At its most basic level, empathy helps us to determine if an act is good or evil. It is not, of course, the sole determining factor, but it does help. I can say that taking food from a hungry person is bad because, were I to be hungry and have my food taken from me, I would be condemned to starvation. I would not wish to starve, so I know that condemning another to starvation is bad. Harming a person is wrong, and I can know that because I do not wish to be harmed. If I don't want to be harmed, why then would I wish to harm another person, knowing what I do about harm?
Yet, we seem to lack empathy as a society. Far too many people are willing to ignore the suffering of others because it doesn't affect them directly. As they are not the one suffering, they feel no need to alleviate the suffering of other people. Without empathy, the pain of others becomes "not my problem" and gets totally ignored, or even justified.
Once we remove empathy, it becomes easy to justify harming others. If I want something you have, and I have no empathy, I can just take it from you. After all, I wanted that thing you have, and I had the power to take it from you. Why should I not?
A society without empathy is what we have now. It tells us that our own success is what truly matters, regardless of the costs to others. The garnering of resources is what matters, regardless of how many others must go without due to that hoarding. The pain of others matters not. All that has meaning is your own pleasure, your own personal gain, and anything that gets in the way of your personal benefit is wrong, even if it is the needs of others.
In fact, we are told that those who suffer often brought it on themselves. The destitute are blamed for their own destitution, the mentally ill are damned for their illness, the oppressed are held at fault for their own oppression. We are told that success and failure, pleasure and pain, are earned by one's own efforts, and that we are only responsible for ourselves.
Perhaps worst of all is that we hold up selfish personal gain as a virtue, and sharing of wealth is derided as "communism" or unrealistic. In many cases, attempts to have empathy and be compassionate are ridiculed. We are told to grow up and face the real world when we demand that people step up and care about one another. We are called unrealistic when we ask that people think about the needs of others alongside their own needs.
Why? Because those who refuse compassion must shame those who embrace it to justify their own life choices. By attacking and lambasting those who call for people to have empathy, they can place the onus on those who oppose selfishness. They make us try to justify our compassion, rather than being forced to justify their own heartless lack of empathy.
Imagine if our society practiced empathy instead of blatant selfishness. What if all of us put ourselves in the shoes of other people, and acted according to the needs of everyone? Well, we would all have what we needed! I say that without hyperbole.
If the wealthiest of us truly felt compassion for those suffering due to a lack of basic resources, they would provide what they could to help, and help they could. It is a matter of fact that, if the wealthiest pooled their resources and devoted that to the aid of the less fortunate, we would be able to lift up all those who are downtrodden and care for their needs.
If empathy was taught early on, I think we could fight all manner of bigotries on a more even footing. Hatred of others for who they are would be a lot harder if we all understood the simple truth that we are all human, that we all feel love and pain, and that we all have the same needs.
Of course, there will be people who ask "what does the suffering of others have to do with me?" Quite simply, we all benefit from a more empathetic society. Any of us could one day be put in a position of suffering, one that requires the aid of others to overcome. To look at it from a selfish point of view, a society with empathy would care for any who need care.
Sure, you might be in a good position right now, and may not need any help to get by. That can change at any time. One disaster, and you could be without even the most basic of resources. One health crises, and you could go from being stable to unable to make ends meet. This is a fate that could befall any of us, and if such a time were to come for you, I would think that you would hope that other people would show you some compassion and aid you.
Beyond the selfish angle, I think that we should all want a world wherein people are cared for. I would think that we should all want a world where those who suffer are cared for, and are not left to suffer. Really, I think that we should all want to care for each other.
The thing is, we have enough resources to care for everyone. This is not a matter of debate. We have enough food to feed everyone, enough clothing to clothe everyone, enough housing to house everyone, and enough medicine to provide everyone with medical care. These things are simply true. We need to care enough about other people to provide them with these things. That is the only actual obstacle to us taking care of everyone that needs care.
This could very well mean that those who have the most might have to accept having less, but that should be a matter of course. When a person has one hundred times the wealth of another person, they can easily afford to lose some of that wealth in order to help others not starve. In fact, I would say that this should be expected, and even required, of those who have the most.
Ultimately, we have a choice as a people. Do we care for one another and provide for the benefit of all, or do we allow others to suffer for our own personal benefit? I, for one, cannot accept a world where people deny others their basic needs to garner more resources for themselves, especially when they have no need for those resources. I believe in a world where we elevate everyone, care for everyone, and love everyone, regardless of their needs. Do you?
No comments:
Post a Comment