Some philosopher thinks that human beings have progressed when it comes to morality since the modern age. The reason is that people can feel unforgivable feelings for unreasonable harm or injury of people who live in the opposite side on the earth or other parts on the earth in general beyond race and ethnicity.
Individuals who do not have that kind of feelings cannot say so because they think it is shameful, evil, anti-intelligence and anti-modernistic attitudes to speak so. It became a common sense that people, as the same human beings, cannot recognize poverty or anti-humanistic behavior or harm, as a result of these behavior, as just. It is usually argued that moral evolution occurred in human beings because of extension of interests and empathy.
A lot of philosophy of success demands that people should have sincere interests in others. It means that people who have no interests cannot be successful. In this context, having interests are praised and indifference are criticized.
The critical point is that these interests are not the same. Interests argued in the context of moral evolution are not interests in people but in the moral society. If there are interests in people in this context, then these interests may be the by-product of the interests in the moral society. It is the same interests if people are interested in their own society. In this case, people are interested in the way to the society but not in individuals as well.
The more extending people’s interests, the more the view point of the interests move toward the society from individuals. The more increase the interests in the society, the more decrease the interests in people in the real world. The society is divided into the small societies and becoming diverse: life-style, preferences, special fields of expertise and interpersonal relationship. If people are meeting neighbors, then people may meet with them as a member of different groups. I do not focus on whether it’s good or not. I just believe that it is important to note the fact that the post-modern people are always separating interests in people from interests in the society. This idea is necessary to think about the different conflicts between an individual vs. an organization /society.
I heard the story about an elite student who was jailed because of excessive demonstration about workers’ right. This student did not have conversation with workers who were also in the jail. It indicated that the student was interested in the thought but not in people.
It is also the similar story that a person who is interested in human rights may not be interested in people. These people are not a few. Rather, it seems to be clear tendency of the modern society. I may be the one of them.
Is there anyone who you are talking with but you are not interested in? Why?Is it because of the deficiency of empathy or of benefits? Is it because of conflicts? Conflicts can generate either strong interests or indifferences. In many cases, risks are in the indifferences. I do not care about philosophy of success; however, I think it is important to have some interests and not to be indifferent in any case. It is not necessary to have strong interests but to have minimum interests so that it can facilitate in understanding the others.