Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

Personal Responsibility Vs. Humanitarianism


Guest end3

Recommended Posts

Had some thoughts after a discussion with a new friend.

 

How do we judge advocating personal responsibilty for others versus choosing humanitarianism/empathy? May be an old thread here....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As in should others intervene in crises like genocide in the Sudan, or let them sort things out for themselves and "pull themselves up by their bootstraps".

 

Or on a more domestic scale, whether to provide shelter and support for the poor and homeless rather than leave it to them to improve their situation.

 

Is that the sort of thing you are talking about? I'd like to be sure I'm understanding the OP before I toss my 2 cents in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly doc, yes to both, I think we have leeway in this area every day. Is the Holy Spirit just empathy, is Grace just understanding?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

End,

 

I'd cordially suggest that you write out ALL of what you are trying to say... otherwise we're not going to get very far.

 

We're not mind readers :)

 

GH

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like this saying:

 

"Give a man a fish; you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish; and you have fed him for a lifetime"

 

It is empathy to teach other to be self-reliant. It is empathy to help others who can't do it themselves. It's wisdom and grace that guides empathy in discerning the difference and responding to the actual need.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course there's this version that fits me,

 

"Give a man a fish; you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish, and he will sit in the boat and drink beer all day."

 

:)

 

Four weeks to fishing opener!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As in should others intervene in crises like genocide in the Sudan, or let them sort things out for themselves and "pull themselves up by their bootstraps".

 

Or on a more domestic scale, whether to provide shelter and support for the poor and homeless rather than leave it to them to improve their situation.

 

Is that the sort of thing you are talking about? I'd like to be sure I'm understanding the OP before I toss my 2 cents in.

 

Doc,

 

Wait until you go to Sudan, unarmed, part of a 'relief team' before you try and figure whats best for the folks there.

 

If you've yet to read "Blackhawk Down", and/or try to understand the tremendous political rivalries and realities of Africa, don't espouse dropping more uS kids in to that strife.

 

Houseless folks in America? Hard question to answer, save again, until you go swing a hammer in the wrecks 'goobermint supplied housing' turns into quickly.

Simply warehousing folks does nothing to instill pride in whats being offered/used, in little to no time turns into garbage that requires tearing down, totally rebuilding.

 

As far as the OP and opening exchanges, this thread is rather raw, even for ExC. Hoping we can get past our initial opinions and hopefully find impressions that will work towards "Encouraging Ex-christians".

 

kFL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And then there's this version:

 

"Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime. Unless he doesn't like sushi—then you also have to teach him to cook."

 

I'm just one pin away from sushi!! :HaHa:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Had some thoughts after a discussion with a new friend.

 

How do we judge advocating personal responsibilty for others versus choosing humanitarianism/empathy? May be an old thread here....

 

This is an excellent question, let me complicate the matter even more by asking two other questions.

 

Are there times when we don't have the right to interfere. Take world politics, in many countries certain things are legal which we consider illegal or immoral, such as polygamy and polyandry. At times we must admit that butting into someone else s life to "fix" their problems also involves making value judgments for them. I'm, of course, not saying we should never help, but we must be careful to make sure help is actually needed.

 

Second, will helping make things any better. I happen to have a lot of relatives on my dad's side of the family that are, for lack of a better term, stupid red necks. The often do very stupid things which are harmful to themselves. Rather than working hard in school they skip classes and buck authority, which of course leads them to doing the same dead end jobs their parents did. Many of them have unprotected sex at young ages, resulting in them having children when they are 15 (even younger in some cases)

 

I finally gave up on helping them when I realized that, as sad as it may be, they were right where they wanted to be. The biggest problem they have is that they are unable to imagine a better life than the one they are living. No matter how much money the government were to throw at them, no matter how many opportunities for a better education they were offered, it would never improve their life in the slightest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You should not do so much to deplete your own resources but enough to avoid an uprising.

 

mwc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

To be clear that wasn't really a rallying call there. I was just throwing out the first things that came to my mind when people debate aid vs. promoting self sufficiency. The "bootstraps" thing is just a cliche that I hear thrown out when these things come up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Antlerman

 

A new book of proverbs or antlererbs perhaps, I loved it, cracked me up :lmao:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as the OP and opening exchanges, this thread is rather raw, even for ExC. Hoping we can get past our initial opinions and hopefully find impressions that will work towards "Encouraging Ex-christians".

