[ScientiaOmnisEst]

A thread on the depression forum won't leave my mind.

I'm incredibly self-focused. Nothing arouses my emotions like whatever I perceive to be my own personal hell, and most of my motivation, when I have it, is aimed to personal improvement and aggrandizement.

But every once in a while I wonder if all this...just makes me a bad person. That I care more about living comfortably, having nice things, improving my health, than any of the myriad horrors going on in the world. That I would rather spend my money of good food, interesting new products or pretty things than on helping others, rather devote time to myself than to service. The thread in question was about empathy and how limited many people's is (my own vacillates. I feel like an outright empath when it comes to stories of abuse, victimization, or internal suffering, but see stories of poverty or war with...not quite indifference, but what someone once called "brain-feeling".

Cognitive versus affective empathy, basically, but not enough to make me want to do anything), but I've been driven to guilt by the effective altruism movement too, and the entire ethic of earning to give to "do the most good". Right up to and including asserting that it's more rewarding to live for others than for yourself. Honestly, to me, even if I did have money, the idea of pouring hundreds of thousands of dollars into a charity feels so...hollow. Numbers be damned, there's something incredibly empty about it, about making one's entire life about making and giving money whose effects you don't even see, completely subverting the self in service (which yes, many EAs do. I recall one article where people talked about denying themselves their dream career to do something more lucrative in order to donate more. It actually kind of disgusts me. At the same time...who the hell are you, am I, to pursue self-fulfillment when people are suffering?). I prefer good acts I can see. They may not be doing the "most good", but I guess... I trust them more. It's like a quality vs quantity issue. (If anyone has some good arguments why it's morally acceptable to not be an EA, please tell).

But this is a tangent. It's not about charity or EA, so much as self-centeredness vs empathy. I know, on some level, that I don't deserve much. Why should I do anything for myself? This coming from someone who is, knowingly, a terrible miser with her money and time and prone to thinking in extremes. I can just see that: demanding of myself to go from trying to fix and improve my material and mental life to abject self-denial. Basically, what right do I have to care about myself, to feel bad, to suffer in any way, to give myself anything beyond the most ascetic necessities when so many people have it much worse? And I barely care or think about it? Most of my mental activity revolves around myself, when I'm not even worthy of that? I've thought a few times that I can focus more on others once I'm stable and have everything I need/want, but I wonder if I even have it in me to do that.

Hi there,

I absolutely believe you have every right to invest in yourself. When you're healthy and content, you'll have more energy to give to others as well. Whether you choose to do so or not is, of course, up to you. I think maybe people who have a lot but never choose to share any of it with others could be called selfish.

But I believe there's also good selfishness. I used to be the kind of person who'd do everything and anything for others while completely abandoning myself in the process until I became ill and was of no use to anyone anymore. That's when I chose to focus on myself. There have been times when I've wondered if I'm too self-centred and have felt guilty about it, but for me, there simply was no other alternative - I'd hit my personal bottom and felt I wouldn't have a life soon if I kept going the way I had been for so long.

I'm an extremely empathetic person but I feel like I'm now developing a healthier relationship with the give and take. I'd never work my butt off and give ALL my money to others. The same goes for my time and energy. I think it's about balance as well as personal boundaries, and setting those is HEALTHY.

I do enjoy giving what I can when I can, though There's an animal sanctuary that I visited once and immediately got a very good vibe of the place. I've followed them on Facebook for years, and they're excellent at presenting what they do. I totally believe in them and have realised it really doesn't matter how small an amount you want to donate, it all counts. And there are few things better than seeing the amazing transformations when the animals get better!

I also find there are 'causes' or problems I care about more than others, and I think it all comes from each person's experiences. People who have experienced poverty themselves might be most affected by those stories while I'm most affected by stories of child and animal abuse. I think this is natural and believe there will be enough people caring about each cause. The more that get excited about helping others, the better! But within our own personal means and energy levels, of course

[Walking Man]

I think I know where you are coming from. I think there's too much abstraction in a lot of popular talk about charity. I think we need to love people as individuals, not "humanity", or "the underprivileged", or whatever. We have to love the person sitting next to us.

There's nothing wrong with giving to charity and all that. It's a good thing. You can help people. The problem is when it becomes a contest. IMO that sort of thing is best done quietly. Giving so much only means you gave so much. It doesn't mean you care more, or that someone who didn't give doesn't care. The real measure is how you think of and treat the people in the same room. Love has to be freely given, it can't be forced.

I'm not familiar with the term EO, but adding "effective" to altruism suggests that altruism isn't any good unless it's "effective". The emphasis seems to reduce a great moral problem (How do I love my neighbor?) into a merely economic one (How do I make a material impact?), which if I'm correct, is why it seems empty to you. It's upside down.

Love in action is real and fulfilling, no matter how much self denial is involved. Self denial purely as an end in itself is just miserable. We all have to do the best we can according to our strength. It's good you are thinking about these things, it speaks well of you.

Originally Posted by d.o.a.

I absolutely believe you have every right to invest in yourself. When you're healthy and content, you'll have more energy to give to others as well. Whether you choose to do so or not is, of course, up to you. I think maybe people who have a lot but never choose to share any of it with others could be called selfish.

I'm an extremely empathetic person but I feel like I'm now developing a healthier relationship with the give and take. I'd never work my butt off and give ALL my money to others. The same goes for my time and energy. I think it's about balance as well as personal boundaries, and setting those is HEALTHY.

I also find there are 'causes' or problems I care about more than others, and I think it all comes from each person's experiences. People who have experienced poverty themselves might be most affected by those stories while I'm most affected by stories of child and animal abuse. I think this is natural and believe there will be enough people caring about each cause. The more that get excited about helping others, the better! But within our own personal means and energy levels, of course

Originally Posted by Walking Man

I think there's too much abstraction in a lot of popular talk about charity. I think we need to love people as individuals, not "humanity", or "the underprivileged", or whatever. We have to love the person sitting next to us.

There's nothing wrong with giving to charity and all that. It's a good thing. You can help people. The problem is when it becomes a contest. IMO that sort of thing is best done quietly. Giving so much only means you gave so much. It doesn't mean you care more, or that someone who didn't give doesn't care. The real measure is how you think of and treat the people in the same room. Love has to be freely given, it can't be forced.

Some excellent points in both these posts. That's how I feel about the whole "empathy" thing.