Is Genuine Compassion Useless?

[Jgib5328]

I know that compassion helped the human race to survive, since it made people want to help other people, but is there any real use for it today? I'm not talking about feelings wise, but rationally, is genuine compassion useful? I don't think it is. People who act in a compassionate way usually have other people act compassionately towards them, which means that they both help each other in some way. But what if you can fake that? Then you still get the benefit, making genuine compassion obsolete.

[vaguely dissatisfied]

I know that compassion helped the human race to survive, since it made people want to help other people, but is there any real use for it today? I'm not talking about feelings wise, but rationally, is genuine compassion useful? I don't think it is. People who act in a compassionate way usually have other people act compassionately towards them, which means that they both help each other in some way. But what if you can fake that? Then you still get the benefit, making genuine compassion obsolete.
I suppose that if you can fake compassion that would work to your advantage. However, compassion usually comes from a feeling of pity that then drives an individual to act in a helpful or merciful way. If you don't feel the pity, then you are much less likely to act helpfully or mercifully or even understand that you should.

[Antares]

I've heard of the notion that everything works best in a team. If that is the case, then compassion would benefit everyone and definitely better than every man for himself. I can't say I feel much compassion for anyone. Empathy, sure. I can easily now how they feel and their logic without actually feeling the weight of their dilemma, but I hardly ever feel compassion. I can fake it though, but most of the time I don't bother. I've always felt that genuine compassion is the 'happily ever after' solution.

[Nausved]

I'd say compassion is very useful. It gives us the drive to cooperate with one another, and cooperation is the root of our continuing success as a species.

Compassion isn't necessary for cooperation, but it greatly increases the likelihood of cooperation. This is especially so for very advanced forms of cooperation, where the personal benefits of an action are unclear or not immediate (e.g., punishing wrongdoers, even if they did no harm to you personally).

It all comes down to game theory—a very, very complicated form of which we highly compassionate humans are particularly adept.

As such, I work very hard to foster a strong sense of compassion in myself. In my experience, it leads to better decision-making, especially in the longterm.

[Jgib5328]

Yeah definitely in a team enviroment it is useful, but what about for individual success? Wouldn't fake compassion get you the benefit of genuine compassion, while minimizing the cost?

[Zilal]

Depends what you mean by useful. If useful means "allows material or status gain," no. If it means "allows you to feel better, enjoy life more and have more energy," then yes.

[Nomad]

Yes, compassion is important. It's that thing which creates fellow feeling when someone needs help or is in trouble. It impels you to act, because someday you may need the help. It goes both ways. Compassion permits forgiveness, which is an essential lubricant to society. It's not often I'm gobsmacked, but that question did it.

I have news folks, we do live in a society, and we do deal with other people, and their experience is just as important as yours. You are not an island. You depend on other people countless times each day.

Wow.

-Nomad

[Nausved]

Yeah definitely in a team enviroment it is useful, but what about for individual success? Wouldn't fake compassion get you the benefit of genuine compassion, while minimizing the cost?

There isn't much cost to compassion. It does not hurt you to feel.

But if your compassion is faked, you'll be less likely to participate in social activities with longterm benefits to yourself. The Lion and the Mouse (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) is a fairly good illustration of this, I think.

[Jgib5328]

Yes, compassion is important. It's that thing which creates fellow feeling when someone needs help or is in trouble. It impels you to act, because someday you may need the help. It goes both ways. Compassion permits forgiveness, which is an essential lubricant to society. It's not often I'm gobsmacked, but that question did it.

I have news folks, we do live in a society, and we do deal with other people, and their experience is just as important as yours. You are not an island. You depend on other people countless times each day.

Wow.

-Nomad

What if you faked that compassion, so much so that it looked real? You would still absorb the benefits and not suffer any of the cost of emotional baggage.





Jgib5328 added to this post, 1 minutes and 44 seconds later...

There isn't much cost to compassion. It does not hurt you to feel.

But if your compassion is faked, you'll be less likely to participate in social activities with longterm benefits to yourself. The Lion and the Mouse (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) is a fairly good illustration of this, I think.

I see the costs as getting emotionally attached to a person or their situation so much so that it impedes your judgment and capability of reacting rationally.

