So I've started wondering why some things elicit a strong emotional response while with others we feel strangely apathetic. When the school shooting in Connecticut happened that resulted in the death of 20 people, there was a strong outpouring of grief and rage from all over the country. I felt just as outraged as so many others did, but at the same time kids die all around the world every day. An average of 4,000 kids die EVERY DAY because of diseases they got from contaminated water. That's nearly 2 million every year. TWO MILLION!!
On a logical level I understand how horrible that is but it doesn't bring about that strong emotional reaction the same way the school shooting did. Why is that? Around 4 thousand kids died the same day as the Connecticut shooting yet I only felt strong emotions over the twenty.
The philosopher Peter Singer once came up with a dilemma to demonstrate this very thing. He would ask people if they would be willing to jump into a lake to save a drowning child even if it would ruin their $200 shoes. Most people would be outraged he even asked. Of course they would save the child over their shoes. He would then ask them if they'd be willing to write a check for $200 to a reputable charity if they knew it could save a child's life. Suddenly they would become a little more hesitant. What makes someone willing to ruin their $200 shoes to save a child more reluctant to write a check for the same purpose?
My own thought is it has to do with the way our brains have evolved. Through much of human history we lived in small social groups. There had to be a balance between selfishness and charity. Those who thought nothing of themselves and would give everything to others wouldn't live long since they had to look out for themselves at least a little. Conversely, those who were 100% selfish would get ostracized from the group for being unsocial and would also die since it would be so much harder to live on your own. Either way their genes wouldn't get passed on. Evolution favored those who had a good balance between the two. In other words, basic human morality isn't taught but is hardwired into a genes.
So in the situation where the child is drowning we feel an emotional tug to do something because they're right there in front of us. They're part of our group or tribe and we feel more of a sense of duty to protecting our own tribe. Kids dying halfway around the world that we can't see don't feel as important to us. We can logically say that's absurd they're equally important but our subconscious minds are what give us those emotions that give us a strong sense of duty. That's my own thought anyways, but what the hell do I know.
On a logical level I understand how horrible that is but it doesn't bring about that strong emotional reaction the same way the school shooting did. Why is that? Around 4 thousand kids died the same day as the Connecticut shooting yet I only felt strong emotions over the twenty.
The philosopher Peter Singer once came up with a dilemma to demonstrate this very thing. He would ask people if they would be willing to jump into a lake to save a drowning child even if it would ruin their $200 shoes. Most people would be outraged he even asked. Of course they would save the child over their shoes. He would then ask them if they'd be willing to write a check for $200 to a reputable charity if they knew it could save a child's life. Suddenly they would become a little more hesitant. What makes someone willing to ruin their $200 shoes to save a child more reluctant to write a check for the same purpose?
My own thought is it has to do with the way our brains have evolved. Through much of human history we lived in small social groups. There had to be a balance between selfishness and charity. Those who thought nothing of themselves and would give everything to others wouldn't live long since they had to look out for themselves at least a little. Conversely, those who were 100% selfish would get ostracized from the group for being unsocial and would also die since it would be so much harder to live on your own. Either way their genes wouldn't get passed on. Evolution favored those who had a good balance between the two. In other words, basic human morality isn't taught but is hardwired into a genes.
So in the situation where the child is drowning we feel an emotional tug to do something because they're right there in front of us. They're part of our group or tribe and we feel more of a sense of duty to protecting our own tribe. Kids dying halfway around the world that we can't see don't feel as important to us. We can logically say that's absurd they're equally important but our subconscious minds are what give us those emotions that give us a strong sense of duty. That's my own thought anyways, but what the hell do I know.