You're not very compassionate..
..no, I'm not.
Wednesday, November 22, 2006 by Draginol | Discussion: Life Journals
A couple of years ago I wrote this blog about my own personal origins. In various debates on JU I know I come across as a total jerk. And there is a reason for that -- I am a jerk. I'm not proud of being a jerk, it's just something I've come to realize over the years. There are worse things than being a jerk though.
But what exactly is a jerk? A jerk, like most epitaphs, is someone who is not conforming to some rule of our society. As a society, we have an unwritten set of rules of how people are supposed to behave. I think a lot of people, especially men, are jerks. The difference is that most people have the good grace to at least try not to act like a jerk.
And I do try to not be a jerk most of the time and indeed, I'm not a jerk most of the time. If I'm around people I care about I'm willing to invest the effort to be a better person. I think many people can relate to that -- more than would care to relate. I know plenty of men and women that are cranky and impatient but do their best to soldier forth and not bite the heads off people.
But when I deal with strangers, I...just...don't...care.
Being a jerk isn't about being malicious to strangers. When I play games on-line I never grief. I'll even go out of my way when playing RTSs to make sure the other person is having a good time. Being a jerk doesn't mean I'm not empathic. And I enjoy, for whatever reason, making sure other people, even strangers, have a good time when they're playing a game with me. So I'm not really being nice as a selfless act, I'm not because I like being nice to strangers. I'm selfish. Self involved.
Being self involved is the essence of being a jerk. Or, I should say, being self involved and not having the good graces to conform to social expectations.
The inner jerk really comes out online. If someone annoys me on my personal blog, I'll blacklist them. I see people on JU all the time take holier than thou views about not blacklisting people. To me, those people just seem weak. But whatever. When I'm on my personal blog, it's all about me. I'll happily debate someone who has very different views. A lot of my good friends are very left-wing and I enjoy their company. It's not about people agreeing with me, it's about having people who can intelligently discuss a subject and show some level of respect.
The older I get and the more I read, the more contempt I have for the average participant in on-line debates. I understand most people are uninformed on issues and that most people are not very sharp. That's fine. But I have little patience for those same people who then choose to debate on some particular issue, especially politics. Debates on politics require some knowledge on history. And most people who debate politics can't be bothered to read history and that I find incredibly annoying.
And so, as a jerk, I am pretty candid about what I think about people's opinions. There are a lot of people woh are just plain losers. And nice people don't resort to thinking other people are losers. But the fact is, lots of people are losers. Not most people mind you. If you randomly select someone, odds are you'll find they're a good and decent person. But it seems today we live in a climate in which it is impolite to acknowledge anyone as being a "loser". To many people, life is about unearned self-esteem rather than achievement.
Jerks, being self involved, don't tend to have endless compassion for strangers. I certainly don't. I care not at all for people who don't work. If they're disabled -- truly disabled -- then I support helping them. But other people, no, could care less. They could starve. Whether that be the third generation welfare mother with 4 out of wedlock children or the 40 year old drunk who can't hold a job. I don't hold any malice towards these people. I don't want them to starve or be on the streets. No, it's just that I don't care if they are. The gazelle who runs for its life and still gets killed by the lion I can have compassion for. The gazelle that just sits there looking at the lion coming at them I don't have compassion for. Natural selection.
I have little patience for class envy either. Someone being richer than me doesn't hurt me at all. Class envy is a symptom of being a loser. If you are jealous of the possessions other people have, then grow up and get a life and a clue. It's just pathetic when someone sits around moaning about "the rich". It's pretty rare to meet an American who grew up poorer than I did. But I never felt envious of people who had more material things than me. How does their wealth hurt me? Good for them I always felt.
I'm "rich" by any definition of the term but I didn't get there by being ruthless or money grubbing. I got there through the voluntary choices of literally millions of people who exchanged their money for the goods and services I produced. So when I hear someone say that I should be doing "more" to help those in "need" I tend to have very little compassion. The reason being that I resent compassion being measured in what PERCENT of my income I hand out rather than the raw total. But that's a different topic. The pont is, "rich" people don't become rich in this country at the point of a gun. And money isn't everything. Too many people get fixated on money and it is ususally to their detriment.
