Wednesday, November 02, 2005
Olam Chessed Y'Baneh
Putting others before yourself.
It seems like the classic requirement of one wishing to live up to the highest ethical ideals. Shouldn't we recognize that we aren't better than those around us? Shouldn't we teach ourselves patience by learning to wait for others? Shouldn't we create a better world by sharing love, and doing for others what we would have done unto ourselves?
Of course. But I don't think some people get it. For example, holding the elevator for somebody, nice, no? Save them from having to wait for the next one. But what if there are other people waiting in the elevator? Should ten have to wait for one? And what of the people waiting on other floors to board, isn't it shortsighted to assume that the person in front of you is the only person whose time you are affecting?
Too often, people trying to be generous only end up penalizing those they wish to help. Ever turn a corner and promptly run into somebody going the opposite direction, and the situation escalates into a "You first," "After you," "No, please" comic, like riding an escalator in the wrong direction? You aren't being gracious insisting you go second. The whole point of letting the other person go first is to show you value their time more than your own. By playing a trump game, you're only wasting it!
Almost every day on my way to or from work, I'll see some car slow to let another car merge into a lane. What the driver doesn't realize is that the seconds he's saved that driver has cost much more to all the drivers braking behind him. Instead of the merger simply entering traffic after it clears in a few seconds, he must wait to ensure that everyone is really stopping for him. And now the whole street has come to a stop. Is this really courtesy?
Like giving a dictionary to a homeless person, it's not the thought that counts. It's the difference you've made in the end.
It seems like the classic requirement of one wishing to live up to the highest ethical ideals. Shouldn't we recognize that we aren't better than those around us? Shouldn't we teach ourselves patience by learning to wait for others? Shouldn't we create a better world by sharing love, and doing for others what we would have done unto ourselves?
Of course. But I don't think some people get it. For example, holding the elevator for somebody, nice, no? Save them from having to wait for the next one. But what if there are other people waiting in the elevator? Should ten have to wait for one? And what of the people waiting on other floors to board, isn't it shortsighted to assume that the person in front of you is the only person whose time you are affecting?
Too often, people trying to be generous only end up penalizing those they wish to help. Ever turn a corner and promptly run into somebody going the opposite direction, and the situation escalates into a "You first," "After you," "No, please" comic, like riding an escalator in the wrong direction? You aren't being gracious insisting you go second. The whole point of letting the other person go first is to show you value their time more than your own. By playing a trump game, you're only wasting it!
Almost every day on my way to or from work, I'll see some car slow to let another car merge into a lane. What the driver doesn't realize is that the seconds he's saved that driver has cost much more to all the drivers braking behind him. Instead of the merger simply entering traffic after it clears in a few seconds, he must wait to ensure that everyone is really stopping for him. And now the whole street has come to a stop. Is this really courtesy?
Like giving a dictionary to a homeless person, it's not the thought that counts. It's the difference you've made in the end.
# posted by Josh : Wednesday, November 02, 2005
Comments:
<< Home
I'm not sure I understand your scenario.
Let's say you, Josh, are in the right lane because you need to make a right turn at the next street, as you usually do on the way to work. But, much to your dismay, when you reach the street you see that it is blocked off by construction and your lane has ended. Your only option is to merge into the left lane. Should you be an hour late to work because of this incident? Don't you hope that there's someone nice enough in the left lane who will slow down from 50 mph to let you in?
I think it is, to use Shosh's terms if i may, for "the betterment of society" that such acts occur; you seems to be giving them an evil slant which I definitely don't think they deserve. Even if such acts may slow other people down, i think, taking this to an extreme, if i may for a moment, that's it's better that 25% of America show up a few minutes late to work than 10% showing up at lunch hour.
This is barring the psychological support you may be giving to someone who has been having a rough day, someone victim to an unfortunate set of circumstances. You never know what a smile can do and definitely what the real concrete actions being discussed here can do.
My take is that these actions should not stop, because, to paraphrase Shosh, they are warming the heart, or at least stoking the flames, of the increasingly dying fire that is the general goodwill of society; in a world of indifference and obscurity recognition comes to the fore as being of paramount importance).
Whether you agree or not, such actions probably won't come to a screeching halt anytime soon. Therefore, all I can say is that you should try to work on your middah of savlanut and sovlanut and should view such impediments as tests from HaShem to be overcome. Equanimity in all situtions, especially those whose cause is positive, is a huge virtue. Go get 'em tiger.
Disclaimer: I was at no point discussing those repeat offenders who stay in the right lane to cut everyone off right when the light turns green, let them stay stuck behind those parked cars and rot there.
