GerPol: Now you've got it man! You are ignoring the fact that you might disagree with some of my ideas, and you are exploring WHY. It matters not that we disagree, but what we can gain from the challenge therein.
Good on ya!
What level is reasonable to expect?
It is a question like "Is the glass half-full or half-empty?" I personally believe what is "reasonable" is dictated by the circumstances of the moment. It is "reasonable" to give money to charity if you have money leftover for yourself. It is unreasonable, and illogical, to give everything to other people and starve yourself to death.
It is "reasonable" to give a hitch-hiker a ride on a cold winter day if you are in the middle of nowhere, the guy isn't dressed for the weather, and you know that if you don't pick him up, he might freeze to death. But it is "unreasonable" to assume that a guy walking along a busy highway in the middle of a city needs a lift. He won't freeze to death if there are stores or gas stations nearby, and you might just be picking up someone who will bring you grievous harm. You weigh each circumstance separately in the context of your surroundings.
It is "reasonable" to turn off the TV once a week and spend time with your kids, but it isn't "illegal" to ignore your kids for years on end, nor should the state make it illegal.
It is "reasonable" to be a friendly neighbour, but it is "unreasonable" to assume that everyone in your neighbourhood will be nice to you. In fact, I have found it is "reasonable" to maintain a healthy social distance from my neighbours. I am polite, I am there to provide change when they come knocking to get a loonie for the laundry room, I share my bounty with my neighbours - like when I have homegrown vegetables and they don't - but I do not invite them into my home. (My personal experiences dictate that doing so is detrimental to my emotional and physical wellbeing.)
Who sets this level?
We all set the level individually. There isn't some grand master, some all-knowing voice or power that dictates what is okay and what isn't. Some people have more tolerance for other people's problems than I do. It doesn't mean I am mean or uncaring, it's just that I have been badly taken in the past, and I have paid my dues in this regard.
If one is unable to reach this level what is their lot in life?
If the level is set within the individual, we either try to be realistic, or we get angry with ourselves for "failing". There are lots of miserable people out there who set high ideals for themselves - impossible ideals. And there are lots of people who set the bar too low, and never achieve their full personal, internal potential. It is a "risk" that we have to weigh within ourselves. Some like risk, some do not. We are all individuals. Our "lot" in life is to explore, to dream, to try, to reach. It also means that when we "fail", we have to accept some of the responsibility for it.
And it means there comes a time when we ignore our friends when they say, "How can you be rude to your brother like that? He is such a nice guy." You shake your head, wondering if you need tell your friend how your brother embarrassed you in front of the whole school when you were eight; how he took your favourite Tonka toy and lost it when you were eleven; how he always made you leave the treehouse first so that he could spit on your head; how he used to tease the dog; how he borrowed $10,000. from your Mom and Dad when he was 21 and never tried to pay it back; blah, blah, blah. We also have personal freedom to tell our friends to piss up a rope when they are being jerks!
How do we reconcile the social economic reality of these human characteristics?
We try to take care of ourselves and our loved ones, first and foremost. And if we have something leftover, we try to help others. The social economic reality is that life sucks some of the time, life sucks a lot of the time, and life sucks all of the time. Inbetween, we try to find meaning, happiness and peace. Life is what we make of it. And it isn't a bad thing to realize that you, as an individual are more talented at say, Management, than the next guy. It doesn't mean that we need to rub it in anyone's nose, nor does it mean we are arrogant if we try to be the best damned Manager in the whole company. Reality is that not everyone is born equal. Some babies are missing arms, some babies are missing nutrition, some babies are missing a nurturing mother. Being born at all involves risks, so maybe babies are risk-takers first and foremost.
Who oversees the fair and equitable treatment of the less fortunate?
You are assuming that humans have the capacity to comprehend and deliver "fair and equitable". The social experiment on the native indians was deemed necessary. Was it fair to the indians? Was it equitable to the indians?
The institutionalization and enslavement of orphans in the hundreds of years before our birth. It was deemed necessary, but was it fair? To some, perhaps. Equitable? To some perhaps.
Interestingly, there are still cultures on earth where the old folks are taken care of by family members until they die. I applaud those ideals, although I believe that there comes a time when professional care is what seniors need. Again, each situation has to be weighed in its own context. But we have to accept the responsibility to make a DECISION when the situation is before us.
Why did Rome burn? :))))
Kids playing with matches.
canuck-l-head |
