|
Andrew, Firstly let me commend you for this real
world example of the value of philosophy. In my view, the primary value of
philosophy is to explore and to some degree explain the human condition. Your example would have sat well in a
tutorial I participated in last year, where I came to the conclusion that true altruism
was not possible. That is “doing good for others with no regard to
oneself”. If you give money to charity or beggars in the street, or to
your brother, sister, whoever – what are your motives? In general these
are to reduce your level of discomfort and to give you an enhanced feeling of
wellbeing. All of one’s motives are, at root, selfish. The nun who gives
all her possessions to the poor and devotes herself to the sick is doing so
because she feels better doing this than not doing this. The wheelchair bound person may have been
truthful and honest, or “a rogue”. Whichever it was she helped a
person. Maybe helping a rogue should give her a bigger boost than helping an
honest person. However your friend helped the wheelchair
bound person for selfish reasons. She assuaged some guilt, followed some
ingrained psychology that rewards good behaviour with a feeling of
satisfaction. She did it for her, not for them. Such an opinion is difficult to hold
without philosophical study. I do not feel particularly comfortable holding it.
But I think I have a better understanding of the human condition as a result. Bernie Doeser From:
owner-bups-dis@purplepancake.com [mailto:owner-bups-dis@purplepancake.com] On Behalf Of Andrew Turner Hello all, Most of philosophy is tedious pedantry, so in the spirit of a more
practical approach, this is what happened to my housemate about a week ago. Her
reaction is, I think, philosophically interesting. My housemate was coming home from uni on this particular day and a chap
in a wheelchair shouted for her to stop. She did stop; it appeared that the
chap wanted a push up the hill (She was cycling down the hill at the time). She
locked up her bike and obliged the chap. Anyway, after some conversation
between them while she was pushing him, it turned out that he was also diabetic
and that he had just been to the QMC (the hospital opposite Notts uni.) for
treatment for something or other. In addition to this however, he said he
lived in She has not got the money back yet, nor do I expect she will.
Interestingly my housemate has consoled herself with the following sentiment: 'It is worse to distrust people, than to be deceived by them.' [I don't know if these are her words, or if she got them from
elsewhere.] What do people think of… a) her
reaction to the diabetic chap in the wheelchair. Presumably a significant
proportion of the reason why she gave him money was the sympathy he extracted
in spite of the rather odd circumstances. So whatever the rational response
should be; how far is this relevant to her actual response, given that she was
emotionally coerced? b) her
sentiment as a moral principle? |