Choices, Compassion and Consequences

Great Debates
1

In this pit thread, Beelzebubba and I have gotten into a debate i think deserves a hashing over here.

That thread is all about the tobacco settlement. That isn’t the debate.

Here it is:

We all make choices. Often, there are negative consequences to the choices we make, ranging from the ridiculous to the fatal.

Now, some people may look at a choice, a behavior, and a person suffering the consequences of that, and say “Tough. They chose, they pay.” And while that isn’t my attitude, that is also not what I have a problem with for the purposes of this debate. What I have a problem with is logical inconsistency.

Here are a bunch of behavioral choices and the possible consequences that could ensue from indulging in the behavior, set up as choice/Behavoir: consequence -

smoking:lung cancer, emphysema, heart disease
overeating: heart disease, diabetes, various cancers, and obesity
poor diet: heart disease, cancers, diabetes
(overeating and eating poorly can often go together, but they can also be separate)
heroin use: rotten life, death, jail
cocaine use: rotten life, death, jail
not using a seatbelt: brain damage, death
lack of exercise: flabbiness, lck of energy, heart disease, misc other diseases.
motorcycle riding sans helmet: brain damage, death
alcohol use: cirrhosis, addiction, death
vaginal sex without condoms: miscellaneous STD’s, pregnancy, death
anal sex without condoms: STDs, AIDS, death
I think that covers most of the obvious ones.

Now. Beelzebubba has made a couple of assertions in that thread. One, that smokers deserve NO sympathy, they made the stupiud choice to smoke, fuck 'em if they die in agony. When I asked if he felt that way about people who are infected with HIV/AIDS because they have unprotected sex, he said he doesn’t equate them because sex is something we are compelled to do, it is natural, unlike smoking, which is unnatural. I believe he also blasted the idea of addiction, which he doesn’t “buy” because he overcame his after 10 years.

Well, I think this is logically ridiciulous. Either you hold people accountable for their choices or you don’t. Now, my position is that the consequences of these behaviors can be terrible, and anyone who is suffering them deserves sympathy and compassion. Not because they are “innocent victims”, but simply because they are fellow humans who were weak and imperfect and made mistakes, and now they are suffering for it. And suffering sucks. But still that isn’t what I’m arguing for. I’m just arguing for logical consistency.

So I put it to you, Dopers:

Are some bad choices that result in negative consequences more “forgivable” than others? Or are they all equal?

My position: they are all equal for this purpose.

I hope I’ve made what I’m driving at clear. I’ll know when I get your responses…

stoid

2

You don’t have compassion for someone because they deserve it, you have compassion because you decide to have compassion. It doesn’t have to be deserved, or earned, or have any particular qualification. It is a freely given gift. Any break you cut someone because you think they deserve it is a affirmation of some other thing you approve of in those people, or the absence of that state of affairs. That is not compassion.

By the way, I also think that it is a good idea to have compassion for those who contributed to their own misfortune, or suffering. Not because it is good for them, although it may well be, but because it will be good for you. But you should not spend energy figuring out who deserves your compassion, and who does not. Analysis on who you deny you compassion to is not relevant to their nature, only to your own.

Tris

“Everything that irritates us about others can lead us to an understanding of ourselves.” ~ Carl Jung ~

3

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I thought it was common knowledge that cigarettes, heroin, and other drugs are obviously addictive? Now, I do feel sorry for people who do get hooked and suffer from it, but I’m going to assume they knew what the risks were when they started. It does not exactly make sense to me that someone gets a payoff for something that was their mistake, not the cigarette company’s (or anyone else’s, for that matter).
Basically, any choice you make has a consequence. If you chose badly, then (for the most part) don’t expect good results. No matter how horrible the results might be, I suppose the action taken is equally foolish to any other action made with bad judgement.

4

Stoid, I agree. When people are suffering, we should have compassion for them, even if they did bring it on themselves. Chances are, they’re well aware of this, and are mentally kicking themselves.

I’m a lifelong non-smoker. I find smoke filled rooms very uncomfortable. But I feel sympathy for smokers. It seems to me that they fell into a “life trap” that is very difficult to avoid. It works like this–

The decision to start smoking is almost always made at a very young age. 30 or 40 years ago, I’d say at about 14. 10 or 20 years ago, at about 12. It may be even younger by now. Kids of 12 and 14 have no sence, no judgement, little maturity. And the idea that they should have any concern with health consequences decades in the future? Forget about it. It means zilch to them. Who wants to live to be that old? is often the attitude.

Little kids (ten and under) are often anti-smoking crusaders, trying to get parents and grandparents to quit. They’re mystified by smoking. (Of course, they’re also mystified by sex…) Anyhow, when they hit adolesence, their attitude often changes. Suddenly, they see the appeal. It looks cool and grown up. The coolest of the older kids do it. It’s an assertion of adulthood. It annoys the adults. And there’s the lure of the forbidden. How can they resist?

