Community Chat

[IamMrsG]

empathy: the feeling that you understand and share another person's experiences and emotions; the ability to share
             "Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day . . .

compassion: a feeling of deep sympathy and sorrow for another who is stricken by misfortune, accompanied by a strong desire to alleviate the suffering.
             . . .Teach a man to fish, and you feed him for a lifetime."
teachable: Capable of being taught; able and willing to learn

My viewpoint is that both empathy and compassion abound.  What we need is more teachability. 

[terrier3]

---

@YorkieonmyPillow wrote:

@terrier3What do you admire about them?

---

Both Gates and Buffet are tremendous businessmen. They amassed huge fortunes by being visionaries and tough businesspeople.

Both have more money than anyone could ever enjoy...ditto their families. So both have pledged to donate 95% of their fortunes to charitable causes...and not only that - they have encouraged other billionaires to do the same.

Their children will be well taken care of too - in Buffet's case his children have their own causes - they are passing on their nheritance too - they were raised well!

Do I always agree with HOW they are spending their donated fortunes? Maybe not always - just as I disagree with how the DeVos and Mercer families spend their charitable money.

But recognizing that giving back is important - and encouraging others to do the same - that is why I admire them.

[Annabellethecat66]

@Isobel Archer One reason I give money each month to St Jude is because I (alone) feel like it helps many children.

Interestingly, the St Jude people have put some real thought into getting people to donate because each month you (the person donating money) gets a picture of a young child (bald) their name and sometimes a little about them.  This makes it personal.  Your brain wants you to think you are specifically helping that one child.  This goes back to what the author of the book mentioned says.

However, I think the author (or the OP didn't mention it) misses the fact that most people are fed up with the money they donate being given to CEO's, etc of these charities and the money just generally being mishandled.  

During the year I send money to charities (and even friends to help out) in various ways.  It isn't a lot (a few hundred or less here and there).  Here's an example:  A friend from high school last year's dog died.  She is an amazing photographer, singer (made records, etc).  She's just plain wonderful and has given all of us so much enjoyment in her pictures and words about every living thing in her life.  I just can't say enough about her.  She has lived comfortably with her partner for over 40 years.  I know one of her passions is a charity that helps dogs.

When her dog died of old age, I sent some treats to her other animals and a check for a small sum and left the "TO" part blank.  I told her to write the name of her charity in it and know it was in memory of her dog.  I've since sent the other animals treats here and there.  She isn't poor, she can buy them treats, it's just my way of showing my appreciation for the joy she gives me and my fellow classmates.

I also donate to churches (I've never gone to any of these churches but know people who do), cat charities (where I got my two cats from) and so on.

I'm mentioning this because it feeds into why people tend to donate more locally than to say, "The American Cancer Society".  I think they do anyway.  You just don't hear about it because there are a lot of people like me who like to feel like they're making a difference but in a more personal way.

I live on the premise that all people have some kind of good in them.  I'm not stupid, I know there are a few (very few) who have little or no redeeming quality, but I think they are in the 1%.  

People work really hard for their money these days.  My late husband worked very, very hard for the month he got.  He had some time to enjoy it, but died young (58), never sick, just dropped dead, never found out why.  It was his time to go.

I try to honor his memory by doing things he'd would have done if he'd be here.  He left me very comfortable in life.  I am very grateful and look to the Heavens and thank him every single day.

I don't believe anyone can honestly sit and say they have a right to decide how a person should or shouldn't give money, or to whom they should give it.

Life is about choices.  I see people waste their money in stupid ways and then expect others to 'take care of them'.  So many people today aren't willing to work for what they want and they want what they want right now... One way or another, it's been my observation they end up paying for that decision, unfortunately (for them) and us, who are expected to pick up the pieces they left (i.e. children not cared for, etc).  

I guess that's where all of us come in one way or another, right?

[Isobel Archer]

@Annabellethecat66  Actually the author does talk about the effectiveness - either cost effectiveness or otherwise of empathy versus compassion.

When folks become invested in helping, they can lose sight of how effective that help actually is.  This can be especially true when charities or organizations or even government continue to play on the emotions with heart rending stories of people or animals needing help. 

They are less likely to provide details of how the money funding that help is spent - and the results - as in numbers of people who actually progress beyond needing that help.  Some even measure success by the increasing  number of people receiving help rather than the number who succeeded as a result of it.

As someone pointed out in another article I recently read (sorry forgot the author), truly compassionate people would be very upset with ineffective programs and with money that could have been used to truly help someone succeed being wasted on programs that don't produce that result or otherwise wasted or diverted (such as in unreasonably large salaries.)

[YorkieonmyPillow]

@Isobel Archer  Exactly, I don't want to line the pocket of some CEO. I'm very selective and careful where my contributions go.

[Annabellethecat66]

@Isobel Archer Thanks for your response.  I am very grateful for those who see 'the large picture' and are willing to donate to the larger/very large in some cases charities like The American Cancer Society.

For it must be due to their donations so much progress has been made toward the end (or help toward) riding society of some forms of Cancer.  It seems to me that the researchers working tirelessly (and not getting the big bucks the CEO's are getting) are the one's responsible for these break throughs.  It's also my understanding that these same CEO's are paid the big bucks (partly) because of the big donors they can bring in and their ability to 'supposedly' manage the money coming in.

I also used to work for the Federal Government (capital letters, Ha) and we were pretty much TOLD we would donate to a specific charity (can't remember now as it has been 44 years).  That is also where much of the money comes from.

[terrier3]

---

@Quse wrote:

---

@Noel7 wrote:

---

@Quse wrote:

---

@151949 wrote:

I think I disagree with the OP's definition of EMPATHY. I just googled to be sure and it is defined as the ability to see & understand another's feeling. That does not aty all fit the description the OP gave  where the person feels compulsion to act on the other person's feelings. Instead it describes a person who can see things from everyone's POV .An empathetic person would make a great judge because they see all parties side of the story.

---

I wouldn't want a judge deciding with empathy. I want a judge to look at the evidence in a case and apply law, not emotions and feelings.

******************************

@Quse

People are more complex than merely having one trait. Most people have some degree of empathy.  It's a good thing to have because the opposite is a lack of understanding and a lack of the ability to read people.

Empathy has nothing to do with logic and reason, and being empathetic does not mean someone cannot recognize when someone else has done something wrong.

---

---

Of course people are more complex than having one trait, and, of course, most people feel compassion and empathy. That doesn't mean they'd make good judges. What's a "good" decision by one may not be a "good" decision to another, and, therefore, should be based in law. Empathy can interfere with logic and reason if it's the basis of a decision. There is too much "justice" based on emotions coming from benches now. Equal justice under the law should be blind and not biased, based on how the judge "feels"

---

Judges have great leeway in sentencing. It's not robotic - each judge has to make a (personal) decision. Otherwise there would be "one size fits all" justice.

[IamMrsG]

@terrier3  What you admire as Warren Buffet's empathetic plan, I see as a continuation of his long-standing tax dodge.  

[jubilant]

Thanks for posting this Isobel Archer.  It was an interesting topic for discussion and I enjoyed hearing the different opinions. 

[terrier3]

---

@IamMrsG wrote:

@terrier3  What you admire as Warren Buffet's empathetic plan, I see as a continuation of his long-standing tax dodge.  

---

Then change the law - But right now the tax code is used to promote some worthwhile activities that support society - charitable contributions are just one such deduction.

Home ownership is another.

Buffet is one of the few billionaires who is NOT in favor of eliminating estate taxes, BTW. He has also spoken out on behalf of a millionaire's tax - a base rate that is higher than others - a progressive tax that would affect the people in the highest tax bracket.