Does "Can" imply "Should"?

[Plato]

If you saw a person drowning and you could save them, would you feel morally obliged to save them? If you had the cure to a disease and somebody had that disease, would you feel obliged to give them that cure?

I assume, most sane decent people would answer yes to those questions. If you have the means to help somebody you should, right?

However, extend this premise fully and you come to the conclusion that since we all have, frankly unquantifiable ability to help other people, do we not have an obligation to use that ability? I could have helped that person overcome a drug addiction but it was too much effort. I could have made a significant contribution to medical research and indirectly saved thousands of lives... but it would take up too much time.

You might say it's unreasonable to do everything in your power to help people. But where do you draw the line between obligation and not obligation?

Of course in reality there is no intrinsic obligation to do anything. I'm just saying that if you hold that we should help people where possible, you should be devoting your life to the optimization of helping others. If you don't you are being logically inconsistent.

When you properly think about the amount you could achieve towards helping others in your life time, the mind boggles. We could each improve the lives of thousands of others in a real way. All we have to do is reach out and do it. To NOT do it, is to deny people the happiness you could offer them.

Just saying.

Likewise, if you decide that you want to serve yourself, every moment spent wasting time in idle distractions that could have been put to good use, is harming yourself. It is not ok to give 75% of your potential if you really tried. That is in effect to say you don't care about yourself.

[Holistic Star]

I've found that at least one of my friends does a lot better when I get off my white horse and stop charging in to save the day! It gives her room to think, grow and breathe!

There's a fine line between helping someone grow by showing them what to do, and letting them learn from their own mistakes. The examples you give are literally life or death situations. They tend to be different from general growth / life situations where no-one is likely to die, but without your help they might go backwards, make mistakes, embarrass themselves and yet hopefully learn from the pain. There is a difference in my mind.

[Plato]

I am talking about things that matter. Every second of every day that you waste could have gone to improving the world in some way.

Sure, sometimes leaving things be may be the optimal strategy in some cases. But that does not mean you shouldn't be using that time to do something that does require attention.

[CroMagna]

I agree. "Can" implies "should". You should always be either helping others or helping yourself. Leisure is only to fuel up, it's not a way of life.

[Angela]

Nope.

There is no obligation and there is no *should*. There is just choice.

Some choices work better than others.

[Plato]

Originally Posted by Angela

Nope.

There is no obligation and there is no *should*. There is just choice.

Some choices work better than others.

Sure. My point is though, that we all have the power to do something and mostly choose not to for whatever lame reason. People seem to hold this belief that they are "good" and yet don't offer the world what they could. It's contradictory.

A child died of a preventable illness? Guess what, it's MY fault. I caused that.

I suppose this leads to being a lightworker... when you take responsibility for the world. Or a darkworker when you take responsibility for yourself.

edit: not my fault... just my doing...

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Plato

Sure. My point is though, that we all have the power to do something and mostly choose not to for whatever lame reason. People seem to hold this belief that they are "good" and yet don't offer the world what they could. It's contradictory...

So what?

edit: I don't mean that in a dismissive way. I mean: so what if people judge themselves or if their beliefs are contradictory in your perspective? so what if you see their reasons for their choices as lame? What does that mean about you, or about them, or about the world?

Where are your questions coming from, is what I mean by "so what"? A desire to make a difference, or to vent, or to tell people they're lame, or to see something new about your own perspective? What is possible for you out of asking these questions?

[Eisho]

Originally Posted by Plato

If you saw a person drowning and you could save them, would you feel morally obliged to save them? If you had the cure to a disease and somebody had that disease, would you feel obliged to give them that cure?

I assume, most sane decent people would answer yes to those questions. If you have the means to help somebody you should, right?

However, extend this premise fully and you come to the conclusion that since we all have, frankly unquantifiable ability to help other people, do we not have an obligation to use that ability? I could have helped that person overcome a drug addiction but it was too much effort. I could have made a significant contribution to medical research and indirectly saved thousands of lives... but it would take up too much time.

You might say it's unreasonable to do everything in your power to help people. But where do you draw the line between obligation and not obligation?

Of course in reality there is no intrinsic obligation to do anything. I'm just saying that if you hold that we should help people where possible, you should be devoting your life to the optimization of helping others. If you don't you are being logically inconsistent.

