NationStates Jolt Archive

Different political ideologies seem to have differing views on how much compassion people should be shown. I've made a poll to see what people think.

I went for important but should be forgone. Generally, as best as possible, compassion should be shown at all times but this isn't always possible and sometimes there needs to be priorites. Certain people deserve more than others.

Always have compassion. Its a Karmic thing.
Even the death penalty can be an act of compassion.

What I've found surprising is that many people have very incompassionate views, yet claim that said views are "good" or "moral".

Even the death penalty can be an act of compassion.

Does not compute. Redo...without mentioning "The Green Mile" or God.

Though I don't think you meant it this way, this might be a bit of a loaded or subjective question for some people. But, hey, it's a good question.

I voted for the last option, but do not believe compassion is for the weak. I just don't think it should come into play when deciding political idealogy. It can cause faulty judgements.

Though I don't think you meant it this way, this might be a bit of a loaded or subjective question for some people. But, hey, it's a good question.

Can you explain what you mean (loaded - I understand that it's subjective)?

I voted for the last option, but do not believe compassion is for the weak. I just don't think it should come into play when deciding political idealogy. It can cause faulty judgements.

What would you based the ideology upon, as in, what would your perfect government intend to achieve?

I would say that compassion is a huge factor in my politics (far-left, NDP) because I just don't think it's right that people should have to go without food, water, shelter or healthcare in one of the richest countries per capita on the face of the planet (Canada). BTW, Tommy Douglas is my political hero.

What would you based the ideology upon, as in, what would your perfect government intend to achieve?

The most freedom possible.

Different political ideologies seem to have differing views on how much compassion people should be shown. I've made a poll to see what people think.

That depends upon what form said "compassion" takes.

The most freedom possible.

It could be said that giving people freedom is compassionate.

That depends upon what form said "compassion" takes.

Well, what form do you believe it should take?

Can you explain what you mean (loaded - I understand that it's subjective)?
It's just that I can see the phraseology of the question affecting some people's viewpoints in how they think, so you can't get as unbiased a result as you'd hope.

What I've found surprising is that many people have very incompassionate views, yet claim that said views are "good" or "moral". Different people value different things as "moral."

You might think that their views are wrong or immoral. But hey, they probably think the same thing about yours.

For example, if you read my other thread, you'd know that I am very incompassionate to rapists. I don't see this as "wrong" or "immoral." I don't really see the opposite view as wrong or immoral either.

EDIT: I chose "Compassion features, but there are many people who do not deserve compassion." I don't think compassion is something that you automatically deserve. To say so is to cheapen compassion for those that really do deserve it.

Compassion is a luxury you can sometimes afford. Other times you cannot. Always look out for number 1.

Well, what form do you believe it should take?

You asked: "How prominently does compassion feature in your political ideology?"

In my own political philosophy, government should only step in when the family and charitable organizations ( for whatever reason ) cannot or will not step in to help those incapable of helping themselves. This would apply for disability, temporary economic distress ( such as loss of employment ), or life-threatening illness where the individual does not have means to pay for treatment. The State in which the individual lives should be the primary governmental agency, with the federal government a last resort.

This is a very brief overview and would apply only to the US.

While I don't exactly think compassion is bad since its hardwired anyways, it does get in the way of self-advancement, which is the goal of any good philosophy. Philosophies are viruses that control humans and make them do stupid stuff. There is no room for compassion.

You asked: "How prominently does compassion feature in your political ideology?"


I know I did. You then said that it depends on what form the "compassion" takes, the quotation marks presumably (incorrectly) implying that I was using my own non-standard definition of the word.

I took this to mean that it does feature in your ideology, provided it matches certain criteria. This made me curious at to what the aforementioned criteria were, hence my (perhaps badly worded) question.

Compassion, if it's going to apply to your politics, has to be applied equally to all people. Government should, as much as possible, be blind to the individual its dealing with so that people get fair and equal treatment.

Besides, most creditable philosophies/religions that value compassion, say to give it equally to all.