Let's say you, Josh, are in the right lane because you need to make a right turn at the next street, as you usually do on the way to work. But, much to your dismay, when you reach the street you see that it is blocked off by construction and your lane has ended. Your only option is to merge into the left lane. Should you be an hour late to work because of this incident? Don't you hope that there's someone nice enough in the left lane who will slow down from 50 mph to let you in?
I think it is, to use Shosh's terms if i may, for "the betterment of society" that such acts occur; you seems to be giving them an evil slant which I definitely don't think they deserve. Even if such acts may slow other people down, i think, taking this to an extreme, if i may for a moment, that's it's better that 25% of America show up a few minutes late to work than 10% showing up at lunch hour.
This is barring the psychological support you may be giving to someone who has been having a rough day, someone victim to an unfortunate set of circumstances. You never know what a smile can do and definitely what the real concrete actions being discussed here can do.
My take is that these actions should not stop, because, to paraphrase Shosh, they are warming the heart, or at least stoking the flames, of the increasingly dying fire that is the general goodwill of society; in a world of indifference and obscurity recognition comes to the fore as being of paramount importance).
Whether you agree or not, such actions probably won't come to a screeching halt anytime soon. Therefore, all I can say is that you should try to work on your middah of savlanut and sovlanut and should view such impediments as tests from HaShem to be overcome. Equanimity in all situtions, especially those whose cause is positive, is a huge virtue. Go get 'em tiger.
Disclaimer: I was at no point discussing those repeat offenders who stay in the right lane to cut everyone off right when the light turns green, let them stay stuck behind those parked cars and rot there.
# posted by 
: November 02, 2005 10:07 PM
: November 02, 2005 10:07 PM
I'm going to back up for a second and clarify my point. I'm not trying to be a traffic arbitrator. I'm just trying to clear up a common misconception on what "kindness" means practically.
I'm not advocating a "Me First" approach. (Anon- that would be Rand's view. I reconcile that view with Torah as follows.)Too many people replace "Me Second" in place of "You First." True Chessed, or kindness, involves considering another's needs before your own. But in order to do that, you can't simply say, I'll inconvenience myself for their benefit. Who said that despite your inconvenience anybody else will receive any more convenience?
If you help an old lady carry her groceries, you could be helping her unload a heavy burden...or you could be insulting her independence. You never know. The point of my post is that Chessed requires thought as to an outcome, not just nice intentions. If in the end, you leave the other person with a smile on their face, you've made the world a better place. But if not...
I'm not advocating a "Me First" approach. (Anon- that would be Rand's view. I reconcile that view with Torah as follows.)Too many people replace "Me Second" in place of "You First." True Chessed, or kindness, involves considering another's needs before your own. But in order to do that, you can't simply say, I'll inconvenience myself for their benefit. Who said that despite your inconvenience anybody else will receive any more convenience?
If you help an old lady carry her groceries, you could be helping her unload a heavy burden...or you could be insulting her independence. You never know. The point of my post is that Chessed requires thought as to an outcome, not just nice intentions. If in the end, you leave the other person with a smile on their face, you've made the world a better place. But if not...
Josh, what I think your point boils down to is that one should think before one acts, though I'm not sure there's always a discernable outcome and what would emerge is an ethic of all thought and no action. HOw much more so is this true with words, people don't really think through what they're going to say before they speak, and the problems created by this are much more numerous. I remember reading that one Rav considered "whatchamacallit" a disgusting word because of its implications about one's forethought.
# posted by : November 03, 2005 8:19 AM
: November 03, 2005 8:19 AM
Shosh - I'm not really familiar with Meyers-Briggs. From my Google Search, it does seem like I'm an E and a T, but I could find enough info to pick out the others. And I'm not sure what all that would mean for me anyways. The feminist example is another good example of how your effort must match the other person's perception (in your case, feminism has made it impossible for guys to know how to be kind to a woman). And, finally, don't get me wrong, I think kindness can be spontaneous, and should be, as long as the effect was at least not contrary to the intent.
Anon - I don't think a person has to spend their entire lives in the "analysis" role at the stake of never "deciding." I just think the impetus behind our actions should be our brain, not our heart, if we actually want to accomplish anything. For example, a friend of mine had a baby tonight. I could've run to the hospital to see what I could do to help- and probably would've embarrassed my friend's wife. By thinking for two seconds, I was able to come up with an action that was, hopefully, able to display the intended kindness- a simple phone call.
MH - Well concluded.
Post a Comment
Anon - I don't think a person has to spend their entire lives in the "analysis" role at the stake of never "deciding." I just think the impetus behind our actions should be our brain, not our heart, if we actually want to accomplish anything. For example, a friend of mine had a baby tonight. I could've run to the hospital to see what I could do to help- and probably would've embarrassed my friend's wife. By thinking for two seconds, I was able to come up with an action that was, hopefully, able to display the intended kindness- a simple phone call.
MH - Well concluded.
<< Home