[thod]

What if you faked that compassion, so much so that it looked real? You would still absorb the benefits and not suffer any of the cost of emotional baggage.


This is the question of the evil man. A man was born that was pure evil. In order to disguise his true nature he resolved only to perform good acts. He went to his grave never having performed a single evil act. Was he a saint or a devil?

In human evolutionary terms you would be related to everyone else in the group. Their survival is the survival of your genes too.

[vkut79]

I have news folks, we do live in a society, and we do deal with other people, and their experience is just as important as yours. You are not an island. You depend on other people countless times each day.

I agree with all of that except the part "their experience is just as important as yours". To me, my experience is more important than the experience of other people.

If you mean in a global, unbiased perspective, then maybe. But in real life, everyone cares more about their own experience than that of others. To say otherwise is just wrong.

[Colette]

I know that compassion helped the human race to survive, since it made people want to help other people, but is there any real use for it today? I'm not talking about feelings wise, but rationally, is genuine compassion useful? I don't think it is. People who act in a compassionate way usually have other people act compassionately towards them, which means that they both help each other in some way. But what if you can fake that? Then you still get the benefit, making genuine compassion obsolete.

Well if like a true INTx type you believe compassion must be founded on a 'cost/benefit' analysis, and that there needs to be some utility and some pay-off, then yes, it probably is obsolete ;)

[Nausved]

What if you faked that compassion, so much so that it looked real? You would still absorb the benefits and not suffer any of the cost of emotional baggage.

If you fake it, then the end result is the same, and thus it does no harm to fake it.

However, I'm arguing that if you choose your actions based solely on benefits to yourself, there are going to be many cases where you don't behave compassionately simply because you are not aware of the benefits.

But if you are genuinely compassionate, you will behave in a compassionate manner even if the benefits are not apparent. Thus more benefits will come to you, though they may come in surprising ways.

Now, if you're rational enough to realize that there are benefits to compassionate behavior—even when those benefits are too obscure or too far down the road to predict—then that's great. You'll do just fine without a genuine sense of compassion. But most of us require some sort of motivation.

[starztimehalo]

This is the question of the evil man. A man was born that was pure evil. In order to disguise his true nature he resolved only to perform good acts. He went to his grave never having performed a single evil act. Was he a saint or a devil?

In human evolutionary terms you would be related to everyone else in the group. Their survival is the survival of your genes too.



Saying that a man was born that was pure evil is presuming that humans are born predetermined to be either evil or good. I don't really think predetermination in this way affects humans. It is possible that genetics affects people's behaviors but having certain genes shold not make a person inherently evil although it may predispose them to certain behaviours. Ultimately, environment growing up problably plays a large factor in the building of self-confidence and esteem. However, as people grow older they usually gain the ability to take responsility for their actions and hopefully they can think about the consequences before an action is made. Altruistic deeds usually are perceived as positive acts, but performing one altruitic act does not make a person good and doing one bad thing does not make a person bad. It is a culmination of acts and deeds that I would claim are not predetermined.

[Jgib5328]

If you fake it, then the end result is the same, and thus it does no harm to fake it.

However, I'm arguing that if you choose your actions based solely on benefits to yourself, there are going to be many cases where you don't behave compassionately simply because you are not aware of the benefits.

But if you are genuinely compassionate, you will behave in a compassionate manner even if the benefits are not apparent. Thus more benefits will come to you, though they may come in surprising ways.

Now, if you're rational enough to realize that there are benefits to compassionate behavior—even when those benefits are too obscure or too far down the road to predict—then that's great. You'll do just fine without a genuine sense of compassion. But most of us require some sort of motivation.

Good points. I actually do help other people quite often, I was just curious.

[meaniehaha]

This discussion of feigned compassion reminds me of the old argument regarding Oscar Schindler's actions during WWII. The Jews he saved from the ovens felt they owed him their lives. After the war, and after his wife divorced him, some of those he'd saved wound up supporting him for the rest of his life, I believe. Others have argued that Schindler had enjoyed playing God, and relished deciding which ones would live and which would die. I don't profess to know his real motives.

[Zilal]

What if you faked that compassion, so much so that it looked real? You would still absorb the benefits and not suffer any of the cost of emotional baggage.