5

That was exactly the point I was going to make to Nocturne. I think it’s true of almost all addictive behaviors, but it’s unquestionably true of tobacco addiction. The foolish child dooms the knows-better adult to dealing with the pain of the addiciton.

And it’s funny what you say at the end about kids being crusaders… you could be talking about me. I “knew” how bad cigarettes were, I ragged my mom about her smoking all the time, telling her that her lungs were gonna turn black…but somehow I thought I could smoke without consequence when I was 16. (I found cigarettes amazingly addictive… I went from non-smoker to smoking more than a pack a day * literally * ** overnight **. I smoked a whole pack the last night of junior high, and smoked at least a pack or more per day for the next 26 years.) Very similar to my adolescent invincibility idiocy of thinking I could have sex without protection and never get pregnant. It took 2 years, but of course I did.

Kids are stupid, even if they’re smart. They don’t believe anything bad will ever happen to them. So they get involved in drugs and tobacco and alcohol, and one day they turn around, they’re 30, and they’ve got a substance abuse problem. Or they have AIDS.

And ** Trisk **, yours are words of wisom, not to mention pragmatism.

stoid

6

I’m not entirely sure if I understand your question, but from what I do understand it seems the question is entirely subjective, and that there is no one right answer. Speaking strictly for myself, on an intellectual level I don’t think I should have sympathy for a smoker with lung cancer, but if I were sitting in a room talking to one, I probably would anyway.

7

Now this is just a beastly comment that deserves the Death Of A Thousand Flamings.

I have plenty of compassion for people who suffer ANYTHING (well, just about). However, I just don’t think that their suffering is necessarily deserving of 3 billion bucks…

Yes. Any bad choice that I make should be forgiven instantly. Any bad choice you (universal “you”) make should hang over your head until you die.

(Don’t tell me I need to insert a smiley up there…)

8

As Triskedecamus and Weird_AL_Einstein have mentioned, there is no objective criteria for when compassion should be felt. Compassion is tied to moral beliefs. Stoid has given some examples, so let me throw one out there as well: A serial rapist/murderer is attacking a woman. The woman manages to turn the tables and stab the rapist with his own knife. As he lays bleeding and near death, should we feel compassion?

I don’t think there is a right answer. Two intelligent, thoughtful, good people could come to two different conclusions. One might believe all suffering people are deserving of compassion, while the other feels that the pain is a justifiable consequence of his actions. On the other hand, another serial rapist/murderer might feel compassion towards the dying man. The two good people and the other serial rapist can come to different conclusions based on different moral codes.

Just as different moral codes can lead to different conclusions as to a wounded rapist, so they can lead to different conclusions regarding a smoker with lung cancer. Some may feel that all people in pain deserve compassion. Some might make a distinction between illegal and legal activities. Some might distinguish between the rapist who harms others vs. the smoker who doesn’t. Some, like Beelzebubba, just feel that all consequences of freely taken actions are not deserving of compassion. Take your pick. But, in the end, it’s a choice based on personal subjective moral criteria.

9

Okay, I understand that a person can get addicted as a child, and that not all children are the same, that a great deal of young people assume they are immortal.
I have friends that smoke, that started when we were beginning junior high (around age 11). They know very, very well what the risks are, they knew them when they started, and they don’t really care, or act like they don’t, anyhow.
Some of these people are also drug addicts. One in particular enjoys his cocaine. He’s said very seriously that he knows it’s dangerous, and he does not care.
Now if this friend of mine becomes terminally ill because of his choices, then yes, I am going to feel sorry for his family and all those close to him. He, despite his illegal tendencies, is still a nice person.
However, I don’t think that he is entitled to any sort of payoff for his smoking. Or alcohol consumption. Or cocaine addiction.
I have no problem feeling sympathy for anyone; we all do make foolish mistakes, and even those that seem inconsequential can turn out to be life-threatening, and vice versa. However, I do not think that I or anyone else is entitled to a payoff for using bad judgement.

10

It certainly does. Thankfully, stoid was taking a little artistic license with my comments.

I think I clarified my position fairly well in the thread mentioned, and for the sake of brevity will not repeat here. I just wanted to check in.

11

Hear hear! Well said.

A point I think Stoid is ignoring in both threads:
While most of the choice/behavior & consequence pairings are reasonable and logically follow each other, this one

does not.
Drinking to excess consistantly will lead to health problems.
Smoking will lead to health problems.
Unprotected sex will, likely, lead to pregnancy at some point. STDs and whatnot are not a given.
Unprotected anal sex, in no way, neccessarily leads to STDs and AIDS. To say otherwise is, well, specious.