Since I generally don't trust my government to make good decisions, I'd rather it be uniformly compassionate since the mistake of being too compassionate is preferable in my mind to the mistake of not being compassionate enough.

this is a something i've been trying to get at for a while on this forum - this is a fantastically direct version of what i've been thinking. so, nice one Clonetopia.

i am quite an empathetic/compassionate person, thus it considerably affects my ethics, political ideology and philosophical stance.
i have also found (in real life ;) ) that incompassionate people and i just don't get on. i'm a bit of a hippie at heart, too :D

Different political ideologies seem to have differing views on how much compassion people should be shown. I've made a poll to see what people think.
i do not believe that compassion should be a part of government, only justice and equality under the law. compassion is something to be given or withheld by choice, by individuals, and cannot be codified or enforced because then it would no longer be compassion.

I know I did. You then said that it depends on what form the "compassion" takes, the quotation marks presumably (incorrectly) implying that I was using my own non-standard definition of the word.

I took this to mean that it does feature in your ideology, provided it matches certain criteria. This made me curious at to what the aforementioned criteria were, hence my (perhaps badly worded) question.

Sorry about that. I quoted you to better help me respond to the question.

It could be said that giving people freedom is compassionate.

Maybe, but I feel that a free market will allow the economy to grow the least hindered, and that a free people will allow society to grow the least hindered.

For me, it has little to do with my compassion for other people.

Compassion, if it's going to apply to your politics, has to be applied equally to all people. Government should, as much as possible, be blind to the individual its dealing with so that people get fair and equal treatment.

Besides, most creditable philosophies/religions that value compassion, say to give it equally to all.

Since I generally don't trust my government to make good decisions, I'd rather it be uniformly compassionate since the mistake of being too compassionate is preferable in my mind to the mistake of not being compassionate enough.

I've often thought that the US should adopt the "Ombudsman" approach to Government, or perhaps expand the Office of Management and Budget, make it totally politically independent, and give it the same powers as the Inspector General's Office has in the military.

Maybe, but I feel that a free market will allow the economy to grow the least hindered, and that a free people will allow society to grow the least hindered.

For me, it has little to do with my compassion for other people.

Then you wish the economy to flourish due to the ways in which you will personally benefit from it?

i'm a bit of a hippie at heart, too :D
\m/
Hooray for nu-hippies!
:D

i do not believe that compassion should be a part of government, only justice and equality under the law. compassion is something to be given or withheld by choice, by individuals, and cannot be codified or enforced because then it would no longer be compassion.

If you are incompassionate, then it would seem that you do not want justice and equality due to their benefits on the populace? Perhaps my logic is flawed, but if not, what is your motivation?

I'm all about compassion. Anarcho-communism is a very compassionate political ideology. It doesn't just help those in poverty, it abolishes poverty.

Compassion is subjective. Certainly for those in need, but for everyone ? For someone who is not in need or able to do for themselves, how far should government compassion go ? :rolleyes:

Well... yes, in the sense of 'being deeply aware of anothers suffering and having [empathy] for them'. Not necessarily in the sense of '...wanting to relieve it'. If they've committed certain crimes, I can be aware of their motivations without feeling the need to let them go without punishment.

...

It's how I can take part in debates defending people like that man who tried to run over a pram in a case of roadrage, while still believing they should be punished.

OR!

Maybe I need more sugar right now. That's actually probably it.

Compassion is subjective. Certainly for those in need, but for everyone ? For someone who is not in need or able to do for themselves, how far should government compassion go ? :rolleyes:

Compassion certainly is subjective, but it's the ideology's theoretical compassion, that I am asking about, not the compassion in practice. Thus, the subjectiveness is irrelevant.

Sorry if this is obvious, but since compassion is the desire to reduce the suffering of another, one can only show compassion to one who suffers.

If you are incompassionate, then it would seem that you do not want justice and equality due to their benefits on the populace? Perhaps my logic is flawed, but if not, what is your motivation?
justice and equality are, sometimes, antithetical to pure compassion. i believe that justice and equality are things that MUST be guaranteed by a successful government, while compassion may simply be a fortunate side effect of a just and equal society.