The thing is that compassion has nothing to do with emotional baggage... it's not duty, or guilt, or moral obligation. It's a feeling that comes from inside that makes helping others seem very appealing. It's the sort of thing that lifts you up. If you're feeling weighed down helping others, it's probably not compassion you're feeling. (General you here.)

In this sense, no reward for compassion is necessary. Compassion all by itself simply feels better than does feeling irritation with others, or guilt, or superiority.

[Murasaki]

I don't know about this idea of 'fake compassion.' When you do something good for someone and expect payback, it’s reciprocity. Compassion gives without expecting anything in return. Reciprocity always has the balance sheet in mind. Usually people can tell when someone does something out of the desire for reciprocity rather than compassion. Some people don’t like it and the ‘good’ deed backfires. People tend to read you as fake, even self serving, and are less likely to help you in the end, unless they too are seeking reciprocity. But then should either party entertain illusions of compassion? My rule is, if you don’t have the compassion and the desire to be helpful just for the sake of helping, then don’t.

[Jgib5328]

I don't know about this idea of 'fake compassion.' When you do something good for someone and expect payback, it’s reciprocity. Compassion gives without expecting anything in return. Reciprocity always has the balance sheet in mind. Usually people can tell when someone does something out of the desire for reciprocity rather than compassion. Some people don’t like it and the ‘good’ deed backfires. People tend to read you as fake, even self serving, and are less likely to help you in the end, unless they too are seeking reciprocity. But then should either party entertain illusions of compassion? My rule is, if you don’t have the compassion and the desire to be helpful just for the sake of helping, then don’t.

You can fake compassion. It's not about what you see it as, it's about what the other person sees it as. If you fake going out of your way to help someone seemingly without any expectation of a reward, then you have faked compassion. I'm assuming that the person is so good at faking compassion, that it is impossible for another person to tell the difference between their fake compassion and real compassion (this is a theoretical situation).

[Murasaki]

You can fake compassion. It's not about what you see it as, it's about what the other person sees it as. If you fake going out of your way to help someone seemingly without any expectation of a reward, then you have faked compassion. I'm assuming that the person is so good at faking compassion, that it is impossible for another person to tell the difference between their fake compassion and real compassion (this is a theoretical situation).

From Merriam-Webster
Compassion
Pronunciation: \kəm-ˈpa-shən\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French or Late Latin; Anglo-French, from Late Latin compassion-, compassio, from compati to sympathize, from Latin com- + pati to bear, suffer — more at patient
Date: 14th century
: sympathetic consciousness of others' distress together with a desire to alleviate it

Ergo compassion is an internal feeling, not the external manifestation of said feeling. So you can't fake it. You can fake generosity, maybe. Maybe I'm being too semantic? Perhaps, because I think -- believe, I suppose, would be better, since it is subjective -- that learning compassion is so important, and that the idea of pretending to care for one's own benefit, even as intellectual exercise, is so contrary to that, the question really threw me for a loop. I suppose my real question is, is there really a cost to being genuinely compassionate? Isn't the cost of not being compassionate much higher? Maybe I'm a closet INFJ... :scared:

[DeadSpace]

I know that compassion helped the human race to survive, since it made people want to help other people, but is there any real use for it today? I'm not talking about feelings wise, but rationally, is genuine compassion useful? I don't think it is. People who act in a compassionate way usually have other people act compassionately towards them, which means that they both help each other in some way. But what if you can fake that? Then you still get the benefit, making genuine compassion obsolete.
Scratch my back, i'll scratch yours, tit for tat, etc. Those i believe are what you meant, you can't fake compassion, you can have an exchange though based solely on favors done. Compassion is an emotion as well as an action, you feel for the other person, want to do something to help. Compassion doesn't want, need or require an equal trade, it's altruistic. Giving a begger some money, donating to charity, lending an ear, or shoulder. Those are acts of compassion...you gain nothing in return...concrete anyway.

Exchange of favors is more upfront...and a more accurate description then faking compassion.

[SeaCzar]

From Wikipedia:

Compassion is an understanding of the emotional state of another or oneself. Not to be confused with empathy, compassion is often combined with a desire to alleviate or reduce the suffering of another or to show special kindness to those who suffer. However, compassion may lead an individual to feel empathy with another person.


