Compassion, who needs it?! By Etienne

 

Compassion is, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, a "sympathetic pity and concern for the sufferings or misfortunes of others". But should we have compassion for others? Isn't showing compassion in fact a way of reminding others how inferior/dependent they are?

Compassion only exists because there is no social equality. If there were, I would be able to spend my money on myself rather than on others.

Up to a point, I don't consider the inferiority of others as a bad thing, insofar as it is the necessary condition for my being superior.

Surely, if the strong help the weak, the weak will become stronger and the strong will therefore become less strong? This would lead to a conformist, mediocre, socialistic society, which is unacceptable.

In a talk he gave about compassion, Chade-Meng Tan says that he has been constantly happy since deciding to adopt a compassionate attitude, and he encourages everybody to follow his example. There is something strange about this, as compassion becomes rather more a means of making oneself happy than an essential attidude for helping others... This is also unacceptable.

No, if I were to be compassionate, it would have to be a Nietzschean form of compassion (which is actually just radical Buddhism); I would help those in need in a spontaneous way. However, it is rather difficult to give spontaneously to someone you do not know; I think giving to a charity is a waste of time. In fact, people only give to charity to assuage their guilty conscience. I do not have a guilty conscience because it would make me feel weak...

In the end, I would use some of my dollars to help those I know, sometimes, when I feel it would actually be useful.

Read the Guardian article on the "good samaritan" in Germany!

Watch the BBC video on the German Robin Hood!
See Chade-Meng Tan lecture on the "fun" and "profitability" of compassion...