 

kFL

 

I can think better when I've got the OP where I can see it when I'm writing:

 

Had some thoughts after a discussion with a new friend.

 

How do we judge advocating personal responsibilty for others versus choosing humanitarianism/empathy? May be an old thread here....

 

If we put that in terms that I as an exChristian find encouraging, with your permission, Skip, for me that means I figure out what is my personal responsibility in my personal life and space--where do I end and my neighbour begin. In the words of a counselor used to working with Old Order Mennonites, boundary issues are major. And that is what I am talking about here. Empathy plays into the situation big time.

 

Why? Because I can feel empathy for a fly if I try. Or I can kill off the planet if I think that will better serve the cosmic purpose.

 

Because emotional boundaries have been nonexistent for most of my life, no inner sense of self or personal moral values could develop. If what we see on these forums is any indication, I suspect this applies to very many fundamentalist Christians.

 

During the past ten, fifteen years I have focused on developing this inner sense of self and values. This included learning who I am, where I end and where my neighbour begins. Responsibility and empathy go hand in hand with this. I am responsible for my property and not my neighbour's. However, if my neighbour's house is burning I am responsible. Somewhere in there, there is a line and I need to figure out where it is.

 

Not an easy chore.

 

My observation of churches and communities suggests similar principles apply on larger scales. I am not qualified to speak on the level of international and global politics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course there's this version that fits me,

 

"Give a man a fish; you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish, and he will sit in the boat and drink beer all day."

 

:)

 

Four weeks to fishing opener!

 

Then there's the one I saw on here the other day:

 

"Give a man a fish, you have fed him for today. Teach a man to pray, and he will starve to death waiting for god to give him a fish."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime. Unless he doesn't like sushi—then you also have to teach him to cook."

Then you have the version:

 

"Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime, unless he's a vegetarian and he starves to death."

 

---

 

Btw, we're currently watching American Idol Gives Back, and yes, we are donating money... damn, does that make me a True Christian™?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like this saying:

 

"Give a man a fish; you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish; and you have fed him for a lifetime"

 

It is empathy to teach other to be self-reliant. It is empathy to help others who can't do it themselves. It's wisdom and grace that guides empathy in discerning the difference and responding to the actual need.

 

The biggest question along these lines, is when do you FORCE the man to learn to fish? After you get tired of giving him fish? Or do you just ignore the ignorance of the reluctance to accept the lesson, and let the man starve of his own accord?

 

To me it is like this, try to teach the man to fish, and if the person rejects you and your "fishy" ways, leave them be.

 

But suppose there are innocents, like children, or only the leader is an imbecile, and the rest want to learn to fish, but are denied? Do we remove their leader, place one of our own, and then teach the populace to fish? When does this stop becoming aid, and start becoming dominance?

 

Food for though? And no I don't have the answer to this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought it was ... teach a woman to fish and she has the means to feed her family, teach a man to fish and he has a hobby.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like this saying:

 

"Give a man a fish; you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish; and you have fed him for a lifetime"

 

It is empathy to teach other to be self-reliant. It is empathy to help others who can't do it themselves. It's wisdom and grace that guides empathy in discerning the difference and responding to the actual need.

 

The biggest question along these lines, is when do you FORCE the man to learn to fish? After you get tired of giving him fish? Or do you just ignore the ignorance of the reluctance to accept the lesson, and let the man starve of his own accord?

 

To me it is like this, try to teach the man to fish, and if the person rejects you and your "fishy" ways, leave them be.

 

But suppose there are innocents, like children, or only the leader is an imbecile, and the rest want to learn to fish, but are denied? Do we remove their leader, place one of our own, and then teach the populace to fish? When does this stop becoming aid, and start becoming dominance?

 

Food for though? And no I don't have the answer to this.

 

This sort of debate is actually specious...

Give people the chance to fish, their leader says no... when they get hungry enough they WILL kill him and eat him, then ask about the fishing lessons... but that is outside the paradigm you're trying to set, thus I would then go Vorlon... "They are a dead species, we should let them pass"...

