Is there a philosophy/psychology term which describes the act of ignoring people's suffering - provided that it is in no way related to your own life?
(Tool seem to describe this situation well in the song "Vicarious" )
That is to say - ignoring other people's emotions and pain in order to maintain and further your own happiness. In fact possibly even getting happiness from seeing others suffer. I think most people have a bit of it - its a growing aspect of capitalist society, kill or be killed, and be cold or you will lose out.
I don't think it's fair to put 'indifference' under the same category as 'sociopathic behaviour.' necessarily. If you get some sort of fetishistic satisfaction from it, then yeah, but just saying "that's how it goes sometimes lol" doesn't seem sociopathic to me.
I don't think that is an accurate thing to say, someone was shot to death this moment, and neither you nor I care.
It's just us choosing on a subconscious level which is more immediately important for our own future situation.
I would say it is difficult to argue that at any point of history under any system of philosophy that we aren't self motivated, even when acting altruistically.
Simply, it's the human state.
Probably nihilism. I think many would disagree with that, so I'll personal blog for a sec to show where I'm coming from.
>be raised Christian
>like Jesus' teaching, but unhappy with how rest of Bible contradicts them
>see genocide is ok as long as God says so, God creates people with free will knowing ahead of time that they will choose to go to Hell, God creates people who because of health reasons or something else beyond their control will live live of nothing but horrific pain and suffering
>aware that educated Christians have thoughtful explanations about these issues, but they're just not satisfying to me
>stop being Christian because I think I'm to much of a "humanist", that is to say that I care to much for people to support Christian morality
>after getting out of army (medical corps), consider going to fight with Kurds against ISIS
>decide I'd rather have a stable job and normal life
>see videos like http://www.bestgore.com/execution/isis-video-truckloads-men-lead-to-slaughter-execution/ and want to do something about, but am apparently to much of a pussy
>so I'm claiming to be a "humanist" who cares about people, but apparently don't care enough to take the risks necessary to do my part to stop shit like this
>decide I don't have a strong enough belief in anything and am essentially a nihilist
I think if people aren't willing to do what their professed theology/philosophy demands, then the claimed belief is meaningless. If you're not willing to stand up for what you supposedly believe in, then you might as well give up the charade and accept that at some level you don't really believe in it. If it was truly your belief, then you'd act on it. Right?
Would it be selfish to protect your own self-image? If you ignore the suffering of others, you would most likely suffer emotional feedback due to guilt/etc if you have any sense of moral/ethics. So in a sense, a selfish person would necessarily help the suffering in order to not fuck themselves mentally.
Well that's different, there's literally nothing we can do about those people right now, and there's nothing that we're seeing /hearing/etc in the immediate moment to make that real to us. The whole "someone died every second" thing can't really connect to us that well because it's such an abstract concept.
But isn't it hypocritical to profess adherence to a faith or philosophy that demands you do what's right and/or love your fellow man, while sitting comfortably at home on top of tons of resources, not doing anything to at least do your small part to help those in need or right the horrendous wrongs in the world? "It's not my fight/It's not my problem." is a legitimate position on its own, but it doesn't match with the beliefs that many, if not most, people claim to hold.
Sure, but at the same time someone might point out that you're abandoning the responsibilities at your own doorstep. On a personal level, if you had kids or something, or on a more impersonal level, ie: there are people suffering in your own country first. Also in the situation you're describing you can't even be sure that you are or will be able to do the right thing, or not end up assisting people who might try to subjugate others.
But I mean you have to do a kind of moral triage don't you? Do all people have a responsibility to end all suffering? Must we all become doctors or surgeons or what have you?
But where do you draw the line? How many people good give reasons like the ones in your post to justify not helping distant people or do anything to extreme, but then don't even donate to local charities or do any kind of volunteer work? How many such people do this while claiming to follow a religion or philosophy that demands they do?