Arrogance is another ingredient of being a jerk. And I'm really arrogant. But again, the older I get, the more I realize that yea, I really do know a lot more than most people on the topics I participate in. And as a jerk, I just don't have the good grace to be polite or patient with people so I'm arrogant. That isn't to say that I think I'm particularly intelligent or knowledgeable on all issues. I simply pick and choose what I want to talk about.
Another thing about being an arrogant, uncompassionate, self-involved jerk is that you make conclusions on people and can quickly decide whether what they think matters. And when I say "matters" I mean it in a specific sense (i.e. I believe everyone have the right to speak their opinion so in that sense it matters).
For example, a lot of the equivicators on the war on terror or taxes or whatever topic is being discussed don't matter. Their opinions are worthless. People who don't take a stand or have no firm principles don't matter in the real world. They're either working for the government in some way or they're probably some low level drone somewhere. Not always, but usually (20 years of experience in dealing with these kinds of people talking here).
Having strong opinions or taking stands on issues or making decisions may not lead to success, but not taking a clear position and not making decisions leads to nowhere. The world is run by people who make decisions. You can tell people who don't make decisions because they're the ones who scream out about stereotyping or generalizing. People who make decisions know you have to generalize to get things done (right or wrong). So the instant I see someone screaming about generalizing I know that that person's opinion is irrelevant and can be discounted.
To conclude this rambling essay. Being a jerk doesn't necessarily involve malice. I can't think of any people here on JU or elsewhere that I "dislike". Not a single person.
I can't think of anyone or anything in this world that I "hate". Being a jerk isn't about hating or disliking things. Quite the opposite, it's about apathy for me. I just don't care about things as much as society deems we should care (or more accurately, as much as people are supposed to pretend to care).
I believe the best system is the system in which we help each other by doing what is in our own best interest. So while I'm not proud that I'm a jerk, I don't think me being a jerk harms anyone and in fact has helped people. I don't spend energy worrying about strangers. I spend energy producing. And by producing, I help people because of the nature of our system. But I don't really care either way that that is the outcome. ![]()
Reply #22 Thursday, November 23, 2006 7:11 PM
| Sometimes doing the "right thing" can also be the thing that's best for you personally. |
But the more it is, the less moral weight your decision gets. Feeding your own children is good, but not as good as feeding the same number of children who aren't related to you. Buying a raffle ticket is good, but not as good as just giving the dollar unasked.
| 'A cause designed to improve the lot of humanity as a whole' |
Windows improved the lot of humanity as a whole, so this definition is really all about the word "designed." Your intent matters, maybe even more than your effectiveness.
I'd restrict the really worthy causes to "things that will relieve suffering, not just make content people better off." Opera and laptops are nice, but they don't really look that worthy when the same dollars could be spent to kill Guinea worm or cancer or something.
Reply #23 Thursday, November 23, 2006 9:07 PM
| Windows improved the lot of humanity as a whole, so this definition is really all about the word "designed." |
Well yes, but poking a hole in a wall isn't exactly a sophisticated science. I'm not sure we need to fund it. People are fully capable of working it out for themselves.
Reply #24 Thursday, November 23, 2006 10:07 PM
| Feeding your own children is good, but not as good as feeding the same number of children who aren't related to you. |
I TOTALLY disagree with this, and would further suggest that this kind of thinking leads to even MORE suffering.
People who take care of themselves and their own families are good for society because a) it's one less group of people dependent on others, freeing up resources for other people in need and
How is feeding children who aren't related to you MORE good than feeding your own children? In what way is that better?
Imagine how much poverty and suffering could be done away with if everyone simply chose to take care of themselves and those in their immediate circle of friends/family. Each family dedicated to providing for its own is one less family that will use up resources/charity that are needed by people who are fundamentally unable to provide for their own needs by no fault of their own.
