Get Email Updates • Email this Topic • Print this Page
Actually, I completely agree with you. I think it only makes sense that a person feel guilt as a result from neglecting things they can change (or at least, things that they realize or believe they can have a hand in changing). In the scenario you bring up I think it is perfectly sensible that you don't feel "guilt" over it; though, of course that isn't to disregard any other emotions that may be experienced. "Guilt," however, would not necessarily arise from that situation.
Does that make sense?
If, on the other hand, I hold the capability to make a difference, but I choose not to, then I am indirectly responsible.
Sort of like this scenario: there is a person being beat up on the street, and I choose to walk by instead of interfering or calling the police or some other such means of doing something. If it is a situation like this one (though on a much larger scale), where something could clearly be done to help, then silence is compliance; and in my opinion I would then hold equal responsibility.
So would you hold yourself indirectly responsible for the genocide in Sudan?
The key, however, for anyone who does want to often be altruistic (note: by altruistic I mean a person who can act primarily for another being's welfare; yet this does not take away the need and desire for self-preservation; that would be insensible)
But isn't altruism an ethical doctrine that holds that individuals have a moral obligation to help, serve and benefit others, if necessary at the sacrifice of your own self-interest? Or maybe you're speaking of altruism is general, and not the specific ethical doctrine.