A recurring argument I’ve had with myself through the years is at what point should a reasonable well meaning man* abandon his own self interest and defer to another who is weaker in physical strength, mental agility, knowledge and/or education? This is a subject that my kids and I discussed endlessly when they were still in school. We agreed that it’s our responsibility not to take advantage of those who are clearly deficient, but where was that line? What about people who were of normal intelligence, seemingly healthy and not otherwise impaired, but who either couldn’t or wouldn’t see that their actions were counterproductive.
Are we morally bound to make pests of ourselves constantly reminding them that they’re on the road to perdition? Some people would say yes and anything less than forcing them to act in their own self-interest is tantamount to cheating them. I obviously disagree as do some of my cyber friends over at the Great Guys Weblog who made some excellent points and brought the subject back to mind.
The super manipulators among us would turn our innate charity of spirit against us by trying to shame us into taking responsibility, not only for the weak and needy, but for all the shirkers among us as well. We can’t allow them take away our freedom to succeed or fail on our own merits and force us into the sure failure of the collective.
I’m still not exactly sure where that line is that separates our responsibility to our fellows from our responsibility to ourselves, but what I am sure of is that each individual must decide that for himself.
*or woman
4 comments:
I'm not sure what you mean by "take advantage of"?
“Take advantage of" others who may not have the information, intuition or intelligence we have. For instance, are we honor bound to tell someone that their invention may be more valuable than they're willing to sell it for, that the railroad is coming to town and their real estate will dramatically increase in value, that their old furniture is worth a fortune to an antique dealer.
Things like that.
I think that to some extent we are honor bound to make our intentions clear. However, if people are intent on selling their birthright for a handful of colorful beads, then there’s no reason why we shouldn’t close on the deal.
Hence the dilemma as I see it. Where is the point at which we are no longer obligated to be our brother's keeper.
I think we have to assume that our brother is adequately competent and has access to reasonable resources to help him make decisions.
I can't possibly take time to figure out if other people are somehow less intelligent or informed than I am. How would I know?
That's the point. If our brother clearly had diminished capacity, I don't think either of us would make a deal not in his best interests, but capacity is a sliding scale and when is it okay to make a deal with someone who's just not as smart or maybe just not as well informed as we are?
It's something I've been thinking about for a long time.
Post a Comment