to do (nor not do) anything about them. Selectively choose where you wish to act (or not). Ultimately it is what we all end up doing anyway given our time and skills are limited. Do what you Will.

 

[Madhuri]

How would you view such indifferent people?

I think being emotionally dead is awful. Total indifference, I think, is a sickness.

As my previous Sig quote said, "the opposite of life is not death; it's indifference"

 

[Wirey]

Some views on the other thread got me thinking. Helping ... we know what this is, to help people in need, provide monetary or emotional support, to empathize, and so on. Hurting ... being sadistic, to bully or harass ppl, to exploit them etc.

What of indifference? Let's say a person is indifferent - he doesn't help, but neither does he hurt anyone. If he sees starving mouths, he doesn't care. If he sees people being bullied, he doesn't care. He reasons: as long as I am not starving or bullying anyone, I am fine. I can't go out of the way to get involved.

How would you view such indifferent people? These people keep their conscience clear by not hurting anyone, but they refuse to help anyone (because they feel 'not hurting' is in itself a great contribution without having to add 'helping' to the list).

Realistically, we all do that. How many people buy a $5 Starbucks every day, when a $2 Dunkin Donuts would be fine, and $60 a month could go to the Food Bank, or cancer research, or any other of a thousand noble causes? We all develop a slight sociopathic bent, I think, or the evening news would leave you curled in a ball on the floor, sobbing uncontrollably. I actually think a life spent in neutral (not hurting, not helping) is more than most of us can claim.