 

One can but offer the help, if they choose not to take it, well, no point in being a jackass, but no point in time limiting the offer either... they may decide that fish is a good thing once they've got rid of their own tyrant... one of the biggest mistakes the West made was Empire. You can't move a civilisation FASTER than we developed our selves... We've gone thorugh ALL of the different places that other cultures are now at... (other than China, who is about the oldest continuous culture on the planet, and they mostly did it first)

 

Seems to me, swim old girl, you're doing the religious trick of defining deliberately narrow parameters such that there is no winning answer other than 'don't bother with em in the first place'....

 

There are 'answers' but no clean ones...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The "personal responsibility" philosophy is particularly common among xians, or is it Americans? Or is it American xians? Hard to sort out, and this is one thing I haven't been out and about around the world enough to pick up a feel for.

 

If it is a xian, and not just an American tendency, then it's ironic just how Darwinian it is. The proponents of personal responsibility are a very short step away from just letting some people die just because they are mentally challenged (newsflash: there are some who legitimately cannot pick themselves up from their own bootstraps), suffer mental illness, or have not been successful enough to amass a fortune or buy good insurance coverage before they become seriously ill.

 

Moreover, there were periods in my own life where I lived in a tiny, roach infested apartments in dirty, noisy, crime ridden areas and subsisted on Raman noodles, and if I do say so myself, I am a self reliant, responsible, reasonably intelligent guy who is neither lazy nor a schluff. Makes me wonder how realistic it is for some who are uneducated, unintelligent, unhealthy and impoverished to extricate themselves from a yet much more dire situation. "Personal responsibility" CAN just be an excuse to make us feel OK about ourselves, while we turn a blind eye to the plight of those who are suffering. (I also tend to not like the phrase because it is used to justify artificial "consequences" to victimless "crimes," i.e., take a toke, go to jail.)

 

That said, I still harbor some of the "make your own way" mentality, and find it personally distasteful to have a "keeper" other than myself. I don't know if it is because I was raised in a less socialist environment, but I see logic in the idea that if you are smarter/stronger/faster/work harder you should be entitled to more (and by being forced to subsidize those less smart/strong/fast/ambitious you are involuntarily relinquishing your "share.") There has to be some balance, though I'm not sure that I have yet figured out where I think it should be. I've been gradually moving more toward the "humanitarian advocate" end of the spectrum over the years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The "personal responsibility" philosophy is particularly common among xians, or is it Americans? Or is it American xians? Hard to sort out, and this is one thing I haven't been out and about around the world enough to pick up a feel for.

 

If it is a xian, and not just an American tendency, then it's ironic just how Darwinian it is. The proponents of personal responsibility are a very short step away from just letting some people die just because they are mentally challenged (newsflash: there are some who legitimately cannot pick themselves up from their own bootstraps), suffer mental illness, or have not been successful enough to amass a fortune or buy good insurance coverage before they become seriously ill.

 

 

 

 

I have to disagree with you on this one Shackled. I don't see Xtians as proponents of personal responsibility at all. I see many of them as narrow minded, harsh, cruel, and self absorbed righteous assholes.

 

I see many of them doing "sins" against people and never righting that wrong against said person, they just go to a pew and cry and pray to the air and they are magically absolved on any 'wrong doing'. Meanwhile the victim of the sin (especially if they aren't 'saved) is accused of bringing it on themselves. There is no consequence for the xtian in the dogma, only for everyone else. Other then feeling bad they get a free pass to heaven, don't have to make any wrong right. Meanwhile it's justified that the said "sinner" deserves to suffer and even die for nothing more then lack of belief. God gives the xtian a free pass for all past and future wrongs. No matter what they do, god will save them. I see many of these people looking at those who suffer under poverty, homelessness as holier then thous saying they deserve it for this or that sin. It has nothing to do with responsibility but because of lack of faith or testing of faith.

 

 

I'd also like to point out I know when I was in the cult, many poor people gave their last penny's to the cult, some even believing giving to god first before feeding themselves. It's outrageous, and a form of peer pressure. Many are terrified as looking like they are not supporting god. These people are in the clutches of abuse, and the leaders capitalize on this. They judge each other the same as they judge nonbelievers, they just don't say it outright.

