LHX
11-30-2006, 10:06 AM
What is the problem with letting people fend for themselves?
Why do so many people develop that 'heroic' tendency to swoop in when there is a perceived injustice?
For me personally, when I see somebody drop money or a credit card, or if I see somebody dent a car and then speed off - I don't do shit.
In fact, I am liable to keep my eyes on the dropped money and try to swoop in and grab it if nobody is looking.
BUT
When I see people being personally and needlessly interfered with - a woman on the bus getting harrassed by a drunk, or a kid getting his ass whooped by bigger people, I can't stop myself from stepping in.
Personally, again, there is a deference between a person being directly and unnecessarily interfered with that prompts me to action, whereas anything to do wiff property, or anything that is the result of a person's own ignorance, I am more than content to sit back and let nature take its course.
What brought this to mind was a discussion I had recently about what 'justice' would be like in a society with no laws.
There is a difference in situations that I can't exactly describe in words.
But it has something to do with the difference between
a) people being disrupted or preyed upon unnecessarily
b) people walking face first into their own trouble
c) letting grown people have the opportunity to fend for themselves
d) letting nature take its course
Any thoughts on this?
(Postscript: also possibly related to this discussion: sociopaths who have no feeling of attachment toward anything)
Why do so many people develop that 'heroic' tendency to swoop in when there is a perceived injustice?
For me personally, when I see somebody drop money or a credit card, or if I see somebody dent a car and then speed off - I don't do shit.
In fact, I am liable to keep my eyes on the dropped money and try to swoop in and grab it if nobody is looking.
BUT
When I see people being personally and needlessly interfered with - a woman on the bus getting harrassed by a drunk, or a kid getting his ass whooped by bigger people, I can't stop myself from stepping in.
Personally, again, there is a deference between a person being directly and unnecessarily interfered with that prompts me to action, whereas anything to do wiff property, or anything that is the result of a person's own ignorance, I am more than content to sit back and let nature take its course.
What brought this to mind was a discussion I had recently about what 'justice' would be like in a society with no laws.
There is a difference in situations that I can't exactly describe in words.
But it has something to do with the difference between
a) people being disrupted or preyed upon unnecessarily
b) people walking face first into their own trouble
c) letting grown people have the opportunity to fend for themselves
d) letting nature take its course
Any thoughts on this?
(Postscript: also possibly related to this discussion: sociopaths who have no feeling of attachment toward anything)