Give a hungry man a fish and you fix his hunger for a day. Teach a man to fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
You all know the saying. But lets dig a little deeper, shall we.
First shovel full: Whether you do option 1 or option 2, you may be acting out of empathy for the hungry fellow. If you choose option 1, it is not fair to tell someone who chooses option 2 that they are not empathetic. If you choose option 2, it is not fair to tell someone who chooses option 1 that they are not empathetic. A person choosing either option is likely doing so out of a heart of empathy and we should not disparage him as not caring if he does not choose what you choose.
Second shovel full: One could argue that it might take several days to teach a man to fish. Teaching him to fish so well that he should expect to catch fish every day could take weeks, months, or even years. So sure, we could teach him to fish, but in the meantime he is starving and needs to eat. If you don’t give him a fish, he might not live long enough to learn how to fish. All you end up with is a dead apprentice fisherman. On the other hand, if you give him a fish but don’t teach him how to catch them, then all you are doing is giving him another day of life… unless of course you keep bringing more fish every day. In this scenario you end up creating a state of dependency on you to keep him alive, which of course cannot go on forever.
Third shovel full: Both options have upside and downsides. Choosing one over the other does not mean you are not empathetic. You simply have weighed things out and have decided which things of value to protect. If two people have weighed things out and come to different conclusions as to the best course of action, all that is left to do is to decide which empathetic response best advances your values. There is no room for declaring that those who disagree with your proposed solution indicates a lack of empathy.
And now we take out the last shovel full: there are many problems in our world and many hurting people. Most decent human beings care when other human beings are hurting. There are , however, two important stages to see. First, recognizing that there is a problem and that people are hurting. The only thing necessary here is to have the truth – objective facts upon which we make a determination of the problem. The second stage is devising a solution to the problem. This involves imputing personal values, ethics, and often political philosophy – things that we hold individually in our heads and used to devise the solutions – things we all can easily disagree upon.
And now, the bottom of the hole. I encourage you not to dismiss anyone as uncaring, cold, or unthinking because they hold to a different solution to a problem. Complicated problems involving human suffering abound: immigration, homelessness, addiction, famine, and etc. Many people have completely different solutions. I encourage you to not listen simply because you label them as unempathetic. Assume that they care, but also that they have differing solutions. Start the conversation with the certain and undeniable facts that you agree upon, then seek to listen to and understand other solutions. Iron sharpens iron and spirited disagreements can, in fact, lead to working together to solve the problem and reduce the suffering.
————————————————————-
If you would like to communicate further about this or any other issues, please email me at jimshaul@gmail.com and we can chat. We can also chat on Messenger once I know who you are. If you would like to read more of my thoughts, please visit my blog: https://jimshaul.org and follow me there. You an also find me on Substack @ https://jimshaul.substack.com/
If you appreciate my posts, please consider Liking them and Sharing them below if you think they could be a blessing to others. For His Glory,
Jim