that the virtuous side of humankind may also lead to its destruction? Everyone seems to agree that greed and hatred will one day lead to mankinds downfall. Couldn'd virtues like compassion and empathy cause extinction as well? By feeding famine stricken countries and peoples devastated by earthquakes are we not interferring with the natural order. Does this not add to the imbalance nature tries to achieve? Are we damned if we do and damned if we don't?
2006-08-11 11:27:37 · 7 answers · asked by Overt Operative 6 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
It sounds like you have been reading Nietzsche. I believe that be are damned if we do and damned if we don't. "If we suffer because of the misery of others, filling our sky with clouds, who will pay the consequences?" I understand your thinking, but I don't think the majority of people do.
2006-08-11 11:35:59 · answer #1 · answered by Federico 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Famine stricken countries, earthquakes victims are not in the natural order of things. They are calamities,the products of forces beyond their control. So helping them out is definitely a natural act of human compassion and kindness.
Does this not add to the imbalance nature tries to achieve? what you meant is balance ,right. By extending a helping hand you are actually restoring the natural order or state of things before the calamities..... that mother nature intended. how could such actions cause the extinction of mankind or erode at its very existence? Therefore in this instance, the phrase damed if you do, damned if you don't doesn't apply here at all.
2006-08-11 20:10:19 · answer #2 · answered by rosieC 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The term "natural order" is the problem here. It assumes there is some grand plan, and that human actions are not part of this plan.
Our actions may be damaging to us (as in the case of global warming) or they may no be (as in the case of healthier food alternatives), but to assume our actions are in any way unnatural is to assume we are unnatural.
To come back to your specific comment about the goodness of humans (helping the hungry) being bad, it seems a silly question. The desire to help one another has been instrumental in our survival as a species, and while any action may have unforseen conseqences, the consequences of NOT helping are much more immediately and clearly bad. So, given the choice between helping others and not helping, helping should win every time.
2006-08-11 18:42:43 · answer #3 · answered by Steve 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yeah, totally. I don't know if ir should veen be considered a virtue to feed and make healthy our overcrowded race. Anyone interested in changing the world should read Ishamel by Daniel Quinn--it explains how ever since agriculture began, the human race has had some twisted notion that we have the right to take over the world...
2006-08-11 18:33:03 · answer #4 · answered by BoofoX 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
if the wealth and resorces of the world were shared equally, in the short term the starving would eat and the needy would be satisfied but evenually the once rich would be rich again and the downtrodden would resume thier place. there will always be leaders and followers,good and evil deeds will always be done. we must strive to understand how much is enough ... but we never will.
2006-08-11 18:36:55 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Everything can be argued, but to what accord shall there be balance or even this sentimental line "prosperity for all".
Only thing missing here is crackers.
2006-08-11 20:09:23 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It could be argued but first someone needs to bring up the dispute to make an argument.........
2006-08-11 18:31:11 · answer #7 · answered by lttlbt22 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