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.