My apologies for mixing the general and the specific too closely together - I did intend for there to be a division in the comment between the two after the first two lines, however I can see on reinspection that wasn't clear.
I concur that if hurt was caused unintentionally then the causer of that should not feel guilt over it. However, I would have to couple that with an expectation that they see a need to alleviate that hurt, where such is then causing hurt to another, either specifically or in general.
I propose that not feeling such is contrary to their personal good whilst co-existing within society - by alienating the other member of their social context, they're damaging their own position within that society.
(you'll probably gather from that that I will strongly argue against the existence of any action or occurrence that can be covered by the dictionary definition of altruism, and one of my current dislikes of Richard Dawkins is that he seems to be using the word liberally without first redefining it)
Being specific, to the example you give - there is acceptable evidence for the damaging effect of climate change and a case can be made for 4x4s used in such a fashion being an irresponsible act that brings about general hurt, thus there's no need to feel guilt for inadvertent hurt when such occurs. By the standard of personal suffering, whether couched in terms of long term survival or simply in terms of "green" taxes levied to counteract such things that hit you too, there's no compulsion to redress that hurt either. However walking across the street to call them a tosser to their faces isn't appropriate in my assessment.
The deciding factor to the action and whether it should be redressed is to consider the objective: in this instance you want the individual in question to change their behaviour pattern and their thinking on the subject. Do you think a verbal attack will cause that? Or is it more likely to put their backs up and entrench them in the "I can do what I like, it's my car, my money" stance? If you agree with the latter being more likely, perhaps you'd agree that calling them a tosser to their faces is actually an act of self harm, by roundabout means?
Your other example is also interesting - do you support it being acceptable for those 10 years an Englishman to maim or kill a German? If so, why was it acceptable to cause harm to that individual? (I assume you're talking about two periods of war amalgamated - kick me if I'm wrong)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2007-12-01 10:27 pm (UTC)I concur that if hurt was caused unintentionally then the causer of that should not feel guilt over it. However, I would have to couple that with an expectation that they see a need to alleviate that hurt, where such is then causing hurt to another, either specifically or in general.
I propose that not feeling such is contrary to their personal good whilst co-existing within society - by alienating the other member of their social context, they're damaging their own position within that society.
(you'll probably gather from that that I will strongly argue against the existence of any action or occurrence that can be covered by the dictionary definition of altruism, and one of my current dislikes of Richard Dawkins is that he seems to be using the word liberally without first redefining it)
Being specific, to the example you give - there is acceptable evidence for the damaging effect of climate change and a case can be made for 4x4s used in such a fashion being an irresponsible act that brings about general hurt, thus there's no need to feel guilt for inadvertent hurt when such occurs. By the standard of personal suffering, whether couched in terms of long term survival or simply in terms of "green" taxes levied to counteract such things that hit you too, there's no compulsion to redress that hurt either. However walking across the street to call them a tosser to their faces isn't appropriate in my assessment.
The deciding factor to the action and whether it should be redressed is to consider the objective: in this instance you want the individual in question to change their behaviour pattern and their thinking on the subject. Do you think a verbal attack will cause that? Or is it more likely to put their backs up and entrench them in the "I can do what I like, it's my car, my money" stance? If you agree with the latter being more likely, perhaps you'd agree that calling them a tosser to their faces is actually an act of self harm, by roundabout means?
Your other example is also interesting - do you support it being acceptable for those 10 years an Englishman to maim or kill a German? If so, why was it acceptable to cause harm to that individual? (I assume you're talking about two periods of war amalgamated - kick me if I'm wrong)