"I can't" actually means "I won't" - Page 6

[Smokering]

And btw, this is a response to the comment that "Can't versus Won't" would kill charity. I don't believe that debate does such. But perhaps I'm wrong.

What I think Bluegoat meant is that charity is usually about helping the less fortunate. So if you look at the lives of the less fortunate and think "Well, it's not that they can't make money/leave their abusive husbands/stop drinking/find a job, it's that they won't", it kills compassion. It makes for a blame-the-victim mentality in which what's "really" wrong with a person isn't her alcoholic family, health issues or systemic racism, it's her mindset. Rather an ugly point of view. Why bother helping her if all she really needs is to change her attitude and reframe her problems?

[Tracy]

Originally Posted by Smokering

What I think Bluegoat meant is that charity is usually about helping the less fortunate. So if you look at the lives of the less fortunate and think "Well, it's not that they can't make money/leave their abusive husbands/stop drinking/find a job, it's that they won't", it kills compassion. It makes for a blame-the-victim mentality in which what's "really" wrong with a person isn't her alcoholic family, health issues or systemic racism, it's her mindset. Rather an ugly point of view. Why bother helping her if all she really needs is to change her attitude and reframe her problems?

Yeah, I think that is equal to those who have religous point of view that is all about Heaven and the next 'lifetime' etc.. why care about life on earth? "It's all about that great place we (who believe) are going"... like those that really don't care about the enviroment or animals because of something they have intepreted in the bible or whatever is their scripture.
The distilling of something philosphoical or religous has historically been rife with problems.

[VillageMom6]

Originally Posted by Tracy

Yeah, I think that is equal to those who have religous point of view that is all about Heaven and the next 'lifetime' etc.. why care about life on earth?

Because we won't get to that happy eternity unless we follow Christ's command to...

1. Feed the hungry
2. Give drink to the thirsty
3. Clothe the naked
4. Visit the imprisoned
5. Shelter the homeless
6. Visit the sick
7. Bury the dead

I think James 2:15 is particularly relevent: If a brother or sister is without clothing and in need of daily food and one of you says to them, "Go in peace, be warmed and be filled," and yet you do not give them what is necessary for their body, what use is that?

[Smokering]

Christianity, at least, doesn't believe it's "all" about the next life at all; so that's an inaccurate "distilling". It's quite possible the OP's larger worldview, about which she's being somewhat coy, has other philosophies which balance the one in this thread; but the philosophy itself, taken alone, has at least one rather nasty logical conclusion.

[Tracy]

If you noticed my example was "animals" and "enviroment" putting the emphasis on that part of 'why care about life on earth." *
I think christian charities are well known.

my point was if you take a philosophy or religion and distill it out to I guess "logical conclusion"--it can get yucky. Any of them. I may have missed it, did the OP make this leap?

eta* christian versus enviroment is a old debate. google james watt.

[Smokering]

But being uncaring for the environment isn't the logical conclusion of Christianity; the Bible has some quite specific things to say about the stewardship of the Earth. Anyone who uses the one doctrine "the earth won't last forever" in isolation to justify raping the environment isn't taking Christianity to its logical conclusion, distilling it or any such thing. Ignoring other related doctrines isn't "distilling", it's distorting.

[Bluegoat]

Originally Posted by Tracy

Yeah, I think that is equal to those who have religous point of view that is all about Heaven and the next 'lifetime' etc.. why care about life on earth? "It's all about that great place we (who believe) are going"... like those that really don't care about the enviroment or animals because of something they have intepreted in the bible or whatever is their scripture.
The distilling of something philosphoical or religous has historically been rife with problems.

Well, there have been some religious views which thought this way, but certianly not all. It doesn't follow, for example, if you include the idea that our actions in this world influence the next, or if you say that the present world is in itself good, or even that the present world is in some sense part of the next one.

Perhaps if the OPs statement was in the context of a larger philosophy it would be easier to evaluate it.

I think everyone has agreed that our attitude can really affect our perception of reality, and how we respond to that. But to say that it determines our reality and that we can achieve happiness by simply having the right attitude is something most people won't agree with. Perhaps the only way I can see to make it work at all would be to take a totally detached approach, and even then it wouldn't mean we could always change our material circumstances.