Consideration

[chrisvenus]

I was thinking the other day. People have said to me in the past that you shouldn't care what other people think. What exactly do they mean by that? How far should you take the sentiment?

The reason I ask is because this morning on the way to work I connected that statement with a discussion I was in a while ago with somebody. He was of the opinion that he shouldn't ever have to do something because it was expected of him and that he shouldn't have to not do something because it would upset somebody.

At the time I coudlnt' beleive the extremes to which he took this. He didn't seem to see a problem in saying things that would be considered extremely insensitive and upsetting just because the other person perceived them as such, even if he didn't mean them as upsetting. I think he was of the opinion that upsetting people deliberately was bad but it wasn't his fault if somebody got upset by something not intended to upset.

The example given was along the lines of "would you try to avoid saying things that might remind somebody of a recently deceased loved one"? His answer was basically "no, its not my problem if they get upset when I talk about it."

I have been told in the past that I care too much about what other people think of me and I think it is true. I'm trying to work out a balance between how I am now and theother extreme as outlined above. Somewhere in there is the happy middle ground where I and everybody else will be happy, world peace will be declared and the end to famine will come. Well, maybe not that good but you know what I mean.


So, my question for the panel is "How much should you care about somebody else's feelings?"


My current attitude is "if I am going to upset somebody I will try not to do it, even if I upset myself instead". I do of course use the term "upset" to mean a variety of generally negative emotions such as being pissed off and other stuff like that. In general negative responses that will lower somebody's mood.

I'll leave it there for hopefully other people to give opinions, answers and so on.

Comments

Re:

[jonnyargles.livejournal.com]

But you know that to be unrealistic. I tried the same thing in my Kant lectures, when we had to propose a Moral action, and I said a rule that everyone has to put £5 through my letterbox, reason being, I'd be quite happily to put money through my own letterbox, and would be ecstatic if everyone else did it. I was smacked down by the incisive argument of "Don't be silly."

The Kantian/Christian argument assumes that all suffering is shared by all of humanity. If you cut the other person's arm, then you cut your arm; would you rather have your arm cut, or your throat cut? There are arguments against the Kantian theory, but this isn't one of them.

What you could state is that you are aware of your own actions and consequences; you have no control over the consequences of others. e.g. if someone gives me money then I will spend it on worthwhile things

[Error: Irreparable invalid markup ('<grin.>') in entry. Owner must fix manually. Raw contents below.]

But you know that to be unrealistic. I tried the same thing in my Kant lectures, when we had to propose a Moral action, and I said a rule that everyone has to put £5 through my letterbox, reason being, I'd be quite happily to put money through my own letterbox, and would be ecstatic if everyone else did it. I was smacked down by the incisive argument of "Don't be silly."

The Kantian/Christian argument assumes that all suffering is shared by all of humanity. If you cut the other person's arm, then you cut your arm; would you rather have your arm cut, or your throat cut? There are arguments against the Kantian theory, but this isn't one of them.

What you could state is that you are aware of your own actions and consequences; you have no control over the consequences of others. e.g. if someone gives me money then I will spend it on worthwhile things <grin.> If I give a tramp money then he will spend it on meths and kill himself. That is not, then, a moral action. Besides, true Kantianism says that if you feel good after doing something you think is noble then it's not moral because you did it for your own self-gratification - no pleasing some people.

But we're getting away from the original point, which is the matter of emotions. Emotions are one thing that as humans we all share, and we all know how they feel. Emotions that we do not wish to have raised in ourselves, we should not seek to raise in others.

[chrisvenus]

*nod* I agree that the example was realistic and thanks for the clarification. It makes a lot more sense now from the point of view of assume that your actions are done to yourself kind of thing. I'll think about it on the way home and maybe post some more when I get home. I probably won't have any particualr new thoughts on philosophy though. :)

Two more hypothetical situation though that spring to mind. If an acceptable argumen tis what you described above then why is the argument "I know that I will feel bad if I don't do something but I don't know if they will feel bad so I shouldn't consider their feelings as much" flawed (I assume it is).

If an action will either cause me a certain increase in happiness and a descrease in happiness for another person or an equal decrease in my happiness to match an increase in their happiness then is there anything to say whether one action is preferable to another?

Re:

[jonnyargles.livejournal.com]

Of course, just to complicate matters, there's the aspect of consent. Whatever you do to yourself is of your own volition, however reluctantly. By forcing your will on someone, be it emotional or physical, then you are also denying them freedom, which is the bird of the soul. (Spinoza, I think).

And you're wavering into Benthamite Utilitarianism, here. The greatest good for the greatest number. But he steals from the Hippocratic Oath to qualify this: First, do no harm. I.E. If torturing someone will lead to enjoyment of a lot of people, then the tenets have not been adhered to.