12

Ok, actually I can understand the position that stoid posts as belonging to ** Beelzebubba** (I’ll comment later on what my position is)

let me try this:

each human has certain urges - for sex, for food, for self preservation, for free cable (ok, so one of them is made up). While there are still free will choices made in each area (shall I dine on the greasy burger du jour or the sprouts n’ asparagus?, shall I act on my sexual urges with the neighbor’s chinchilla or not), the underlying urge is instinctive. This, I think is what Beelzebubba was getting at. There is no analogous inate urge (as far as I know) to ‘get high’, or suck burning nicotine through paper.

That having been said, many/most sad situations one may find oneself in may have elements of personal choice. However, every single moment of life involves some element of risk taking. When we ‘choose’ to drive to work each day, we’ve chosen to weigh out the potential risk of getting hurt in an accident not of our making, vs. loosing the job. Does this mean that we should not have sympathy for some one who got in a car wreck when they chose to go to a movie? Not to me.

For example- smoking risks - yes, smoking is a dangerous habit. However, smoking **one ** cigarette probably doesn’t raise your risk of anything dire in any substantial way. You do, of course, risk getting hooked as you continue to light up cigarettes, but again, the specific cause this cigarette to effect death by cancer isn’t as clear as say, driving into a tree. I ‘know’ this 'cause I used to be a smoker, and while I ‘knew’ that smoking, as a habit, and over a period of time and number of cigarettes consumed would substantially raise my risks, I couldn’t bring myself to believe that this cigarette, this friendly, comforting little number would ever harm moi.

So, for me personally, while I consider people to be responsable for decisions they have made (and the negative consequences that may arise from same), this doesn’t necessarily mean that I would not be empathetic to the human suffering that some one goes through. There may be a sliding scale depending on circumstances/events/consequences(I do recall, for instance pointing out to my son when he was younger that if he messed with the kitty, she might fight back and claw him).

13

I don’t understand why you would single out that one. None of the specified actions neccessarily lead to any of those consequences; in fact, statistically speaking, not wearing a seat belt probably will not lead to brain damage or death.

14

Uncertain whether this is a hi-jack or not…

I think the reason this “choice” issue is so prominent is that it is the only remotely valid issue for Big Backo to hang a defense upon. It is deep dish crapola.

Would we allow someone to open a public Anthrax Kool-Aid stand? If the proprietor posted enough warning signs to assure us that the customer was excercising free choice, could this possibly be acceptable? Of course not.

Perhaps the victim is weak and stupid. Perhaps he doesn’t truly deserve compensation. But the victimizer deserves it even less! Big Backo should be stripped of every dime! We have amply demonstrated our willingness to kill people who kill people. Let them count themselves lucky that they may walk about free amongst pimps and lawyers, who are vastly morally superior.

McVeigh killed 168. We killed him. What’s Phillip Morriss’ score? He committed his atrocity for sick, twisted politics. They did it for money. He went to the death chamber, they go to Bermuda.

It must be a very odd form of agnosticism, to go about with your fingers crossed, praying that there is no God.

Was it Leadbelly? “God damn, God DAMN! the pusherman!”

15

Stepenwolf.

16

God Damnit.

Steppenwolf.

17

I cannot help but feel sympathy for someone who is suffering. We all make stupid choices, or have stupid habits. Sometimes we get bit in the butt for them, sometimes we don’t.

So, of course I’d feel sorry for the smoker suffering from some illness because of their habit. (But I’d feel more sorry for the kid who is born with AIDS, or something. They didn’t contribute to their fate, whereas a smoker did.) But I still will feel sorry for the smoker who is ill. How could I not? We’re all stupid, we all make dumb mistakes. I’d have to be pretty hard-hearted to not feel sympathy for their suffering.

But also, as Nocturne wrote:

Exactly. I don’t consider the smoker who was able to read the warning label on the side of a cigarette pack a “victim” because they chose to light up anyway. They don’t deserve a payoff for that. However, they will get my sympathy for getting bit on the butt because of their dumb choices.

18

Wow. Wow, wow, wow. I’m going to print this out and put it somewhere that I and others can see it. I’ve had thoughts similar to this, but this was stated so clearly and eloquently that I don’t think I could have put it any better . . . Again: wow. What a great post!

19

Having sympathy for someone and expecting them to accept personal responsibilty for their own actions are not mutually exclusive.

I have sympathy for the guy who is dying of cancer. I wish he wasn’t dying. I feel sorry for him.

But I also think he’s a schmuck for trying to blame someone else for what he did to himself. And I think it’s a symptom of whats wrong with our society…that we make foolish decisions and then expect, nay demand, that others pay for them.

Sympathy and compassion do not mean a judgement in a lawsuit against someone else.

20

Sorry, Al. Stoid brought that one up in the other thread and I missed the seat-belt one, else I would have included it as well. The other actions, for the most part, are reasonable in their consequences if the action is taken to the extreme and then to it’s logical conclusion (excessive drinking, drug use, eating or complete slothe.) Her occasional tendency for non sequitur posting got under my skin, but I hope to continue a reasoned discussion here.