When you properly think about the amount you could achieve towards helping others in your life time, the mind boggles. We could each improve the lives of thousands of others in a real way. All we have to do is reach out and do it. To NOT do it, is to deny people the happiness you could offer them.

Just saying.

Likewise, if you decide that you want to serve yourself, every moment spent wasting time in idle distractions that could have been put to good use, is harming yourself. It is not ok to give 75% of your potential if you really tried. That is in effect to say you don't care about yourself.

I think you are using some extreme examples early on (people drowning for example) and then making a more general point.

Where the dividing line is, I truly don't know. You make the best decision you can at the time with the knowledge and feeling you have. It isn't always clear that there is a problem or that the person wants or requires your help or that there is anything you can do about it in any case. It's something you do case by case. Undoubtedly I could have helped more people in my life...but I didn't always know they wanted help...same with me...I have needed help before but I haven't asked for it.

Cheers,

Eisho

[Holistic Star]

By assumming you are able to help people you are assuming that they are broken and need fixing and that you have all the answers.

The KEY thing I have learned in the last couple of years is that while I know a lot about PD, I don't know what is best for everyone. Everyone I know is doing the best they can. I might personally think they are a mess, but that is my interpretation. I've found assuming that everyone is creative, resourceful and whole and perfect just the way they are to be very helpful for myself and those around me.

What I've found is the more I focus on other people's problems and what is 'wrong' with their life, the easier it is to ignore the problems that need fixing in my life.

My approach now is when I see someone who is 'out of control' or who 'needs my help' I think about where that is reflected in my own life and work on fixing that. Often the best help you can give is to be in inspiration to others. I don't think I am there yet, but I am working on it.

Does that mean I ignore people who might need help - no.
I might offer help. In fact I probably will offer help. The point is I OFFER. They are free to reject my help. I might suggest a book, a website or offer practical support. If they want it, they can have it.

Saying that, if I saw someone drowning then yes I would rescue them if I could. (In fact my brother did just this a few years ago - I'm so proud of him!) They would still be free to reject my offer of a rope if they wanted to.

[Plato]

Originally Posted by Angela

So what?

edit: I don't mean that in a dismissive way. I mean: so what if people judge themselves or if their beliefs are contradictory in your perspective? so what if you see their reasons for their choices as lame? What does that mean about you, or about them, or about the world?

Where are your questions coming from, is what I mean by "so what"? A desire to make a difference, or to vent, or to tell people they're lame, or to see something new about your own perspective? What is possible for you out of asking these questions?

If it helps you understand me better, I want to reinforce and clarify my belief in this viewpoint by arguing for it.

[Plato]

Originally Posted by Eisho

I think you are using some extreme examples.

My point is, in a lifetime of dedication, you could do extreme things!

You have power to change the world as we know it. You really do.

[Plato]

Originally Posted by Holistic Star

By assumming you are able to help people you are assuming that they are broken

"Broken" is relative and I'm not interested in relativity. I'm interested in ALTERNATIVES. Don't judge against what is normal. Judge against what a person COULD BE.

To clarify, because I obviously didn't spell it out properly: to not improve somebody's life is to actively harm them.

You have the power to do it. How are you going to use it? Pretend you don't have it?

Just think what you could acheive in 30 years of dedicated work to whatever you perceive to be the area in the world you could make the largest difference to.

p.s. your friends may be people you can "help" occassionally, but what they really want is for you to be cool. The people you can help you probably don't know and maybe never will. I personally never met Martin Luther King but I think the whole world has benefitted from him.

[JimOfferman]

Originally Posted by Plato

to not improve somebody's life is to actively harm them

I'd say it's a bit of a stretch to say that I'm actively harming the six billion people I don't know. My life has as little effect on them as theirs has on me.

Also, who is to decide what does and does not count as an improvement to someone's live? Obvious save-someone-from-drowning examples aside, I haven't got the slightest clue how I could be improving your life. What's great for me, might be awful for you.

Heck, even in the drowning case I might be saving you from an otherwise successful suicide attempt. Are you better off staying alive? I would certainly think so, but I don't know squat about you. I cannot decide what's best for you - only you can!

[CroMagna]

If you aren't helping people you're actively harming them? I think that's dubious. If I don't feel harmed, I haven't been harmed. I don't feel harmed by people living in China.

People can do extreme things with 30 years of dedication? Like what?

