Compassionate vs. Sentimental

[viscousmemories]

I've been wondering about the difference between these words lately. I have always thought of myself as compassionate because I'm empathetic toward other organisms that share the animal kingdom with me; I have always hated to see any animal suffer, from insects to humans.

However, I'm a realist. I understand that suffering is a part of life, and that we humans don't have much control over the natural way of things. For example animals are going to compete for resources, and that will frequently involve attacking and killing each other.

Humans seem to have risen above this natural tendency to some degree, in that we empathize with other humans and therefore in many cases favor cooperation over competition. However sometimes people aren't willing to cooperate, and it becomes necessary to compete for survival. At this point empathy seems to be a weakness, and compassion becomes sentimentality.

This makes sense to me on many levels. From welfare to war, from abortion to animal rights. It seems that the conflict that most frequently arises is one of where people draw the line between cooperation and competition; between compassion and sentimentality. One person's pragmatism is another person's callous disregard for life, etc.

Anyway I'm just making this up as I go along... what do you think?

[Sweetie]

I've been wondering about the difference between these words lately. I have always thought of myself as compassionate because I'm empathetic toward other organisms that share the animal kingdom with me; I have always hated to see any animal suffer, from insects to humans.

However, I'm a realist. I understand that suffering is a part of life, and that we humans don't have much control over the natural way of things. For example animals are going to compete for resources, and that will frequently involve attacking and killing each other.

What do you think of a human causing animals suffering if there is a specific need for it to help human beings? Animal testing for cancers for instance, and eating animals?

Humans seem to have risen above this natural tendency to some degree, in that we empathize with other humans and therefore in many cases favor cooperation over competition. However sometimes people aren't willing to cooperate, and it becomes necessary to compete for survival. At this point empathy seems to be a weakness, and compassion becomes sentimentality.

This makes sense to me on many levels. From welfare to war, from abortion to animal rights. It seems that the conflict that most frequently arises is one of where people draw the line between cooperation and competition; between compassion and sentimentality. One person's pragmatism is another person's callous disregard for life, etc.

Anyway I'm just making this up as I go along... what do you think?

Actually, I can't necessarily break this down into bits and understand every part as you present it or your meaning for some strange reason, it's my own problem, but it seems to be written very well and the point seems very true. True of me in that my pragmatism can be thought by vegetarians for instance, to be a callous disregard for animal life. Kudos to you. :yup:

Actually, if we are to focus on the subject of abortion for a minute, it often seems that my position is thought to be a callous disregard for women's life and pain, and their's to me oftentimes seems a callous disregard for the life of children,the existence of people, for the beginnings of human life which I think we need to respect because we once were that beginnings. I wish there was a way to reconcile these two, I don't think there is. We both can see each other as cruel and we both have reason to fear the other. It's a shame, I think.

[viscousmemories]

What do you think of a human causing animals suffering if there is a specific need for it to help human beings? Animal testing for cancers for instance, and eating animals?
Well that's the thing. I'm all over the map with my thoughts on those things. My empathy for other animals makes me recoil at the idea of intentionally causing them pain, but my pragmatic sense says all of us animals are in competition for limited resources, so we do what we must - up to and including torturing and killing other animals and each other - to assure our survival as a species. Which isn't to say that I think this inclination always manifests in morally just ways, but I do think different interpretations of this imperative are at the root of a lot of conflict in the world.

Actually, I can't necessarily break this down into bits and understand every part as you present it or your meaning for some strange reason, it's my own problem, but it seems to be written very well and the point seems very true. True of me in that my pragmatism can be thought by vegetarians for instance, to be a callous disregard for animal life. Kudos to you. :yup:
Thanks, but I think it's far more likely that I'm just not being very clear. I really am just making it up as I go along. Trying to figure out why there's so much conflict in the world without falling back on the easy (but unlikely) assumption that most people are fundamentally flawed.

Actually, if we are to focus on the subject of abortion for a minute, it often seems that my position is thought to be a callous disregard for women's life and pain, and their's to me oftentimes seems a callous disregard for the life of children,the existence of people, for the beginnings of human life which I think we need to respect because we once were that beginnings. I wish there was a way to reconcile these two, I don't think there is. We both can see each other as cruel and we both have reason to fear the other. It's a shame, I think.
Right, this is essentially what I'm talking about. Take gay marriage for example, just 'cause it's a slightly less volatile and divisive issue. One person thinks prohibiting it infringes on the civil rights of gays, and because they empathize with gays they disagree with the prohibition. Naturally, they feel their position is a compassionate view.

On the other hand, another person might favor the prohibition because they feel gay marriage causes social destabilization and thereby threatens the community of mankind. Naturally they too feel their position is a compassionate view. Meanwhile, the former frequently characterizes the latter as callous and hateful, and the latter characterizes the former as selfish and sentimental.

[Sweetie]

Meanwhile, the former frequently characterizes the latter as callous and hateful, and the latter characterizes the former as selfish and sentimental.

Bingo!

I haven't thought about animal activism for a long time, but the same old points that I have thought before rise up. I don't want animals to suffer unnecessarily, I think we should protect the whales, I think that man is more important than animals but I think man of course, needs animals so the only position is the best of both worlds I think. I think the average animal activist is a bit "off", I think that vegetarians are being a tad ridiculous, but that's just from my perspective. They of course think I'm icky and cruel. I remember a girl who grew up in a family of die-hard vegetarians asking me how I could eat anything that had a face. Well, :D , it doesn't necessarily have a face anymore, does it? (while Sweetie continued to eat her pizza pop with a straight face)

I mean, defend the whales but not at the expense of human life if it happens to be the case, but save the whales because man needs her ecosystem to be healthy in order to survive, whales being just a symbol of animal life in this case, or representatives of specific species that need to keep the food chain complete (bad example but perhaps you have an idea of what I'm getting at). Trying to find the balance in all these things is very difficult and in some cases I almost think it's impossible.

[Sweetie]

Actually, the recognition of these things I think is the first step in people of opposing parties to really understand each other, this sameness amongst humans, the things they share. Most people don't hold opinions they think are wrong, they come by them honestly. Now some might then feel like thinking the other is so ridiculous that they completely discount them or demonize them. Some might call the other ignorant and they may well be, but refusing to recognize that they come by what they think honestly just like the one accusing has, even if wrongly is almost worst than the ignorance of the former.

Your post has the potential to get very deep.

Double kudos to you. :wink:

[Adora]

I see sentimentalism as an excessive emotional investment, usually for no other reason than the investors benefit. Compassion, on the other hand, is more an emotional investment for the sake of the person being invested in.