 

"Personal responsibility" CAN just be an excuse to make us feel OK about ourselves, while we turn a blind eye to the plight of those who are suffering. (I also tend to not like the phrase because it is used to justify artificial "consequences" to victimless "crimes," i.e., take a toke, go to jail.)

 

Again, I see this catch phrase thrown around the cults but they rarely practice it, this was yet another rotten fruit issue I had. I think if we're able to give and help others we should. No one deserves to be homeless, starving, uneducated, naked, or alone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Help can be seen as a demeaning thing and often is a demeaning thing. I'm with my 7 year old grandchild for 6 or 7 hours a day, and I've found that help pisses him off. He likes to do things together or he likes to help me, but don't help him unless he asks and then only for the time it takes to lift a heavy thing or what not.

 

Getting help from a snotty nosed college boy is often seen as a put down rather than help. There is quite the anti-intellectual feeling here in the states among the working class -- one reason why a moron was seen as a good choice for president. I think that classic liberal/progressivism is often seen for what it is, getting shit from your betters in a manner that lets you know your place. (Try applying for food stamps if you never have. It will be a nice humiliating experience for you.)

 

Economic justice isn't a matter of helping. It is a matter of seeing that everyone has a reasonable access to resources from which to build the life they choose.

 

I find the reference to teaching fishing amusing, because after learning to fish you need access to fish and that is the bit poor folks don't get. The guy in Indochina can learn to fish as well as the guy in the States, but the guy in Indochina gets access to a couple of minnows a day while the guy in the States gets access to a couple of nice bass a day and an a nice Walleye once in a while.

 

It might be news to you that much of the rebuilding being done in the countries hit by the big tsunami is in the form of replacing fishing villages with resorts. This is how the market improves your life. Instead of fishing with your friends and relatives, you now have the wonderful market opportunity to clean some rich man's shit off a toilet, while he gets to play where you used to make a living.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I've just pointed out in a private exchange of views...

 

Neoteny and anti-intellectualism are two pillars of American 'culture'...

 

The fact that 'Geek' and 'Nerd' have been insults hurled at anyone with an IQ over 100 who has the temerity to use it since at least the 1950s...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought it was ... teach a woman to fish and she has the means to feed her family, teach a man to fish and he has a hobby.

No, that's a red herring argument... :HaHa:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.

Teach a man to fish, and he east for a lifetime.

Teach a man to create an artificial shortage of fish... and he eats steak!

 

 

I'm with Chef. Some of the most damaging instances in our history as a species has been done "for someone's own good".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The "personal responsibility" philosophy is particularly common among xians...

 

 

 

 

I have to disagree with you on this one Shackled. I don't see Xtians as proponents of personal responsibility at all. I see many of them as narrow minded, harsh, cruel, and self absorbed righteous assholes.

Uh, when I read it like THAT, it looks like it didn't come out right. I did not mean to imply that I thought xians actually practice real personal responsibility, and I actually agree with your assessment. My using the term in quotes was an attempt to convey that many people (and I expected that it was tied to xians) throw the term about pretty freely, and as one of those audacious code phrases that doesn't exactly mean what it says.

 

To further clarify, the usage I was getting at is something you'll invariably hear applied to OTHERS: in the context of this thread, I'm suggesting there's the implication that that a person who is down on his luck, or just not equipped is often accused of lacking "personal responsibility" in game of blame the victim. Naturally it's not that simple: there ARE people in dire straits because they're irresponsible, and just as there are victims, and probably most who are down and out have really exacerbated their plight by exercising some degree of bad judgement, but not such that they should be crucified. The foreclosure rate certainly didn't spike because of a sudden epidemic of personal irresponsibility (whether or not many buyers exercised less than keen judgement during the housing bubble).

 

The intent of my post was not to suggest that xians model personal responsibility, nor was it even primarily about xians. It was that I don't think were as humane as we should be (yet tempered with a certain degree of concern about being dupes for freeloaders, and forcing overachievers to subsidize underachievers TOO much)--and that I've been moving more toward the "No one deserves to be homeless, starving, uneducated, naked, or alone" opinion over the years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.