In ordinary, everyday life, there are no heroes or villains. There is no good and evil. There is only the mundane.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Plato

If it helps you understand me better, I want to reinforce and clarify my belief in this viewpoint by arguing for it.

I can see where that would be powerful if a person were taking 100% responsibility. And maintaining a viewpoint about what others should do, or what their obligations are -- or judging their choices and actions -- I can't see where that generates any power to make a difference. That's why I asked "so what?"

You are free to clarify your belief, of course; I'm just wondering what it provides for you to nurture beliefs about what others *should* do, or *could* be. Others are not going to change their behavior because you think they *should* or *could* -- you know that, right? Maybe you are thinking about this stuff so that you can make your own, more effective choices, then? But that is 100% you, and 0% others.

[CroMagna]

Originally Posted by Angela

Nope.

There is no obligation and there is no *should*. There is just choice.

Some choices work better than others.

Technically "should" doesn't exist, because it's just an ideal, a fantasy in one's mind.

But I think should's exist in the practical sense and are good things. For example, "people should not own slaves" then led to abolition, rather than "you have a choice in whether or not to own slaves."

So I still think that "can" definitely implies "should".

[Plato]

Angels: you're right, I might as well be talking to myself, because it's ME I'm trying to convince! I certainly don't think anybody *should* do anything. But that's not really the point I was making anyway. The insight, that partly comes from reading Steve's articles but mostly from a debate we had in a philosophy class, is that you cannot say in some circumstances you should do something, and not extend that to all circumstances because there are always things you could do to make a meaningful difference.

Jim: I'm not saying we have control of the world and everything in it. I'm saying we have massive power to change the world in specific ways. Our task is to decide where we can have the greatest impact. You're right that we can never know for sure that we are taking positive action, but I don't think skepticism is helpful here. Sure, reasoned and careful thought is important before deciding to do something, but skepticism gets us nowhere.

[Plato]

Originally Posted by CroMagna

People can do extreme things with 30 years of dedication? Like what?

Are you serious? Are you not aware of the things you have the potential to do if only you tried? Look at what humans have achieved! Go out and look at a bridge that can support the weight of many tons of vehicles. Somebody designed that bridge! That is a human creation. We can take out a person's liver and give them a new one without them dying. That's absolutely incredible. Do you think everything that can ever be done has been done? Not even a scratch on the surface. It's waiting to be done by willing individuals. I won't say anything is possible but you can achieve an amazing amount if you try.

If you really wanted you could probably speak every commonly spoken language in the world by this time next year. You COULD do it if you tried. It would require making time for it but it would be possible.

You could be a millionaire within 15 years without a shadow of a doubt if you were truly dedicated. Probably better.

You have to choose what to focus on of course, but if you optimize your efficiency you won't recongize your life in five years because you will have come so far.

Originally Posted by CroMagna

In ordinary, everyday life, there are no heroes or villains. There is no good and evil. There is only the mundane.

Try breaking your leg and tell me it's mundane while you're screaming in pain.

Sorry to be graphic, but hopefully it illustrates a point -- there IS good and bad. It requires stepping out of your comfort zone and actually living to be aware of that. Comfort is the beginning of nihilism.

The last week I have been massively challenging myself and the harder I push myself the more I know good and bad because I am experiencing it.

[funchy]

It has to be a balance between the help you can give and the resources it drains of yourself to give that help. If you don't set limits, you'll end up with burn-out and then you're no help to anyone including yourself.

Saving a drowning person only takes a moment. Helping a drug addict kick drugs may be something you help him struggle with for the rest of his life. You might be able to help one drug-addict friend but you cannot help dozens of them.

"Obligation" is a term defined by your own personal belief system. Some people are totally self-centered and don't have any obligation to anyone but themselves. Others are very giving. How much you "should" give is a personal decision.

[ns123]

When some one says to me: Ns, you should X. I always resist. But when they say, "you know, Ns, You could do X." I think, hmmm... that's a possibility.

That's just my personal experience with should vs could.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Plato

But that's not really the point I was making anyway. The insight, that partly comes from reading Steve's articles but mostly from a debate we had in a philosophy class, is that you cannot say in some circumstances you should do something, and not extend that to all circumstances because there are always things you could do to make a meaningful difference.

Would you please clarify that? I guess I don't understand the point you were making --- and I really don't understand this statement in the quote above.

...you cannot say in some circumstances you should do something, and not extend that to all circumstances because there are always things you could do to make a meaningful difference.

