Motivation for Helping

[GraceAbounds]

Imagine a Utopian world in which all people are happy and healthy, and have satisfying relationships. There is neither illness nor death. Each person's needs are entirely met without the help of other people. Within this model society, because everyone is satisfied, healthy, and happy, there is no social disorder and no needed for any helping profession: no police, doctors, nurses, lawyers, or social workers. Neither is there need for moral discernment. Now, imagine the social disorder that would follow the introduction of serious disease. Individuals who become ill are unable to care for themselves and to meet their own basic needs.

- How does society deal with this problem?

- Are the ill entirely responsible for themselves?

- Do unaffected members of society continue to live the Utopian existence, ignoring the suffering of others, or is the whole of society responsible for helping those in need?

- Does society allow the diseased members to suffer, or do healthy members act to help those afflicted, thus altering their own "perfect" lives and in turn the prevailing social order?

 

[dt3]

Imagine a Utopian world in which all people are happy and healthy, and have satisfying relationships. There is neither illness nor death. Each person's needs are entirely met without the help of other people. Within this model society, because everyone is satisfied, healthy, and happy, there is no social disorder and no needed for any helping profession: no police, doctors, nurses, lawyers, or social workers. Neither is there need for moral discernment. Now, imagine the social disorder that would follow the introduction of serious disease. Individuals who become ill are unable to care for themselves and to meet their own basic needs.

- How does society deal with this problem?

- Are the ill entirely responsible for themselves?

- Do unaffected members of society continue to live the Utopian existence, ignoring the suffering of others, or is the whole of society responsible for helping those in need?

- Does society allow the diseased members to suffer, or do healthy members act to help those afflicted, thus altering their own "perfect" lives and in turn the prevailing social order?

Holy deep thoughts Batman!

I would say that their reaction would be up to the individual. If they want to help, then they help. If not, they don't.

 

[GraceAbounds]

Holy deep thoughts Batman!

I would say that their reaction would be up to the individual. If they want to help, then they help. If not, they don't.

Challenge your self a little more when answering dear. I promise your brain will not blow a gasket. :tongue:

 

[Maritxu]

In an utopic world, I'd expect people to have empathy and a common sense of social responsability.

 

[NightWarrior]

You said everyone was healthy so no disease could be introduced.

However, if this did happen, I would assume it would be like the movie "Gattica".

 

[GraceAbounds]

In an utopic world, I'd expect people to have empathy and a common sense of social responsability.

Why? If you read the opening post you'd see that each person's needs are entirely met without the help of other people within the model society for a very long time. All of a sudden if disease is introduced what would happen then.

Please everyone, read the op and give it some deep thought to the scenario before answering. I'm trying to get feedback for an assignment.

 

[dt3]

I've thought about it, and my original answer stands.

Society as a whole shouldn't have to deal with the problem.

The ill ARE responsible for themselves. Or their family is responsible for them.

Unaffected members choose whether or not to help out. It's an individual's decision, not the society's.

It's similar to welfare IMO. I don't think the government (society as a whole) should be responsible for it. I think it should fall to the individual level/churches and other organizations. Not the society as a whole.

 

[GraceAbounds]

I've thought about it, and my original answer stands.

Society as a whole shouldn't have to deal with the problem.

The ill ARE responsible for themselves. Or their family is responsible for them.

Unaffected members choose whether or not to help out. It's an individual's decision, not the society's.

It's similar to welfare IMO. I don't think the government (society as a whole) should be responsible for it. I think it should fall to the individual level/churches and other organizations. Not the society as a whole.

So because of disease being introduced, in your opinion, does this change their Utopian society as described in the op?

 

[dt3]

So because of disease being introduced, in your opinion, does this change their Utopian society as described in the op?

The op says there's no illness, so obviously it's changed :tongue:


But, I think it would provide motivation to create the "helping" professions they lacked in the first place. If people get sick, someone's going to want to be a doctor to help them, etc.

 

[GraceAbounds]

In the Utopian society as described in the op what would make people all of a sudden 'help' others.

The society set up is very self centered. If that is how generations of people lived - why do you think anyone would 'help'. Wouldn't the thought of disease in a society like this actually freak people out? Don't you think people would maybe kill them or cast them out vs. 'help' them?

 

[Maritxu]

Why? If you read the opening post you'd see that each person's needs are entirely met without the help of other people within the model society for a very long time. All of a sudden if disease is introduced what would happen then.