Compassion certainly is subjective, but it's the ideology's theoretical compassion, that I am asking about, not the compassion in practice. Thus, the subjectiveness is irrelevant.

Sorry if this is obvious, but since compassion is the desire to reduce the suffering of another, one can only show compassion to one who suffers.

Ah, unfortunately 'suffering' is pretty darn subjective too.

And again, 'compassion' doesn't merely require the desire to lessen suffering. It can be just involve understanding their suffering.

\m/
Hooray for nu-hippies!
:D
lol nu-hippies unite!
there better be a nu-hippie thread tomorrow... ;)

justice and equality are, sometimes, antithetical to pure compassion. i believe that justice and equality are things that MUST be guaranteed by a successful government, while compassion may simply be a fortunate side effect of a just and equal society.

Ok, so you define a government's success as being the justice and equality of the society it is responsible for. You then state that compassion is merely a side-effect. Actually, that confuses me a bit. I see why, I was thinking of compassion in a role as a basis, any effects on the citizens compassion were irrelevant (though I did not state this, and thus am at fault). What I ask is what is it about justice and equality, other than their ability to reduce people's suffering (thereby making them content) that appeals to you?

(sorry if that is a bit verbose)

Ah, unfortunately 'suffering' is pretty darn subjective too.

And again, 'compassion' doesn't merely require the desire to lessen suffering. It can be just involve understanding their suffering.

I wouldn't really say suffering is subjective, beyond the obvious fact that if one person suffers it is unlikely to make everyone suffer. Suffering is a pretty basic emotional state, I would say. People's opinions of the cause of a person's suffering will differ though.

I chose the second option. I show compassion to most of the people on this planet, but there are a select few, such as Osama Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, etc. who i don't. I don't hate them, because i don't hate anyone or anything and i don't think they deserve it from me, but i don't think they deserve my compassion either. I always stop and consider what causes a person to behave in the way they do, but I don't let anyone use it as an excuse.

Ok, so you define a government's success as being the justice and equality of the society it is responsible for. You then state that compassion is merely a side-effect. Actually, that confuses me a bit. I see why, I was thinking of compassion in a role as a basis, any effects on the citizens compassion were irrelevant (though I did not state this, and thus am at fault). What I ask is what is it about justice and equality, other than their ability to reduce people's suffering (thereby making them content) that appeals to you?

(sorry if that is a bit verbose)
ahhh, i think i see what you are asking, sorry for being dense in my original post.

i like the idea of a just and equal society because a) i feel that it will be the most fun for me and the people i care about, b) i feel it will be most effective at promoting the success of individuals within the society while minimizing the loss of individual freedoms (both of which will enhance my quality of life), and c) i feel i will be quite able to prosper in such a society, and the only way i could do better would be in a "stacked deck" situation where the society is biased in favor of me...and i wouldn't be happy in such a situation because i like the challenge of competing on equal footing.

Then you wish the economy to flourish due to the ways in which you will personally benefit from it?

Yes, I do want it to run in a way that I would personally benefit from. But my reasoning for the statements is that people will generally choose to work to make their life better, and this means that society will tend to cooperate on its own if it is given the freedom to be able to.

ahhh, i think i see what you are asking, sorry for being dense in my original post.

Makes a nice change.


i like the idea of a just and equal society because a) i feel that it will be the most fun for me and the people i care about, b) i feel it will be most effective at promoting the success of individuals within the society while minimizing the loss of individual freedoms (both of which will enhance my quality of life), and c) i feel i will be quite able to prosper in such a society, and the only way i could do better would be in a "stacked deck" situation where the society is biased in favor of me...and i wouldn't be happy in such a situation because i like the challenge of competing on equal footing.

Well, apart from the highlighted part, you've done a good job of arguing that you are not motivated by compassion. Of course, if you truly had no compassion you would be a sociopath.