Reply #25 Thursday, November 23, 2006 10:18 PM
Imagine how much poverty and suffering could be done away with if everyone simply chose to take care of themselves and those in their immediate circle of friends/family. Each family dedicated to providing for its own is one less family that will use up resources/charity that are needed by people who are fundamentally unable to provide for their own needs by no fault of their own. |
I totally agree. Self-reliance should be the first aim of any charity, and it will always work better if it starts close to home.
Reply #26 Friday, November 24, 2006 4:31 PM
| 'A cause designed to improve the lot of humanity as a whole' would do. The Gates' funding of research into AIDS and literacy makes humanity as a whole better off because it improves the chances of genius being found and fostered to maturity. |
Bill Gates, running Microsoft has done more to help humanity as a whole than sending money to AIDS and Malaria victims in Africa. (IMO).
That's why I asked. People doing what they are best at tends to provide more benefits to others than people doing what seems nicest.
It's like the age old throw back "Well if you support the war so much, Draginol, why don't you go join the army?". Which would help the military more? Having a 35 year old geekling join the army or that same 35 year old generating a couple million dollars a year in tax revenue?
A lot of people really like to just pretend that the money generation of people shouldn't count. Which is the kinder deed? The son who goes to his mother's house to help repair the roof or the son who contracts professional roof repairmen to repair the roof? Most people fixate on intentions rather than results. I know that from personal experience. 
Reply #27 Friday, November 24, 2006 4:35 PM
| NoNoun writes: Windows improved the lot of humanity as a whole, so this definition is really all about the word "designed." Your intent matters, maybe even more than your effectiveness. |
This is a great quote because it really does seperate conservatives from liberals. This is, IMO, a valid belief system but it also demonstrates why conservatives and liberals disagree and often think poorly of one another -- they start out with different premises.
For me, results are the key. Bill Gates got his money from Windows. Had he led a life closer to Mother Theresa, those billions wouldn't be available to give to children.
Living a life of enlightened self interest leads to a better world IMO than a world of selfless sacrifice.
Reply #28 Friday, November 24, 2006 4:44 PM
| Reply #23 But the more it is, the less moral weight your decision gets. Feeding your own children is good, but not as good as feeding the same number of children who aren't related to you. Buying a raffle ticket is good, but not as good as just giving the dollar unasked. |
You actually completely missed my point. You stated that "Morality is about doing the opposite of what would naturally be better for you" which is simply untrue. One can do a lot of things that would "be the opposite of what would naturally be better for you" and still not be morally sound, so your statement as you made it is untrue in that sense.
It's also untrue because one can do something based upon a moral decision and it can still be good that person as well. That in no way diminishes the morality of the act itself.
I am not addressing degrees of morality, but rather the statement which you made, which is inaccurate to say the least. I know what you meant to say, but you failed to actually say it. Your statement, as you presented it, is highly inaccurate.
You seem to be confusing morality and charity in your statements. They are two different things. A charitable act may or may not also be a moral one depending upon one's motivation and/or personal gain, but a moral act or decision is a moral act or decision regardless of personal benefit or gain.
Reply #29 Friday, November 24, 2006 8:12 PM
Which world do you think ends up with more misery?
The world in which people are made to feel like they should sacrifice their own self interest to help strangers.
Or
The world in which people are made to feel good about behaving in theor own self interest.
Reply #30 Friday, November 24, 2006 8:27 PM
| Reply #30 Which world do you think ends up with more misery? The world in which people are made to feel like they should sacrifice their own self interest to help strangers. Or The world in which people are made to feel good about behaving in theor own self interest. |
If you're speaking in absolutes, both would result in a lot of misery for someone. Nobody should be made to feel that they have to always sacrifice their own interest for someone else's. That will result in guilt over doing anything for self, and misery in general.
Nor should people always act solely in a selfish manner (in their own self interest). That will also result in misery as nobody would ever do anything for anyone else out of the goodness of their hearts.
In the real world, there's a middle ground where people would naturally do both. A truly moral person would act against their own self interest if that was the correct moral choice in a given situation, and a charitable person would sacrifice to give a hungry person something to eat. Both of these people would still generally act in their own interest in most situations as does everyone.
