Whose Compassion

[Mindonfire]

I would like to know from the people who visit Volconvo about their view on what constitutes compassion. Here is a short story with two questions. Feel free to answer them as you are led.


There is a well known addict who roams a particular neighborhood everyday begging for alms. One morning he walks up to a young man who resides in the neighborhood and begs for money. The young man talks to the addict for a while, but he refuses to give the addict any money and continues on his way. Some time later another young man who is on his way to work walks by. The addict walks up to him and begins to beg once again. The young man reaches into his pocket and gives the addict some money. The addict takes the money and goes on his way. That evening he is found dead from an overdose.

Now I have two questions.
Question #1 Who killed the addict ?
Question #2 Which one of the two men showed compassion?

[Jack]

1) The addict killed himself. To die as a result of risky living of any kind is a form of legal suicide.
2) The second man. Compaasion implies selflessness, giving of yourself. The first man may be considered wiser, more suspicious, realistic, biased, selfish; but he didn't act out of compassion.

[Sonart]

Question #1 Who killed the addict?

The addict killed himself.

Question #2 Which one of the two men showed compassion?

The second man, obviously. He made no judgements about the addict but simply that the he was in need and the man was in a position to help him. What the addict chose to do with that assistance was his decision entirely, and that he managed to die that evening, even if from drugs purchased by the man's generous assistance, was simply chance. The man was, after all, an addict, so it's not like he hadn't taken drugs before.

The first man, on the other hand, presumed to judge the addict and deny him the choice to help himself by buying food, helping his poor mother, buy a beer for a friend or whatever the hell the addict might choose to do with a meager handout.

.

.

[SteveA]

Question #1 Who killed the addict ?

The addict effectively commited suicide, though in a sense noone killed the addict. The addict died of physical/mental problems.

Though if this problem originated from a product that was fraudulently misrepresented, the supplier of the drug could carry some responsibility.

Question #2 Which one of the two men showed compassion?

This depends on what the two men believed the situation to be.

Assuming the first one realized the underlying problem, the first person was more compassionate than the second one.

[Starboy]

Isn't compassion in the eye of the beholder? If the addict had a friend and the friend found a "compassionate" person that gave that friend money which the friend used to by the deadly drugs which killed the friend would there not be some addicts that would realize that the person that didn't give them money did them a big favor?

The problem with "compassion" is that the person that presumes they are helping may in fact be doing greater harm.

Starboy

[Scribbler1]

I agree with everyone on #1. The addict killed himself, whether it was due to weakness, recklessness or a death wish, he killed himself. I don't see where question one actually has any connection with compassion in any way.
#2 is too vague and general a question to answer. It could be the first man in that he may have assumed the addict would spend the money on dope and decided withholding the money would indirectly benefit him. Or it could be the man didn't care at all about the addict.

The second man is a hard call too, as he may well have been compassionate in giving the addict money in the hopes he would use it to eat, as if he knew it would be used on dope he couldn't be seen as compassionate at all. The very act of giving money isn't necessary a compassionate act in itself. He could have deliberately given the addict enough money to allow the addict to go off and kill himself or if he was a wealthy man he could have given the addict a few dollars which meant nothing to him just to get the addict out of his face. Or it could be the man didn't care at all about the addict.

Compassion is more than an act, it is the intent behind the act as well.

[Starboy]

Yes there is an old joke related to this. Many of you may have heard it. I goes something like this.

There was a little bird that was spending the summer up north. As the season began changing to colder weather his friends started flying south. The little bird did not wish to leave yet so he watched his friends depart and stayed behind. Well the weather became even colder and the little bird decided that it was now time to leave. The little bird flew and flew and it became colder and colder. Soon it became so cold and the wind howled so fiercely that the little bird, shivering and exhausted dropped from the sky and managed to land in a barnyard. It lay there forlorn and drained thinking that it had made a big mistake not leaving with its friends and the end was near. At that time a cow walked by and laid a giant pile of manure on top of the bird. The bird thought, 'yeah right, this is all I need, I will not only die but I will do it buried in shit'. But the bird did not die, and it discovered a small opening from which it could breath. And the shit was warm and it revived the bird. The bird realized that all was not lost and that it was alive and might make it through after all. In its joy it let loose with a loud and happy song. A passing fox heard the bird, dug it out and ate it.

The moral of the story is three fold:

1) Not everyone that shits on you is your enemy.
2) Not everyone that digs you out of shit is your friend.
3) If you are over your head in shit but you are warm and comfy, KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT!

Starboy

[Scribbler1]

Lol!!

[Sonart]

Quote by: Scribbler1 #2 is too vague and general a question to answer.

Indeed. I answered the way I did mostly to tweek the threadparent - where've they gone? - who was obviously trying to lay a hook. I took the bait and ran with it, daring them to pull me in... if they can.

But as Scribbler said, the answer is vague. Either one could be considered compassionate or not, depending on what was on their minds.

Still, helping another person, even if that help may be misused, does not discount the compassion of the person offering it.

