Love, in the sense of seeking the other person's best interests, is a particularly difficult ideal to achieve. As mentioned, it requires a reasonably close acquaintance with an INDIVIDUAL person or persons. Next, a distinction must be made between your assessment of someone's best interests and their own. While it is clear that addicts' assessment of their needs should not be trusted, neither does your assessment have the right to rule someone else's life. It MAY aid your decision on what help that is in your power, you are obliged to give. But there is also the consideration of how temporary your aid is, and if it is generally repeated, if it makes the situation worse. The classic situation is welfare and the possibility that without the goad of hunger, people never look for the job that will support and eventually enrich them. And then there is the conundrum posed by Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal" where a purely logical solution that violates all human values, is completely unacceptable. So deciding what to do is an almost unsurmountable problem, long before deciding who has the honest soul and good judgement to actually engage the problem, such that charity can be organized and supported by society in general. In further addition, the personal decision that I can only influence what suffering and injustice I personally notice among my fellow humans, is limited by the fact that people segregate themselves into like communities, such that the rich have almost no exposure to the conditions the poorer people are dealing with. We acknowledge that skin color and religion should not be criteria of discrimination, even as we struggle to overcome those types of discrimination, but wealth and education are the most effective people separators active today, and not just in the U S. So , yes, all we need is LOVE, and the good heart, intelligence and human values needed to decide how to apply it.
P.S. Now tell me how the above discussion can be applied to fix a situation where both sides believe that trying to extinguish the other side is their only chance for survival and that they owe a greater responsibility for people related to them than they do for other people, and given that survival is the most basic instinct of ALL life not just human.
Yes, but also take the time and trouble to see how the other half lives, and the constraints on their lives. And don't rely on fast, easy, feel good solutions. For example, it was discovered that simply distributing food widely during a famine to one and all at no cost caused those growers who had invested on improved food growing practices to not make back their investment during the next famine. Eventua)y, only those in such dire straights as to abandon their local area and travel to an enclosed feeding camp should be fed and those who could pay, should, so that more farmers would improve practices and grow more food reducing the occurrences of famine in the first place. More food and stronger economy instead of the feel good, " just dump food on the country". Not to mention that some would gather all the free food and try to sell it to poor women and children not strong enough to capture their fair share of the free food. Intelligence as well as heart is required. And realize that corruption can undo the good of intended idealism very quickly.
Love, in the sense of seeking the other person's best interests, is a particularly difficult ideal to achieve. As mentioned, it requires a reasonably close acquaintance with an INDIVIDUAL person or persons. Next, a distinction must be made between your assessment of someone's best interests and their own. While it is clear that addicts' assessment of their needs should not be trusted, neither does your assessment have the right to rule someone else's life. It MAY aid your decision on what help that is in your power, you are obliged to give. But there is also the consideration of how temporary your aid is, and if it is generally repeated, if it makes the situation worse. The classic situation is welfare and the possibility that without the goad of hunger, people never look for the job that will support and eventually enrich them. And then there is the conundrum posed by Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal" where a purely logical solution that violates all human values, is completely unacceptable. So deciding what to do is an almost unsurmountable problem, long before deciding who has the honest soul and good judgement to actually engage the problem, such that charity can be organized and supported by society in general. In further addition, the personal decision that I can only influence what suffering and injustice I personally notice among my fellow humans, is limited by the fact that people segregate themselves into like communities, such that the rich have almost no exposure to the conditions the poorer people are dealing with. We acknowledge that skin color and religion should not be criteria of discrimination, even as we struggle to overcome those types of discrimination, but wealth and education are the most effective people separators active today, and not just in the U S. So , yes, all we need is LOVE, and the good heart, intelligence and human values needed to decide how to apply it.
P.S. Now tell me how the above discussion can be applied to fix a situation where both sides believe that trying to extinguish the other side is their only chance for survival and that they owe a greater responsibility for people related to them than they do for other people, and given that survival is the most basic instinct of ALL life not just human.
One heart at a time. That’s how.
Yes, but also take the time and trouble to see how the other half lives, and the constraints on their lives. And don't rely on fast, easy, feel good solutions. For example, it was discovered that simply distributing food widely during a famine to one and all at no cost caused those growers who had invested on improved food growing practices to not make back their investment during the next famine. Eventua)y, only those in such dire straights as to abandon their local area and travel to an enclosed feeding camp should be fed and those who could pay, should, so that more farmers would improve practices and grow more food reducing the occurrences of famine in the first place. More food and stronger economy instead of the feel good, " just dump food on the country". Not to mention that some would gather all the free food and try to sell it to poor women and children not strong enough to capture their fair share of the free food. Intelligence as well as heart is required. And realize that corruption can undo the good of intended idealism very quickly.
Great reminder, Steve.