In the real world most things fall somewhere in the middle ground.
Reply #31 Saturday, November 25, 2006 12:36 AM
| Feeding your own children is good, but not as good as feeding the same number of children who aren't related to you. |
I'm going to address this elsewhere. Maybe if you saw the fallout of such a philosophy, you wouldn't think it was so noble.
Reply #32 Saturday, November 25, 2006 3:33 AM
| Imagine how much poverty and suffering could be done away with if everyone simply chose to take care of themselves and those in their immediate circle of friends/family. |
I understand why what I said would be dumb if everybody just swapped their kids for someone else's. On the other hand, what you're saying sounds kind of like this: "Love my neighbor as myself? Why not just have everybody love themself as themself, then everybody will be loved by someone!" But I think MasonM is right, I'm mixing up the difference between morality and charity. I guess charity is the "extra credit" morality, and I just take for granted routine morality like not killing anybody, feeding your kids, etc.
| Your intent matters, maybe even more than your effectiveness. |
Cases where most people agree with this is that you don't blame a tower for falling on you or a lion for eating you. If you see entrepreneurs as just acting like mechanical self-interest machines, you won't give them any credit for what they make for you. Like if a beaver built a dam and made you a nice swimming hole. Maybe because most people aren't entrepreneurs and don't understand that in their morality, creating wealth is a moral command.
| Which world do you think ends up with more misery? The world in which people are made to feel like they should sacrifice their own self interest to help strangers. Or The world in which people are made to feel good about behaving in their own self interest. |
World 1 sounds like people pull together to help out, but they have more guilt and more fights about whether people are freeloading.
World 2 sounds like people get to do what they want, but people who need help don't get help and they know nobody feels bad about that.
I think the cases of acute misery in world 2 outweigh the unpleasantness of the extra duty everybody has in world 1.
Reply #33 Saturday, November 25, 2006 9:39 AM
I won't say much about class warfare; I think my own views on the matter are clear.
But Mother Theresa is a really BAD example of somebody who did good in the world. She was a religious fanatic who PROMOTED suffering as a way of "being like Jesus." She took money from dictators (like Duvalier in Haiti) and kept the people she was "helping" in abject squalor and misery so that they could get some sort of twisted enlightenement.
If we're comparing her to Bill Gates, well, then there IS no comparison. Gates has done far, far more to help those in need than Mother Theresa, he's been far more honest about his motivations, and despite some questionable business methods, he's still the better example of compassion in this comparison. Mother Theresa was a twisted, evil little woman who had the benefit of a great propaganda machine.
Cheers.
Reply #34 Saturday, November 25, 2006 1:36 PM
| If you're speaking in absolutes, both would result in a lot of misery for someone. |
You can't state that as a fact. Show evidence that someone acting in their own best interest will cause pain to someone else.
Reply #35 Saturday, November 25, 2006 1:45 PM
| In the real world, there's a middle ground where people would naturally do both. A truly moral person would act against their own self interest if that was the correct moral choice in a given situation, and a charitable person would sacrifice to give a hungry person something to eat. Both of these people would still generally act in their own interest in most situations as does everyone. In the real world most things fall somewhere in the middle ground. |
I don't think it's in the middle by a long shot. I think it's mostly people acting in their own self interest most of the time. I think disaster occurs when people start arguing that we should sacrifice for others. That is the basis of Communism incidentally. That we are putting the interests of society above our own. It doesn't work.
A society based on enlightened self interest in my opinion has a lot less misery. I think you'll find that the people who accomplish the most real good for other people are believers in enlightened self interest.
Reply #36 Saturday, November 25, 2006 5:48 PM
| I think disaster occurs when people start arguing that we should sacrifice for others. |
Your philosophy is quite interesting Draginol. You preach this callous disregard for the good of others and the selfish creed of 'enlightened self-interest' and yet you do a lot which seems in total opposition to your philosophy, including running this website. You're a man of many contradictions.
| That we are putting the interests of society above our own. It doesn't work. |
It does work, but not when everyone has to do it. We always need a few to fall on the grenade to save their friends and show us how glorious the world would be if only humanity had a widespread capacity for selflessness. These people are regularly lionised - the brave in war, the doctor who sacrifices their life to medicins sans frontiers, the microcredit bank owner etc.
