I don't mean to assign point values to goodness here. That's not the question. Though, while briefly on the subject, I do find it in my mormon tendencies to assign point values to both good and bad things. I have tried to reflectively examine why I still do that (apart from the obvious socialization to do such, as instructed throughout my whole life as a mormon). Then I realized that the socialization towards a "ranking system" between goods and bads is more than just mormon, it seems.

ANYWAYS, my original question was: is it better to intimately care for ONE or to do something that allows many (possibly hundreds, thousands, or millions) to benefit in some way?

On the one hand, you may have a more profound affect on one if greater time and attention are placed in an individual or thing. Then again, why not do something that could potentially affect many more for the better, even if only by a portion of the good you could have offered one.

I also consider that, typically, affecting millions of people requires help/distribution of your good by millions of people who are seemingly acting to help "the one". If everyone were determined to benefit everyone, would anyone be left to help struggling individuals?

And if everyone were to devote the time and attention required to intimately change A life, then who would have the ability to carry out positive societal change?

I recognize there's not a straight answer. Just curious if anyone has thought about this before and if so, what do you think?

Well MB I was wondering about your life in med school, marriage issues and current faith status. People here care about you... but to answer your question. There are actions in the world that only affect one person. You will be primarily involved with those your entire career. Removing an appendix, setting a fracture, sewing up a laceration....on and on. In the same vein, discovering a new antibiotic or anti-neoplastic drug benefits millions. I suggest to you that the vast majority of adult actions that are positive benefit single individuals and at best a family. Few adult actions benefit humanity in total.....now bring me up to date. Anatomy? Biochemistry? Neuroscience?

Gatorman

I'm ready to settle for a 'not so bad' good.

I don't think that 'keeping score' is useful. Analysis of your own behavior may or may not be useful... Why bother if you have no intention to change, to modify, how you're living your life.

And then there's the appearance that in wondering about the 'correct' way to live one's life, one has assigned a judge to at some point in time render a verdict: was I good, and if so, how good, or the reverse.

And THAT sets up the notion that a reward is in the offing!

...or it could be that I'm just too lazy to give your adventure in wonderment the attention it deserves...


ALSO: Welcome the hell back!!! We don't frickin' hear from you all summer and now that Med School is about to, or has started, you pop up again!!!!

When you get a chance, dish out what's up witchoo!!

Isn't this balanced in the aphorism "think globally, act locally."

Ask women out globally, but impregnate locally?

I believe balance is the key. Not one way or the other is always correct.

Welcome back you were missed!

A wise man once told mem

You can count the number of seeds in an apple but not the number of apples in a seed.

Why can't both objectives be accomplished??

where is my super suit ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhUX8f3yga4



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/11/2018 07:43AM by Dave the Atheist.

Spock says, “Logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.” Captain Kirk answers, “Or the one.” 
~The Wrath of Kahn (1982)~

Spock's Illogic: The Needs of the Many Outweigh the Needs of the Few

https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/2013/09/spocks-illogic-the-needs-of-the-many-outweigh-the-needs-of-the-few/

But...what if the one you decide to help turns out to be a mass murderer, who would have never succeeded in mass murdering if you hadn't helped them out?

And...what if you decide to do good for many, so you raise money to help some villagers stay on their home land instead of be relocated to some inland city, and then a typhoon wipes out the village killing them all? What then?

Oh, the difficulty of trying to predict what's "good." Or "the greater good."

IMHO, there's nothing wrong with considering the "big picture." And as a species we really do need to worry about big picture things, the future (like ceasing to pollute our home with CO2), etc.

But mostly, when it comes to actions and daily life, if I can do just some small bit of good for some one person -- even if in the long run it's nothing, or even has unforeseen consequences -- then I can feel good about myself, I can make someone's day better, I can share being a caring human with them. For some brief moments, anyway. Put enough of those brief moments together, and you have a very nice life to look back on in old age.

And, yeah -- we've missed you buff! Hope things are going well with med school and the family. Nice to hear from you.

It's a crap shoot.

One person's bad is another person's good. Ever help someone only to find out what they really needed was the exact opposite? Not that uncommon .

I go by my gut day to day. Work from my senses. Don't kid myself that I can fix the world. Most of the good anyone does are quick fixes. True long term change for the better is a conglomeration of all the little things the many do for each other and even for ourselves. Selfishness is underrated.

What I like for someone to do for me is to give me a real smile.

I am assuming all is well in your life if this is your post? Hope so.

Jewels I try to live by:

There's always someone worse off than you.

But for the grace of God, go I.

Each one reach one.