But you also said that they had healthy relationships, and helping others is also part of that right? People need others always, we are social animals Grace. Unless you are suggesting that these people don't need each other never and there's no friendship, love or empathy among them.
I can understand that their physical needs are met without other people's help, but there are some needs you can't satisfy for yourself alone.
But let's asume that they do not have these type of needs. Then I guess we would be speaking about a strictly individualist society, where people are educated to achive what is best for them only, right? Then of course, adapting to the new situation would only depend on each individual's risk to get sick.
Another factor I would take into account is the moral developement of the group, education, even religion and values. The type of state would also be important. Is this an anarchy?
I'm sorry if I'm not helping, but your question is extremely complex and I can't think of a simple answer, lol. I feel like this is an exam on Social psychology, lol

 

[NightWarrior]

In the Utopian society as described in the op what would make people all of a sudden 'help' others.

The society set up is very self centered. If that is how generations of people lived - why do you think anyone would 'help'. Wouldn't the thought of disease in a society like this actually freak people out? Don't you think people would maybe kill them or cast them out vs. 'help' them?

This is why I said it would be like the movie Gattica. Of course they would cast them out. They wouldn't know how to deal with them.

 

[GraceAbounds]

But you also said that they had healthy relationships, and helping others is also part of that right? People need others always, we are social animals Grace. Unless you are suggesting that these people don't need each other never and there's no friendship, love or empathy among them.

You are trying to interject the way we are today into the description of the society I've tried to briefly described in the OP, which shouldn't be done. Two very different cultures. The healthy relationships in the OP are healthy in the context of the way THEY (the Utopian people) view things in THEIR society which could very well be different than we view 'healthy relationships' in our culture and society.

I can understand that their physical needs are met without other people's help, but there are some needs you can't satisfy for yourself alone.
But let's asume that they do not have these type of needs. Then I guess we would be speaking about a strictly individualist society, where people are educated to achive what is best for them only, right? Then of course, adapting to the new situation would only depend on each individual's risk to get sick.

Now you are on track!

Another factor I would take into account is the moral developement of the group, education, even religion and values. The type of state would also be important. Is this an anarchy?

This is what would have to be thought of by you, not answered by me. So if the OP is the way 'it is', what are some of the things that you think they'd value. Personally I am thinking pretty selfish without out and out stomping on anyone else's rights (whatever they may be in that society)

I'm sorry if I'm not helping, but your question is extremely complex and I can't think of a simple answer, lol. I feel like this is an exam on Social psychology, lol

The question is complex and you are right there is no simple answer, nor is there a correct answer. I'm just trying to get feedback so that I can include perspectives that I may not have come up with on my own.

Thanks for your insight.

 

[GraceAbounds]

This is why I said it would be like the movie Gattica. Of course they would cast them out. They wouldn't know how to deal with them.

Or they would not want to.

 

[NightWarrior]

Or they would not want to.

This is probably open for interpretation because want/not know could be a thin line here. They just might be unable to help because they don't even understand the concept.

 

[GraceAbounds]

true, true, good point

 

[Maritxu]

You are trying to interject the way we are today into the description of the society I've tried to briefly described in the OP, which shouldn't be done. Two very different cultures. The healthy relationships in the OP are healthy in the context of the way THEY (the Utopian people) view things in THEIR society which could very well be different than we view 'healthy relationships' in our culture and society.

What I was picturing was human nature, and I think it was a problem with how the question was formulates. Insteand of talking about people it should have been said that they were just intelligent individuals, because in this world now, even the most different cultures and societies have things in common.

This is what would have to be thought of by you, not answered by me. So if the OP is the way 'it is', what are some of the things that you think they'd value. Personally I am thinking pretty selfish without out and out stomping on anyone else's rights (whatever they may be in that society)

After giving it a bit more thought, I am no wondering what the role of the famlily would be. I wonder if they provide for thier own and if babies need assistant, if people marry or they don't.
This all comes from the fact that I was thinking about them being a society where cooperation and prosocial behaviour is not necessary, thus has never been promoted.
Introducing something that puts the people at risk and in need of help could cause people to wonder why and most importantly if they can also get sick. Maybe this is indeed a contageous sickness, maybe that would actually cause people to lock the sick ones away? think they are being punished for some reason? What would def cause is a lot of fear.
If the society is based on family (individualism is in the end only wanting the best for your family and you) people would care only for thos in their families and themselves. In case there's no families, the only one the indivudual would care for is his own. And research, trying to find a cure, and maybe even helping would only depend on this, or on the possible percieved risk of getting sick. (there's people like that in our society too btw )

Do we help others because we expect help in return? I wouldn't say so, though we do help because we are able to put ourselves in the possition of others (which in the utopic society, probably wouldn't have been a necessary quality). Human beings are social animals. Then they are moral animals. Pro social behaviour is adaptative, seen as something positive. The moral developement during the ages comes probably from empathy, something learned in early stages of childhood, part of our social self. That is why it was hard for me to imagine a type of individual who needs nothing from others, never. But it still was a great topic Grace and I could write a book about this, lol

 

[Peter Parka]

I would expect the people to help the sick. If they were selfish enough not to then I couldn't say it was a Utopian society in the first place.