Philosophical Questions: Distance

[ysabetwordsmith]

People have expressed interest in deep topics, so this list focuses on philosophical questions.

As people, we feel our moral obligation weaken with physical as well as emotional distance from individuals in need. For example, you’re more likely to help someone dying of hunger at your feet than someone dying of hunger in another country. How does this human trait of morality dependent on distance shape our world?


The distance factor is absolutely necessary to human sanity and functionality. Our time, energy, and resources are finite. No one person can do everything. In order to accomplish anything, we must decide which issues matter the most to us personally and then work on aspects of those within our reach. it doesn't mean we are limited to small problems; we can choose to work on big things like climate change or world hunger. It doesn't mean we have to stay put; we can network or travel to reach problems of interest that are far away from our starting point. It just means that we have to make choices about what to do with the resources we have.

Nobody can be morally responsible for everything, because other people have free will and make their own choices, sometimes very bad ones. You are only responsible for what YOU do. Other people fucking up far away cannot be your problem, because they need to take responsibility for their own choices.

However, some people incline toward greater scope. People with high existential intelligence gravitate toward big questions. People with high naturalistic intelligence may feel distressed by climate change or environmental damage and need to work on those. And the higher up the pyramid of moral development or spiritual enlightenment, the more likely someone will care a lot about "humanity" as a whole and want to work on large-scale problems threatening humans. Beyond the standard levels is a theorized cosmic or transcendental level, which is where you find principles like "Don't destroy the biosphere or a planet" and "Don't impair other people's soul paths." Trying to explain why those are vitally important ethical principles to people who aren't on that level is an exercise in frustration.

One reason is because spacetime is an illusion created by incarnation. It's not real, but it can function as if it were real within the bounds of the material plane. When you're in a body, it can only be in one "place" at a "time" and other "places" can seem "far away." But when you are also aware of other layers of reality, then you have ulterior resources. You may understand that distance is just a perspective, not a reality, so it has less influence over your thinking. You may know that all souls come into life with a set of goals, so the roughly half of the global population living in poverty doesn't look like a bunch of useless mouths to feed but like a crying waste of human resources. You are still limited by finite resources, but much less so by finite mindset.

Think about what you can do well. Think about what you care about. Put them together. Go fix something. But don't burn yourself out trying to fix everything, and don't let people should on you.

Comments

[crunchysteve]

Often what some media and pundits depict as a lack of kindness is actually a feeling of hopelessness, "what can I do?" I can toss a few coins into a busker's or homeless person's tin, but giving a few meagre coins to modern charities is most likely a subscription these days, often starting at monthly payments that are more than I can afford. It makes me feel disempowered.

I'm secure, with a secure pension fund, but can only give what I can. With the mortgage gone, that might change for the better and those charities that I can make one-off donations to will be placed on a roster. It still feels hopeless when the root problems, greed and war, are celebrated by many in positions to make real change, but don't.

We can only do all we can and, while that is less than enough, it _feels_ like it isn't enough

Instant news, and 24-hour news cycles

[dialecticdreamer]

REALLY make this problem worse. It puts the bombing in Gaza in my living room, along with the new trouble in Bosnia, the ongoing problems with poverty and access to health care. Visibility, or invisibility, of the special groups that matter to me becomes even MORE obvious when the news is constant, insistent, and difficult to shut out.

That element contributes, greatly, to compassion fatigue, I think.

If I make "disability awareness and inclusion" the focus of every bit of my efforts and spare cash for the year 2026, it quickly becomes very, very clear WHICH disabilities are getting attention from the American media, and how much of that attention is positive. It also makes very clear how divided people have become, sometimes actively refusing help from some other subgroup because "they're not directly affected."

Divide and conquer.

On a personal level, I'm not sure how much I can do, in fact, because I am in the usual economic strata for a disabled American adult-- but, I focus on not making the problems WORSE.

Crafting emotional distance for myself as an individual is important, and a skill that I need to learn. I want to believe that it CAN be learned, that people CAN learn to balance between need and social relevance, physical or emotional distance and one's interest in improving whichever situation they choose to focus on.

Being able to separate oneself, then choose to get involved makes that choice even more important. Giving at the cash register to whatever fund the store is promoting requires little to no effort or engagement. If that works for someone, I'm not going to discourage it.

It's just not my speed.

I can't fix most things, but I'm not interested in letting some corporation make hay off my decision to contribute to a charity, because that's just another form of erasure.

When everything is said and done, being kind to the people around me, and to myself, is the first step toward compassionate socialization. Charity comes after that.