Occasional selflessness makes the world a better place in my view. It wouldn't survive legislation and in fact never has, but it's not the negative your argument seems to be suggesting.
Reply #37 Saturday, November 25, 2006 6:29 PM
| Show evidence that someone acting in their own best interest will cause pain to someone else. |
I can think of an example in your theoretical scenario.
Let's say that one guy in a group falls and breaks his leg. Let's also say that the group as a whole has a goal to achieve.
Obviously if the other members of the group chose to act only in their own self interest they would leave the fallen member to suffer and die.
In order for the fallen member of the group to receive any aid, someone must choose to act in his interest instead of their own.
Reply #38 Saturday, November 25, 2006 6:38 PM
| I don't think it's in the middle by a long shot. I think it's mostly people acting in their own self interest most of the time. |
The key word here is most of the time. You presented two extremes and I stated that the truth lies in the middle of the two which I maintain is true and you must also believe so by the statement "most of the time" which indicates that sometimes people do act more in the interest of others.
Yes, most people do act in their own interest most of the time. That's a given and the human race would likely not have survived for very long if it were otherwise. But most people do also act in the interest of others at times as well. It isn't all or nothing at either end of the spectrum, which was my point. That middle ground can be pretty wide and varied when compared to the two extremes.
I agree with you that the argument that "we" must act in the interests of others is not the way to go. Forcing or coercing someone to act in another's interest is neither moral or productive. Most people will help out another person if they are able and given the chance, without the need to be coerced.
I really don;t think we actually disagree here. I was just responding to the two hypothetical extremes you proposed, neither of which are realistic or desirable. For a society to function effectively the people can't be totally selfless or totally selfish. The naturally occurring broad middle ground is what works and is what is generally true.
Reply #39 Sunday, November 26, 2006 12:41 AM
Plugging different resources into the same scenario, maybe I hire all the workers to staff my profitable software company. Elsewhere, some guy can't get field hands and starves. Are you seriously asking this question? Of course acting in my self-interest is going to cause harm to some, it's just that the benefits to others outweigh it. K-Mart's CEO gets fired because Wal-Mart's CEO cut prices. Children die because the self-interest of either parents or toy manufacturers doesn't cover making everything ultra-safe. And that's not even using any examples from all the zero-sum games out there, like if my self-interest is served by crashing my competitor's Web site.
Reply #40 Sunday, November 26, 2006 1:01 AM
| Your philosophy is quite interesting Draginol. You preach this callous disregard for the good of others and the selfish creed of 'enlightened self-interest' and yet you do a lot which seems in total opposition to your philosophy, including running this website. You're a man of many contradictions. |
I don't have a callous disregard for the good of others. I just don't really care that much about the fate of strangers.
Let's use JoeUser.com as an example. The site exists because of my self-interest. I want a blog site where what I write gets read by more people. To do that, I need there to be more content and more activity. To do that, I opened it up so that others could do the same thing. By helping others, I help myself.
If you look at how JU is designed, it's the fulfillment of enlightened self interest. By helping yourself, you help others. The more people who come to read what I write, the more people are exposed to what you and everyone else writes. They in turn, get their own readers who are exposed to my writings as well.
As I've written other times when someone has tried to argue that I should be serving them or something, I care not at all whether people blog here other than how it helps my own agenda of increasing site popularity to increase my own readership.
JU is the product of enlightened self interest in action and demonstrates how enlightened self interest helps others.
Please login to comment and/or vote for this skin.
Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
- Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums and downloading skins.
- Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
- Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
- It's simple, and FREE!







Reply #21 Thursday, November 23, 2006 6:13 PM
'A cause designed to improve the lot of humanity as a whole' would do. The Gates' funding of research into AIDS and literacy makes humanity as a whole better off because it improves the chances of genius being found and fostered to maturity.