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

There is no general rule.

[lanfykins.livejournal.com]

Almost everything has to be on a case by case basis.

I know that's not awfully helpful, though :)

Hmmm...

[winterthing.livejournal.com]

I have huge issues with people who say things like 'it's not my probem if someone else gets upset if I say something'. I personally think that is nonsense.

My viewpoint, which I am bad at explaining and so I'm not sure if it will make any sense, is that you have to take responsibilities for your actions. And speaking is an action. Words are one of the most powerful things we have - they convey thoughts, feelings - everything which makes up a person. You hit someone with your fist they will get a bruise on their skin for a week. You hit someone verbally they can still have mental bruises years later. Words have huge power, and so when you speak to someone you have to accept that you are taking an action which can have massive consequences. No one claims that it is not their problem if someone says 'ouch' if they punch them. Why should it be different with words?

Of course - sometimes people get hurt by accident, or you have to hurt them in the short term so they can feel better in the long term etc, and I don't think there is much point in beating yourself up about that, but in general I think that it is wrong to try and dodge responsibility for your actions just because they are something which cannot be pinned done like words.

If you hurt someone by reminding them of something like a loved one who died then you have hurt someone in the same way you would if you stuck your foot out and someone tripped over it. And in my opinion people who just snigger and say 'you should have looked where you were going' are pretty damn annoying and I have a very low opinion of them. I would have the same opinion of someone who just didn't care if they hurt someone else verbally.

Sally

[jonnyargles.livejournal.com]

Just take the Kantian/Christian rule; it saves problems.

If you don't want it done to yourself, don't do it to anyone else. (And, no, we're not including S&M)

[chrisvenus]

*nod* I can see the merit of that but I think it is far too simple. For example what about (to take an extreme and unrealistic example) if I am given the choice to either use a knife to make a large cut on somebody's arm or to take that knife and cut my own throat. By the Kantian/Christian Rule I don't want somebody to cut my arm so I shouldn't do it to others. On the other hand I think in that situation cutting their arm would be the best thing.

The trouble is that works fine for if there are no consequences to yourself on your actions (eg if I was given the choice to cut somebody's arm or to not do so I would of course choose the latter) but if there are negative consequences to you for not imposing negative stuff on others then you need to find some way to balance it.

Discuss. :)

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.

Re: Hmmm...

[chrisvenus]

Yes, I had huge issues with people saying similar to what I said above and I have avoided talking to him ever since. :)

A lot of things ultimately come down to responsibility and that is something that I will sometime write a large post on since I think responsibility is a fairly major issue to me.

The trouble is the other end of the extreme (effective slavery to everybody else's whims with no regards for personal desires) is really not a good way to live. I live near that end of the spectrum. Far enough away that I wouldn't describe myself as a slave or anything but I think close enough that I am sometimes considered to be manipulable or whatever.

My question is really where do others think is a good place to be. How much should you place others well-being over your own? how much would you hurt another to stop yourself from being hurt?

The other thing that occurs to me is properly identifying what you do and don't want to do. For example I would probably (no guarantees) give my life to save somebody else's life. This isn't as big a sacrifice for me as it might be. Partly because I think dieing a hero would be one of the best ways to die and partly because I don't have as much love and zest for life as others (though I do have a healthy fear of death). I think being honest with yourself about your desires helps a lot. However, sometimes this isn't too easy to do.

Ummm... that got off of the direct reply thread but as you probably realise, my live journal is a place where I randomly get thoughts out of my head and it rapidly sidetracks all over the show. :)

[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: There is no general rule.

[chrisvenus]

Not very helpful, no. :)

However, everybody must have some kind of generalisation they can apply to themselves. I'm not saying that anything I have said is going to tell you how I'd react in any situation but it gives a general idea. Your actions generally fit a trend and those that know you well can usually guess them.

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.

Hrm...

[nevecat.livejournal.com]

I take a rather distanced attitude to this - I am not the centre of the unierse, but neither am I a saint who will go through torment for the sake of others.

Guess my basic philosophy would be "Minimise harm, in whatever form it comes". Yes, that does mean if I would get hugely hurt by something that would hurt another person a little, I will allow that other person to get harmed. I'm not a special case - that works both ways.

And I don't always claim to get it right - but I hope I do use each experience to refine the way I figure things.

Or summat. Bibble!



Caroline

Note sure there are any hard answers either...

[(Anonymous)]

The short answer is that Sarah (Lanfykins) is right.

In the long form - its the same sort of thing as "should you ever feel obligued to do favours for someone else (unasked)". A few years ago I would have gone with no, but I've changed my mind somewhat.

I think that being the sort of person who will speak their mind (even if they think it might upset someone else) can be good and consequently the sort of person you want to speak to when you want the truth (however hard). However, being that person you have to accept that others will sometimes want to have nothing to do with you; particularly anyone feeling depressed, upset or sensitive.

In short, not caring about the feelings of others can leave you short of friends or companions and you have to accept that as being part of the cost.

Where I'm going with this, is that when interacting with other people; anyone who takes this line is trying to find an easy way through life and has developed a personal set of rules (I want it to be simple, I always say what I feel). However, everyone else may (will) have a different set of life rules which they would probably argue are equally or more valid. When the two different sets of rules meet one or both of you have to bend these rules to work with each other; if you never bend your rules (ie. I continue to say what I feel) then it is quite likely that you will begin to annoy others who make some efforts to change their ways to work with you.

I'm done.

Dawn.

Re: Note sure there are any hard answers either...

[chrisvenus]

I definitely preferred the long form. :) I agree with all of what you have said and you put it in a way that I probably wouldn't have thought of. And this is why I love this thing sometimes. As an exercise in clarifying what I think and understanding what others think I think this is great fun. :)

I think that saying "In short, not caring about the feelings of others can leave you short of friends or companions and you have to accept that as being part of the cost." is a great way of summarising things very well.

This leaves me only with the question of what level of consideration or whatever is "expected. I think this is something that is down to more specific one on one interactions (and yes, I know some of you have been saying this all along but its only just filtered down to my little brain).

Hmmm.... I think I might almost be happy with this subject for the time being. :) Time to go pondering my next big question. :)