-- I can't make that statement fit into my brain. Can you help me?

Our task is to decide where we can have the greatest impact.

That may be your task, but it's not necessarily the right/correct/most moral task for everyone. It sounds like you are *shoulding* pretty heavily here, like:

Plato: "We have the ability to make a massive difference, and to save people from drowning, and to choose not to make a massive difference or to save people from drowning is an immoral choice. In fact, every moment you are not making a massive difference, and in the case of every drowning person you don't save, you are immoral/wrong/bad."

I'm paraphrasing, based on what you've said in this thread, and it sounds like a big ol' *should* to me. What am I missing?

[CroMagna]

Originally Posted by Plato

Are you serious? Are you not aware of the things you have the potential to do if only you tried? Look at what humans have achieved! Go out and look at a bridge that can support the weight of many tons of vehicles. Somebody designed that bridge! That is a human creation. We can take out a person's liver and give them a new one without them dying. That's absolutely incredible. Do you think everything that can ever be done has been done? Not even a scratch on the surface. It's waiting to be done by willing individuals. I won't say anything is possible but you can achieve an amazing amount if you try.

You can achieve an amazing amount within yourself. Of that I have no doubt. You can learn 49 languages, I know someone who has. I was pointing out that you can not do things in relation to others, for example combat their evil, at least not anymore. All you can do is change your perspective or lifestyle. Everything has already been done. Changing your perspective and/or lifestyle normally suffices.

Originally Posted by Plato

Try breaking your leg and tell me it's mundane while you're screaming in pain.

Sorry to be graphic, but hopefully it illustrates a point -- there IS good and bad. It requires stepping out of your comfort zone and actually living to be aware of that. Comfort is the beginning of nihilism.

The last week I have been massively challenging myself and the harder I push myself the more I know good and bad because I am experiencing it.

There's good and bad but not good and evil per se. Most people are in between, leaning towards good. It's probably impossible for me to break my own leg on purpose.

But I do agree with you that people can serve themselves or others, and therefore should.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by CroMagna

But I do agree with you that people can serve themselves or others, and therefore should.

People can hurt themselves and others, too; so therefore they should?

[Plato]

Originally Posted by Angela

I can't make that statement fit into my brain. Can you help me?

Ok, I thought I'd already said this but *I* am not saying anybody *should* do anything. I am saying most people DO say you should do some things in certain circumstances. This is a totally unextraordinary claim. We see it every day.

What's more, in some circumstances, people feel very strongly that a certain person should take a certain course of action. Can we agree on that?

As another example of something people might feel strongly about:

Person Y is a medical doctor and he knows how to cure a patient of an illness. He has the power to decide whether to administer the treatment or not. If he does not the patient will suffer.

It would be obtuse to suggest that any "decent" person would not want the doctor to administer the treatment.

Meanwhile, there are situations where a person suffers and other, unspecified people, have the power to prevent that suffering but are not directly implicated as being responsible for helping the person. In cases where no specific person is to blaim, but somebody could have theoretically done something, most people shrug their shoulders. This is common sense. It sounds totally reasonable.

I am trying to point out the glaring contradiction in that very common thought process. It is a phenomenon well known to psychology in fact. It is called the "Diffusion of responsibility".

The more people who COULD do something, the less chance there is that ANYBODY will do it.

If one person is in a room and it begins to fill with smoke, they take some form of action to notify an authority and ensure their own safety. However, experiment has shown that if you put somebody in a room full of other people (who are stooges in the experiment) the result is totally different. The room begins to fill with smoke and nobody reacts and so the person being observed does not take action.

A classic example that really happened was the murder that took place in New York in front of hundreds of people in a block of flats. Nobody called the police because everybody assumed that somebody else would do it. If I remember rightly it took over 10 minutes for the murder to take place and in that time nobody did anything.

The comments I have read in this thread to argue otherwise are along the same lines:

"If there is a problem, somebody should do something about it, but because I'm not the only one who could do it, I don't need to."

The main point of my argument is that in life we are constantly presented by this EXACT situation. We COULD do something to help. Always. Every second of every day we could be adressing a problem that anybody could but nobody does.

People even adopt this attitutude towards themselves. I know I do sometimes. I've been spending too much time waiting for something to happen when if I had taken the trouble I could have done so much. Waiting for somebody to do something that changes my life, rather than just doing it.