And turning away, because you think you're preventing someone from harming themselves, is still turning away. You've eased your own conscience, but you haven't necessarily shown any compassion as far as I'm concerned.

.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: Sonart Still, helping another person, even if that help may be misused, does not discount the compassion of the person offering it.

Absolutely. Whether compassion is misplaced or constructive , it is STILL compassion. Even when they turn away, depending of course on the feelings of the potenial giver.

And turning away, because you think you're preventing someone from harming themselves, is still turning away. You've eased your own conscience, but you haven't necessarily shown any compassion as far as I'm concerned..

A valid point, but what can you do? If you don't want to give the junkie money but offer to drive the guy to a clinic and he says he just wants the money and tells you where to stick your ride, you HAVE exhibited compassion although the net effect is the same as walking away.

[Mindonfire]

Quote by: Starboy Yes there is an old joke related to this. Many of you may have heard it. I goes something like this. There was a little bird that was spending the summer up north. As the season began changing to colder weather his friends started flying south. The little bird did not wish to leave yet so he watched his friends depart and stayed behind. Well the weather became even colder and the little bird decided that it was now time to leave. The little bird flew and flew and it became colder and colder. Soon it became so cold and the wind howled so fiercely that the little bird, shivering and exhausted dropped from the sky and managed to land in a barnyard. It lay there forlorn and drained thinking that it had made a big mistake not leaving with its friends and the end was near. At that time a cow walked by and laid a giant pile of manure on top of the bird. The bird thought, 'yeah right, this is all I need, I will not only die but I will do it buried in shit'. But the bird did not die, and it discovered a small opening from which it could breath. And the shit was warm and it revived the bird. The bird realized that all was not lost and that it was alive and might make it through after all. In its joy it let loose with a loud and happy song. A passing fox heard the bird, dug it out and ate it. The moral of the story is three fold: 1) Not everyone that shits on you is your enemy. 2) Not everyone that digs you out of shit is your friend. 3) If you are over your head in shit but you are warm and comfy, KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT! Starboy

That is funny but it is full of truth

[Mindonfire]

Good Day

I will post the answer to this question shortly

[Sonart]

Oh goodie... should we have a drumroll first, before you make your grand entrance and bless us with the answer? :rolleyes:

.

[oranged]

Quote by: Isherwood 1) The addict killed himself. To die as a result of risky living of any kind is a form of legal suicide. 2) The second man. Compaasion implies selflessness, giving of yourself. The first man may be considered wiser, more suspicious, realistic, biased, selfish; but he didn't act out of compassion.

I think he might have acted out of compassion or might not of. The first man defenately did act out of compassion. In such a position, I would have asked the addict if he wanted food. If said yes, I take to a grocery store and buy food for him. By the way, one could say the dealer killed the addict. Or even the authorities, who failed to obtain him and put him in rehab

[Zealot]

Both men showed compassion equally because neither one had a way of knowing for sure what he was going to do with the money.

Zee, very simple!

[gr8ridejester]

Quote by: Mindonfire I would like to know from the people who visit Volconvo about their view on what constitutes compassion. Here is a short story with two questions. Feel free to answer them as you are led. There is a well known addict who roams a particular neighborhood everyday begging for alms. One morning he walks up to a young man who resides in the neighborhood and begs for money. The young man talks to the addict for a while, but he refuses to give the addict any money and continues on his way. Some time later another young man who is on his way to work walks by. The addict walks up to him and begins to beg once again. The young man reaches into his pocket and gives the addict some money. The addict takes the money and goes on his way. That evening he is found dead from an overdose. Now I have two questions. Question #1 Who killed the addict ? Question #2 Which one of the two men showed compassion?

This leaves a lot to chance. There are factors envolved which cannot be determined from the given information. We really don't know what was shared in the conversation with the first young man, nor do we know how much money the second young man gave the addict. Also, we are not sure what the addict overdosed with. It could have been medication (ie. aspirin) for all we know. Also, we're not sure if the overdose was self-inflicted or someone else trying to kill him. Therefore, without first knowing these factors, one truely cannot say who is more compasionate over the other or who killed the addict. It's all relative to the unknown.

[Mindonfire]

Quote by: Zealot Both men showed compassion equally because neither one had a way of knowing for sure what he was going to do with the money. Zee, very simple!

How does a person not know what an addict will do with money when it is given to them.

[Sonart]

Quote by: Mindonfire How does a person not know what an addict will do with money when it is given to them.

??????? So addicts never eat? Your compassionate pre-judgement of people is inspiring.

.

[Mindonfire]

Quote by: Sonart ??????? So addicts never eat? Your compassionate pre-judgement of people is inspiring. .

In case you didn't know a drug addict has a greater chance of using money for drugs than for food.

[gr8ridejester]

Quote by: Mindonfire In case you didn't know a drug addict has a greater chance of using money for drugs than for food.

Yes, but you never mentioned DRUG addict only "addict". Is it right to assume this is what was meant or is this a prejudgement as well?