Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Curious what everyone's thoughts are on the this, given the aftermath of Boston and the flare-up of discussion about (Western) media apathy about the spate of bombings and such in the Middle East, Iraq in particular, before the Boston Marathon.

I bring this up because I'm curious what rationale people have for why they believe that the death of a stranger they've never met is less, equal, or more tragic and distressing than those of a close friend or family member, and what reasons or circumstances they feel this way.

Mean Green Stompa brought up one viewpoint here, in that we feel worried about our own safety and security. In addition, he has a personal connection with the victims, having seen the location and people in the area in passing before the bombings.



I'm curious what your feelings are, Dakkanauts:

Do you grieve as much for vague acquaintances as you do for close ones? If so, why?

What about people from a foreign country that you've never met, as compared to those from your own country? As above, why do you feel this way?

As a followup, for those of you who have spent significant time in or have significant relationships with people in a country other than your own, are your feelings about strangers in that country different then before you made those connections?

Does the im/morality of the person, assuming that their im/morality was unrelated to their passing, have any significant bearing on your feelings? What about if there are indications the person acted opposite of their typical im/morality during their passage?

And finally, for those of you who have lost a close friend or similar relationship, how have your feelings on the above changed? What about those of you who have nearly lost a close friend or similar relationship?

eh.

I thought about this having seen comments on the other thread and thought I'd describe it thus. I don't think any people are intrinsically *worth* more than others, but I do *value* some people more than others.

If I ran into a burning building with only time to save one person, I'll pick a friend over someone I don't know. It's not personal, it's not because I think you have less right to life, I just hold someone else's life more valuable than your own.

 darkPrince010 wrote:

I'm curious what your feelings are, Dakkaites:

Do you grieve as much for vague acquaintances as you do for close ones? If so, why?

No, because someone being emotionally closer creates a stronger bond. Its natural to feel greater loss at someone who has shared important parts of your life with you than someone who has not. My own perspective is that its all relative to how close you were to that person emotionally.

 darkPrince010 wrote:
What about people from a foreign country that you've never met, as compared to those from your own country? As above, why do you feel this way?

It depends on their passing. Obviously a horrific terrorist incident or horrible accident will have more of an impact on a person than hearing that person X died in his/her sleep

 darkPrince010 wrote:
As a followup, for those of you who have spent significant time in or have significant relationships with people in a country other than your own, are your feelings about strangers in that country different then before you made those connections?

I can't really answer that because the person from another country that I developed close feelings for I emigrated to be with

 darkPrince010 wrote:
Does the im/morality of the person, assuming that their im/morality was unrelated to their passing, have any significant bearing on your feelings? What about if there are indications the person acted opposite of their typical im/morality during their passage?

Immortality?

It's 'Dakkanauts'.

 darkPrince010 wrote:

Mean Green Stompa brought up one viewpoint here, in that we feel worried about our own safety and security. In addition, he has a personal connection with the victims, having apparently met several of them personally.

We passed by people is what I said, I did not meet people or have any relationship with them 'personally'. My wife and I traverse the area, possibly 10 minutes or so prior to the explosions occurring. My wife suggested stopping there, to see part of the marathon, I wasn't for it, we moved on, lucky for us I guess.

Also, what's with 'apparently'? If I have stated a thing happened, then a thing has happened.

Please amend your post.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
I thought about this having seen comments on the other thread and thought I'd describe it thus. I don't think any people are intrinsically *worth* more than others, but I do *value* some people more than others.

If I ran into a burning building with only time to save one person, I'll pick a friend over someone I don't know. It's not personal, it's not because I think you have less right to life, I just hold someone else's life more valuable than your own.

Interesting. Now, let me pose to you the "Fat man on the trolley track" psychology experiment:

Is there a certain point at which saving others would be more valuable, overall, than the life of your close friend? Such as if you had the option to swing on the chandelier and save your friend from a shark, or save 5, or 10, or more strangers from a shark? What about if it was a small group of strangers and your friend, vs a larger group of complete strangers?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 darkPrince010 wrote:

Mean Green Stompa brought up one viewpoint here, in that we feel worried about our own safety and security. In addition, he has a personal connection with the victims, having apparently met several of them personally.

We passed by people is what I said, I did not meet people or have any relationship with them 'personally'. My wife and I traverse the area, possibly 10 minutes or so prior to the explosions occurring. My wife suggested stopping there, to see part of the marathon, I wasn't for it, we moved on, lucky for us I guess.

Also, what's with 'apparently'? If I have stated a thing happened, then a thing has happened.

Please amend your post.

My apologies, as I had originally stated "having met several of them personally directly before the attack." However, reading your post I actually couldn't figure if you were there before or after, so I removed the back bit and didn't amend the first bit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 darkPrince010 wrote:
As a followup, for those of you who have spent significant time in or have significant relationships with people in a country other than your own, are your feelings about strangers in that country different then before you made those connections?

