Why Compassion?

Ever since the post a few days ago about whether or not one should help a beaten man on the street, I got to thinking about compassion. In that situation, I would help the man almost every time, but I don't think it would be 'wrong' to just leave him there. So I wonder, how does evolution play into compassion? Is compassion just a psychological phenomenon? How does one feel this even when one sees himself as an animal with self-interest in mind?

My thoughts are that it is a result of a deeper understanding of the experience of life, of what it means to live and to suffer, and the understanding that all living things go through similar experiences. It's only when one becomes conscious of his own suffering that he can recognize the suffering in others. This makes me think that compassion came after the development of consciousness in man. If this is true, then compassion isn't an evolutionary instinct, so to speak, but rather something that comes after/during the experience of the conscious life. Most kids aren't compassionate until they grow up a little. Even many adults fail to feel compassion if they don't recognize the suffering of others to be like their own. We've all known people who can't seem to look beyond their own problems.

Those people aren't evil or wrong; they just lack a sense of unity with other people.

It doesn't seem that compassion therefore evolved as something necessary for our survival. It is accidental to our being conscious of our suffering, and our ability to rise beyond ourselves.

Thoughts/comments?

The idealist in me, thinks that compassion is the key to true happiness. But, some people are so shallow, that they think property rights are the key to happiness. It only takes one uncompassionate pr1ck to spoil the whole lot.

Think about driving in a lot of traffic. If everyone is compassionate (and rational), the traffic flows smoothly. But, one jerk weaving in and out of traffic, causes havoc. He thinks it's his right to weave in and out of traffic... but fails to have compassion for others on the road.

Life is a lot like driving... I think I'm going to write a book about that. [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
The idealist in me, thinks that compassion is the key to true happiness. But, some people are so shallow, that they think property rights are the key to happiness. It only takes one uncompassionate pr1ck to spoil the whole lot.

Think about driving in a lot of traffic. If everyone is compassionate (and rational), the traffic flows smoothly. But, one jerk weaving in and out of traffic, causes havoc. He thinks it's his right to weave in and out of traffic... but fails to have compassion for others on the road.

Life is a lot like driving... I think I'm going to write a book about that. [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]
Poker is like driving. Tight aggresive and all those small gains add up.

chez

Because our society does better if we are compassionate.

[tolbiny]

"This makes me think that compassion came after the development of consciousness in man. If this is true, then compassion isn't an evolutionary instinct, so to speak"

Human brain's reached their current average size around 200,000 years ago so its not unreasonable to assume that they were fully conscious, and it is entirely possible that our ancestors were conscious much before that. perhaps as much as 2 million years ago. Why wouldn't compassion be an evolutionary trait if it could well be between 200,000 and 2 million years old?

The simple reason to exercise compassion is that you would want others to show compassion to you, it's a social contract.

The reason why kids are more narcisstic, as you say, is that they're further down the learning curve in terms of experiencing humanity. That's the same reason only children have a tendency to be more narcisstic as adults (sweeping generalization).

I can see why you'd say consciousness might be a prerequisite of compassion, but I can't see why you'd assume consciuosness isn't an evolved motivation or indeed one that goes back a long way - it's present in apes isn't it?. Evolutionary biology is not something I'm expert in at all though, so I await correction [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[peritonlogon]

[ QUOTE ]
The simple reason to exercise compassion is that you would want others to show compassion to you, it's a social contract.

The reason why kids are more narcisstic, as you say, is that they're further down the learning curve in terms of experiencing humanity. That's the same reason only children have a tendency to be more narcisstic as adults (sweeping generalization).

I can see why you'd say consciousness might be a prerequisite of compassion, but I can't see why you'd assume consciuosness isn't an evolved motivation or indeed one that goes back a long way - it's present in apes isn't it?. Evolutionary biology is not something I'm expert in at all though, so I await correction [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

My opinion on this is very complex. I think the whole socail contract has some weight in that many things we humans do are interrelated and dynamic on social/psychological/intellectual levels. That being said, compasion is also a sort of out growth of the trait of cooperation, which Richard Dawkins describes as "an evolutionary stable behaviour." To get a full understanding of this read "The selfish Gene" by the above author. Human emotions are so complex that to call any one thing the cause of a specific emotion is really to turn your back on the world.

[KeysrSoze]

Why do you think it came after consciousness? Baboons and other animals will often adopt an orfaned child, with no relation to it and seemingly nothing to gain from it. Mercy is similar. Dominance struggles can be really vicious but the loser is usually spared when it surrenders (wolves presenting a vulnerable area like the neck or belly, for instance). Keeps the population from being decimated after every small argument.

[ QUOTE ]
Poker is like driving. Tight aggresive and all those small gains add up.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's funny watching a car weaving in and out of traffic trying to get ahead (I'm in Dallas, Texas), and then passing that same car 10 minutes later by staying in the same lane the whole time.

PS: Slower traffic keep right. Thank you. [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Poker is like driving. Tight aggresive and all those small gains add up.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's funny watching a car weaving in and out of traffic trying to get ahead (I'm in Dallas, Texas), and then passing that same car 10 minutes later by staying in the same lane the whole time.

PS: Slower traffic keep right. Thank you. [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]
I should point out I'm talking proper driving like we have in london (you need a degree of complexity in the choices to see the clear advantage of the TAG approach). Anyone who says TAG driving doesn't save much time in London is full of it.

Passives are the easiest to exploit, LAGS are dangerous and be very careful around maniacs.

And driving in England compared to the USA is like online poker to real poker - no guns [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

chez