Compassion is often characterized through actions, wherein a person acting with compassion will seek to aid those they feel compassionate for. Acts of compassion are generally considered those which take into account the pain of others and attempt to alleviate that pain. In this sense, the various forms of the Golden Rule are in part based on the concept of compassion, if also on the concept of empathy.

Compassion differs from other forms of helpful or humane behavior in that its focus is primarily on the alleviation of pain and suffering. Acts of kindness which seek primarily to confer benefit rather than relieve existing pain and suffering are better classified as acts of altruism, although, in this sense, compassion itself can be seen as a subset of altruism, it being defined as the type of behavior which seeks to benefit others by reducing their suffering.

Given this, I would see myself as having compassion for almost anyone in immediate physical pain (eg: the guy getting out of his car next to you falls and breaks his arm. I would hope everyone here would at least call 911). Emotional pain would be different. If someone I do not know, or do not know well, starts pouring their heart out because their boyfriend/girlfriend just broke up with them, while I would try not to be mean, I really would have to fake compassion for the individual (and probably bite my tongue not to roll my eyes). Yet, I would be have a lot of compassion if someone I am close to was in emotional distress.

[INTJoe]

Compassion is definitely useful.

We can't be all INTJ all the time. We don't readily see the use of compassion, but it is definitely there. I know I've had times where I felt better after someone was compassionate toward me. I think it's a basic human desire to yearn for compassion. So, it's useful.

Is it efficient? Maybe not. But in the long-run, it's probably a really good thing.

[Blaze2000]

I'm not sure how faking compassion is really less work. If by faking, you mean you're fooling others that you have compassion, then you're essentially doing the same amount of work as if you really had it. People aren't going to be fooled long if you don't actually demonstrate it in some meaningful way.

[Nomad]

As Murasaki stated, it can't be faked, but the original question was whether or not it's obsolete. If you have to "fake" it to get by in society, it's not obsolete.A person might lack it, and pretend, but it's not obsolete. It's like asking if being happy, or sad, or lonely or fulfilled is obsolete.

-Nomad

[meanlittlechimp]

Compassion is useful to the recipient of the compassion occasionally. If you're doing it as a quid pro quo move, and are faking it to get some good action returned to you, it can have some beneficial impact to the giver. But I find most people that are like this, get found out.

Having compassion can be beneficial because...., by not being a selfish, self absorbed, asshole, surprising fringe benefits can occur. Like having friends for one or working better with others by understanding others for another. Considering societies are made up of human interaction, these benefits can sometimes come in handy.

I would also argue compassion and empathy are directly related. You need empathy to have compassion and I think most people that have empathy, also have compassion.

[youngblooded]

I suppose that if you fake an emotion such as compassion, eventually someone would find out and you will be in serious trouble then.

[fripping]

whether real or fake the result is the same. that's good. it leaves the truth of the act up to the individual to ponder.

[eternaltriangle]

No, genuine compassion can be efficient in society. Allow me to construct a simple model to demonstrate this.

1 person A is a materialist, and is happier by getting things.
1 person B is mixed, some of their happiness comes from having things, some comes with feeling good about themselves.

If B gives to A, B loses a bit (the cost of the act), but gains happiness from the gift. For person A, there is a pure gain in utility.

In general, different preference structures between different people make compassion and giving rational. The fact that some people enjoy seeing others enjoy a gift makes it moreso. On the other hand, there are also sometimes transaction costs to compassion that make it less likely to be rational.


Compassion has its place, although the issue is really more where it is misapplied by a society that fetishizes it. Moreover, because being compassionate allows people to feel better about themselves than others, nowadays compassion is often sought for ulterior motives... "I drive a hybrid, because I care about global warming."

When people think like that, governments and private actors are pushed towards solutions that look good, rather than solutions that are effective. An egregious case of this is Jeffrey Sachs. Jeffrey Sachs was once a great economist who engineered a turnaround in Bolivia from the world's highest inflation rates (like 20,000% a year). However, of late he has been championing no-strings-attached aid to Africa, because it has put him in good steed with the likes of Angelina Jolie (celebrities are particularly guilty of faux compassion).

So on the question of whether compassion is more a force for good or ill, I say it is on balance a bad thing.