I can't really answer that because the person from another country that I developed close feelings for I emigrated to be with

On the contrary, that makes for an even better answer . Is there any change in your feelings towards the country you used to reside in due to your move?

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 darkPrince010 wrote:
Does the im/morality of the person, assuming that their im/morality was unrelated to their passing, have any significant bearing on your feelings? What about if there are indications the person acted opposite of their typical im/morality during their passage?

Immortality?

Sorry, that was my shorthand for Immorality/Morality.

I don't think you can examine those sorts of hypothetical situations really. I don't know where I draw the line, or specifically where I would in the heat in the moment, which is when most of your logic goes out the window. I don't think you quantify the value of people like that. I certainly can't say that my best friend is worth seven strangers, and that only if eight or more were at risk would I choose them first.

That's ok!

A lot of philosophy questions are rhetorical, more designed to encourage thought about an idea like that rather than demand a straight A+B=C answer. And it is true that our rational decision-making can go out the window in the heat of a crisis.

 darkPrince010 wrote:
On the contrary, that makes for an even better answer . Is there any change in your feelings towards the country you used to reside in due to your move?

Nope. I still like the people that I like (once again, emotional rather than geographical closeness), dislike the people that I dislike and still look at where I came from the same way that I did before. Granted I miss a few things (like proper bacon )

 darkPrince010 wrote:
Sorry, that was my shorthand for Immorality/Morality.

Yeah I got that, I'm just not sure how many answers you're expecting to get from people concerning immortality, or the death of someone they know who is immortal. It seems a wee bit confused.

ImmORALity, not ImmORTALity. Good vs Evil, not everliving elves vs mere humans

Ah! Gotcha. If the person is a gak head or did something gak headed then its possible that my reaction would be diminished (emotional closeness again)

Im sad that it happened. and this may sound cynical, but why get worked up over people i do not know and never will?
Same with the sandy hook, I felt sad, but i couldnt get worked up like some of my family members who called me heartless because I sad i wasnt grieving for people i dont know.

Undernutrition contributes to 2.6 million deaths of children under five each year - one third of the global total.
(Source: Levels and Trends in Child Mortality, UNICEF, 2011)

Over 7,000 children each day, just by starvation.

Yeah, frankly anyone who is truly compassionate would bump themselves off in sheer despair upon being confronted with the sheer scale of preventable death in the world.

This quote, reputedly by Stalin, pretty generally sums up my feelings on the matter.

"The death of one is a tragedy; the deaths of millions, just a statistic."

It sounds pretty horrible and, to some extent, it is. But it's also true. No connection means no (or very little) emotion.

Individual people may not inherently be worth more than others, but from every person's personal perspective there are those that matter more to you.

1) Close family, friends, and yourself.

2) Close Relations, people you know from work, school, etc...

3) Complete strangers

4) people from another country that are also complete strangers.


If I'm given a choice between helping a complete stranger and someone who I know I'm likely going to help the person I know first. Its just how humans are.

I posted in the Boston Marathon thread. I actually considered for a good while before I did. My post pointed out that people care less about tragedies which occur to an "other". This is demonstrably true, and it is a part of human nature. Our brains are wired that way. I didn't point it out to make people feel guilty, but in the hope that people might reflect on that feeling.

For example in that thread I saw a good few british posters posting some strong stuff. Fair enough- america is part of a general "us" for most westerners. What I think people like Dark Apostle was saying was that it is not always a two way street.

My girlfriend calls this "small country syndrome" and I think there's something to it. Grey Templar used the language of insiginificance to talk about the troubles in ireland, calling it a "little spat". I am not sure if he meant it, but that sort of comment is what gives people from small countries such a chip on their shoulders. I don't know what it's like to come from a country that is so powerful it can reach across the world and bomb my enemies into oblivion. But I see many comments on Dakka to that effect, and to be honest, I strongly believe the world would be a much better place for us all if that sort of thinking was to go away. So, when you have been hurt, I think it is good to reflect on how it feels, how angry you are, and then reflect on how others must feel in the same situation- to find some common ground with the "other", to humanise these faceless people far away.

Perhaps futile, and perhaps pointless for the thread. But I had hoped that that would be what some would take away from it.

I don't think there is anything wrong with what people feel in these situations, but I do think it is wrong not to reflect on what we feel and consider what it might mean in a broader sense.

I don't really care for either, in all honesty. Just dump them in a hole or throw them into the air, done.

When attacked, peoples' "Us vs Them" mentality kicks in. The greater the danger to themselves, the harder line they take in categorizing "Us vs. Them".

This is not an opnion, this is a provable fact.

Therefore, when something like this happens, the more likely we are to care about the perceived "Us" than any of "Them".

