It seems rather intuitive that the sphere of interest is a limiting concept in the realm of ethics and morality. We only care about the people that are closest to us. If some random stranger off the street asked you for a hundred dollars for some reason, you wouldn't oblige. But, if your son or daughter or wife or husband asked you for the same favor, you would think twice. Why is this? — Posty McPostface
Based on this reasoning it would seem intuitively clear that this is a moral 'should' that needs implementing. It is morally right in some sense to want to increase the sphere of interest to encompass your fellow citizens and humanity. Thus, if there is a philosophy or school of thought (think classical conservativism for example) that encourages or negates these tendencies to increase the sphere of interest, then it seems that a judgment can be passed on their moral worth. — Posty McPostface
What can be done to enlarge our sphere of interest, and if anything should be done at all? — Posty McPostface
Does classical conservatism restrict to favour only those known to them? — gloaming
I think you know why that is. It is because they matter more to us. And they matter more to us because we have a closer relationship with them. — Sapientia
Yes, to some extent, but there's quite a difference between, say, arguing against cuts to benefits, and arguing that it should make no difference to someone whether it is their own mother asking for a hundred dollars or a random stranger off of the street. — Sapientia
For one thing, vote for the Labour Party, or whatever your nearest equivalent is. — Sapientia
My sphere of interest is larger than myself, my relatives, and my friends. I have no objection to giving a limited amount of money to persons in this "enlarged sphere". — Bitter Crank
What I object to is other people strenuously insisting that I add their favored group to my list of deserving beneficiaries. — Bitter Crank
Perhaps, to be more precise, we care most about those closest to us. We reserve a special place, a primacy, to those whom we know best and with whom we interact most often and most intimately. If this is the case, I could understand it since I don't know everyone, and couldn't possibly do so or interact with all the world's citizens intimately even on a monthly basis. — gloaming
I think you meant that I wouldn't think twice. — gloaming
However, you'd be mistaken. With experience and maturity working for me at over 65 years of age, I know better than to act without consideration of ALL kinds. I choose to be careful, to be discerning, late in life. I think it's a duty by now. — gloaming
I can't really argue with that; it seems self-evident. I would want the whole planet to treat my grandchildren and their children as they would each other, with equity, justice, beneficence, non-maleficence, etc. — gloaming
Does classical conservatism restrict to favour only those known to them? If so, and it's not demonstrated in anything you've offered thus far, are they different from liberals in that way? Perhaps you are conflating provincialism with a desire to see one's own flourish by devoting the limited resources each of them has to that end. It doesn't follow that classical conservatives have little or no positive regard for 'strangers'. — gloaming
Yes, perhaps you are right. I once heard that religious conservatives contribute the most to charities, moreso than liberals. — Posty McPostface
If some random stranger off the street asked you for a hundred dollars for some reason, you wouldn't oblige. — Posty McPostface
It doesn't follow that classical conservatives have little or no positive regard for 'strangers — gloaming
dont think anyone has said that its not OK for begging on the streets — Aleksander Kvam
what do you think that means? — Aleksander Kvam
What can be done to enlarge our sphere of interest, and if anything should be done at all? — Posty McPostface
I meant this figuratively. Just rhetorical tripe, hehe. — Posty McPostface
I agree with the concept that we have a "sphere of interest", but it seems based on emotion rather than reason. — Relativist
the reason I dont give, isnt because im cheap or dislike them or something like that. its because I dont think it will help much. — Aleksander Kvam
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.