Every second wasted could be spent doing something that makes a real difference to your life or somebody else's life. I figure it's worth taking the time to learn this for myself.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Plato

Ok, I thought I'd already said this but *I* am not saying anybody *should* do anything. I am saying most people DO say you should do some things in certain circumstances. This is a totally unextraordinary claim. We see it every day.

What's more, in some circumstances, people feel very strongly that a certain person should take a certain course of action. Can we agree on that?

Sure, but again, so what? People feel strongly about a lot of things that I see as delusional or crapacious. Who cares what certain course of action people feel strongly that a certain person should take? It's not my business if people feel that way, common though it may be. Objecting to it would be like me objecting to people loving Kenny G's music -- so what?

I hear you saying you are not saying anybody *should* do anything, but at the same time, you say things like:

Every second wasted could be spent doing something that makes a real difference to your life or somebody else's life. I figure it's worth taking the time to learn this for myself.

...which sounds very much like you're saying that if you're not making a real difference in your or someone else's life (GOOD), then you are wasting your time (BAD) -- in other words, you *should* do the good thing and avoid doing the bad thing. Listen, I don't begrudge you that belief at all, and I encourage you to use it if it helps you live a life you love. It's just that when you make judgements on the actions (or inactions) of others that I feel compelled to chime in, because a) it's not The Truth and b) feeling judged (*shoulded*) isn't much of an incentive to change. That's why I ask you "so what" over and over again -- I'm asking: what is your heart's desire around this? Is it that you want yourself to change, or that you want others to change? Or something else? What are you working towards with this lesson? What would you be generating for yourself and for the world?

[JimOfferman]

Originally Posted by Plato

Jim: I'm not saying we have control of the world and everything in it. I'm saying we have massive power to change the world in specific ways. Our task is to decide where we can have the greatest impact.

I disagree. We are under no obligation to make an impact. We were not presented with a contract at birth that read "Thou shall improve the world in a meaningful way!" Some of us may choose to do so, but it is not a requirement.

You're right that we can never know for sure that we are taking positive action, but I don't think skepticism is helpful here. Sure, reasoned and careful thought is important before deciding to do something, but skepticism gets us nowhere.

I am not a skeptic by any stretch of the imagination, but I do know that there's two sides to every story. Again, what's good for you might be bad for you.

Practical example: if I sell enough music, I'll be able to quit my day job. That's good for me (and my fans), but bad for my boss.

[CroMagna]

Plato, I'm confused about something you said. You said our task is to find out where we can make the greatest impact. But earlier you implied that it's impossible not to make an impact, because you suggested that if you're not actively helping others, you're actively hurting them. That means you're always either making a positive or a negative impact on other people's lives (and your own).

I thought that was interesting food for thought, because people have often wondered: is indifference evil?

I think it was MLK who said that all that is necessary for evil to prosper is for men to do nothing. I wonder, does that mean that not doing anything is inherently a negative impact?

[Plato]

Steve summed up what I mean really nicely in his latest article:

"The dumbest approach you can apply is to sit still and create nothing. Stand there and whine, “I don’t know what to do!”

That’s just lame. I’m sorry for being so blunt, but it is.

If you can’t get a clue as to how to get started creating and delivering some value to people, you must be blind."

- Steve Pavlina

I <3 synchronicity.

This also applies to yourself. There is always something you can be doing to provide value for yourself.

[Holistic Star]

Originally Posted by Plato

This also applies to yourself. There is always something you can be doing to provide value for yourself.

Absolutely, there are tonnes of things I could do right now that create value for myself. It's my choice whether I do that or not.

It is not for me to judge what is of value to other people.

Improving someone's life right now, might not be helping them! Say you have a adult child and as a parent you do everything for them to make them comfortable: you give them money; you do all their washing; you find them job opportunities; drive them everywhere they want; provide them with a rent-free home etc. Yes you might be perceived as helping them, but in the long run, you are harming them because they become immature and unable to cope with life's challenges on their own.

[Plato]

Originally Posted by Holistic Star

It is not for me to judge what is of value to other people.

If you don't make a judgment of what is for the best, then you cannot take action! You need a direction.

In PDFSP this is the element of truth!!! Know reality and what is best for yourself and others.

If you cannot see things that can make a tangible difference you must be burying your head in the sand... or more likely you don't believe in your own power.