 Da Boss wrote:
Grey Templar used the language of insiginificance to talk about the troubles in ireland, calling it a "little spat".

To be fair to Grey Templar (and I hate to be as I want him fed to crocodiles), his response was quite likely coloured by someone else trying to lower the discussion of the bombing into something adversarial, when it did not need to be and could've been handled so much better.

 Easy E wrote:
When attacked, peoples' "Us vs Them" mentality kicks in. The greater the danger to themselves, the harder line they take in categorizing "Us vs. Them".

This is so very true and happens to everyone, from things as small as disagreements over soap.

Bromsy wrote:Yeah, frankly anyone who is truly compassionate would bump themselves off in sheer despair upon being confronted with the sheer scale of preventable death in the world.

Frankly if we were to be as affected by things not close to us as we are by things close to us, we would be driven insane before deliberately killing ourselves. Then we'd do it due to insanity.

Call me heartless but the only people I could Grieve for are people I know, Even then I'd have to know them fairly well for it to any more of a "Holy gak, [name]'s dead." before I go back to what I was doing

Mass shootings, Murders, Starving puppies, African children, Terror Attacks, Plane crashes all don't move me at all. And I don't understand how people who have no connections to the event/people can get worked up about it when you get this sort of thing:

a quick google wrote:According to the CIA World Factbook, as of July, 2005, there were approximately 6,446,131,400 people on the planet, and the death rate was approximately 8.78 deaths per 1,000 people a year. According to our nifty desktop calculator, that works out to roughly 56,597,034 people leaving us every year. That's about a 155,000 a day.

That's 155,000 Grannies, Granddads, mums, dads, sons, daughters, friends etc. EVERY DAY. And people want me to feel sorry for the extra people who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

 darkPrince010 wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
I thought about this having seen comments on the other thread and thought I'd describe it thus. I don't think any people are intrinsically *worth* more than others, but I do *value* some people more than others.

If I ran into a burning building with only time to save one person, I'll pick a friend over someone I don't know. It's not personal, it's not because I think you have less right to life, I just hold someone else's life more valuable than your own.

Interesting. Now, let me pose to you the "Fat man on the trolley track" psychology experiment:

Is there a certain point at which saving others would be more valuable, overall, than the life of your close friend? Such as if you had the option to swing on the chandelier and save your friend from a shark, or save 5, or 10, or more strangers from a shark? What about if it was a small group of strangers and your friend, vs a larger group of complete strangers?

I would stick to the established psychological conundrums. Tempting dakkanauts with the chance to swing on chandeliers to save people from sharks could only skew your results more if they were swinging away from an explosion without looking back.

That being said, I am older and comfortable with being gray, so I would allow a fat guy to die to save several others. If the fat guy was someone I knew and cared for, I'd most likely save them and worry about the consequences later. Morality becomes more and more subjective the longer we entangle ourselves with others. To save my wife, for example, were it possible I would pull my own heart from my chest and give it to her. Other than my sons, I wouldn't do that for anyone else, not even the man who needed but three more days to cure both cancer and AIDS, and save millions from agonizingly slow deaths.

The greater good is incredibly difficult to think of once you start defining your life in relation to others. The me of 10 years ago would have easily answered that the greatest amount of good was the best solution- and perhaps the me of 10 years in the future will choose the same.

I definitely care more about the lives of my family and friends than the lives of hundred, a thousand, or even a million people in another country.

According to this website, http://www.statisticbrain.com/world-hunger-statistics/ , 15 million children die of hunger each year. That may be wrong, but I know the number is unimaginably depressing. But to me, it is just a number. If my son is sick and I don't think he is eating enough, I will worry about him all day at work, though he is far from starving. After this post, I will probably not lose any sleep over the millions of dead children that have starved to death last year.

People put more effort into something they're personally vested in. Your friends are something you personally care about. People you don;t know? (Or worse, ones you know to be jerks) Far less likely to make the effort to save them,

I don't grieve for strangers in Boston, London or the middle east, don't get me wrong it's terrible but unfortunate incidents are just a fact of life as horrible as they are, and they're not going to cease any time soon. It might move me for a second but after a moment I'd be on with my day as normal.

If it's a friend or family member however then of course it would affect me more, I knew these people and grew up with them so there is a much more personal attachment which means a much more personal sense of loss.

Something that interests me though is when people celebrate deaths, for example:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/video/2013/apr/14/anti-margaret-thatcher-party-trafalgar-square-video

^ I guess this relates to the Im/morality idea you mentioned, would your opinion of someone justify celebration of their death?

Unfortunately I've always been a very distant person. I keep quiet and pay my respects but unless. Someone -dearly- close to me has died. I don't lose sleep.


I do not look forward to when some of this small group of people have their time come.

I'm going to hold off on this one....