h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Is our society a genuinely caring one?

If we had a choice of two political parties offering either increased taxation to pay for environmental projects or decreased taxation putting more in our pockets, which would win in a General Election?

Is altruism a dying thing?

I had heard of the following experiment. A group of people were shown images of political debates which had taken place between two candidates to the last (or not so last actually) few US presidencies. Images, but no sound. You couldn't hear what the candidates would say, and you wouldn't be given any accompanying text. Then the people would be asked to "predict" the outcome of the election: there would be a majority of correct answers. (I'm sorry this description is sloppy .)

Now, did I dream this up or was it real? Has anybody else heard of it? And, if it was real, does it answer your question?

I would say our society was essentially selfish.

Note this doesn't mean individuals are, individuals are often very generous.

I think we're also somewhat gullible. The politicians dress up what they're trying to sell us (or simply lie) so what we vote for is not what we get.

I'm often surprised by people whom I consider to be at least reasonably intelligent who support political opinion which to me seems unacceptable. Just shows how people reason differently. (Or perhaps I'm wrong about their intelligence !)

No. We, as a society, patently don't give a sh*t.

I think people sometimes mean different things by society. In some meanings it seems to be a shorthand for 'average persons attitude' - ie is the average attitude of a Brit caring?
Other times it seems to mean the governing structure and bodies - ie are the laws we pass and the agencies we create caring?
I.e the difference between the system that organises people and provides the delineation of their lives vs. the people who exist within that structure.

The other thing that occurs to me is that the attitude of society (in either meaning) changes depending on the target group that we are discussing. So is our society (British in this case) caring about brits? Reasonably so but could be better. Is it caring about non brits? Not nearly so much.

But as McKay says, since any societal attribute is an average there will be those who are more so and those who are less so.

Why do you suppose that caring/not-caring is a societal attribute at all?

I'm of the opinion that most people everywhere care about people they know, but couldn't really give a stuff (probably wouldn't put themselves to any inconvenience for the benefit of) about those they don't.

"Why do you suppose that caring/not-caring is a societal attribute at all?"

Because society (any definition therof) influences the behaviour of its members through peer pressure and through its stated aims.
What you say about people accords well with my views, but the levels of caring and who is cared about differ between societies.

There is also a level of caring that can be exhibited by a society that cannot be exhibited by an individual, such as helping out other socities that are in need, protecting (and enforcing that protection) of environments for various uses. Even going to war can be a caring act when it is to protect an entity (person, group, socity whatever) who needs such help.

If we're that uncaring why are Oxfam, Save The Children, St John's Ambulance, NSPCC, and even (God help us) The RSPCA still in business ?

An easy way to salve the conscience perhaps?

<>

If we're that caring why are they required?

Because some people need help - it isn't always someone else's fault.

no, it's a valid point. If as a society we did care that much then charities would not be required as our govt. would provide.
We already have govermental care of most of the areas charities cover, but really it isn't enough. It's one of the problems I have with charities. WBy which I mean an issue that I have not yet resolved one way or the other. They certainly provide an important service in the society we have now. But whilst we give to them, the govt. is let off the hook of sorting the problems.

This goes for home charities, such as child issues, homelessness but also for foreign issues where the govt. provides aid.

Indeed why should we cough up money to buy a scanner for the local hospital ? That's what our taxes are for - isn't it ? How should we bring this to their attention ?

Abroad - a bit different because governments will play friends with despots to maintain trade links - Burma Saudi Arabia because politicians tend to be unwilling to grasp nettles.

However I suppose I would be outraged if my tax money was going to support the RSPCA, but that's the way it is with charities - some get government help some don't.

Yes, that's one of the problems both with govt. aid and charities - the politicisation of aid.

There's also an argument that if we consider society to be the people who make up the social group then if it were caring then the likes of the RSPCA and RSPCC wouldn't be needed.

Like I say, an area I haven't really fully formulated my thoughts on this.

I think the "Care in The Community" initiative showed the unwillingness of Society to become involved on a personal basis.

There is an arguement that government should care for us nationally, and councils should care for us locally. Unfortunately it requires a local J.Paul Getty of Bill Gates to achieve this.

It could be argued that companies should be made to contribute more to society - but who would trust a government to administer this. Its quite noticeable that most American corporations have a charitable arm, something that seems to be lacking in Europe.

Actually McKay, you'll find that most large UK companies have funds set aside for charity. All anyone has to do is ask. The govt helps by allowing them to set off charitable donations against tax.

Incidentally, did you know that the best selling whisky in Scotland doesn't make a penny in profit? It's owned by a charitable trust.

but when it comes to companies that raises again the question of why.

As with the issue around why we have charities and the role they perform in society (helping those in need vs. salving the conscience of those not in need). Most of the big IT companies have some sort of community help programme. Why? Because it is good business. It gets them awards and it raises their profile whilst salving th conscience of making megabucks so that a minority of the population can live a life that the majority can only dream of.

From what I understand, true altruism, defined as doing something for someone else without any benefit to the giver (even causing potential harm) is a fallacy. At the very least the giver benefits from either the gratitude of the person receiving the help or the prestige (for lack of a better word) of other people knowing the deed they have done. In other words on both individual and societal levels nothing is free. It seems to me that in modern society the closest to altruism we come is reciprocity. If I help my neighbor then perhaps in the future they will help me if I need it. In regards to caring for our kin it is argued among anthropologists, evolutionary biologists and other 'ologists' that in helping our family members we are also helping ourselves by improving the fitness of our shared DNA. I don't believe society is on a downward trend in caring but perhaps the motivations that cause us to help are changing?

Doesn't the government double a charity's receipts from donations? So that if the charity raises ten thousand, the government matches it so that the charity actually receives twenty? That way, the government is donating toward charities that people support.

TRiG.