Pity, Nietzsche, and Social Evolution
In Nietzsche's final publication, The Antichrist, he states that "Suffering is made contagious by pity." Meaning that when we pity those who would seemingly deserve it, we propogate their suffering and promote it for others and extend it, making it a long-term problem. The culmination of his thoughts brings forth what is, for me, a thought provoking dilemma: "this depressing and contagious instinct [pity] stands against all those instincts which work for the preservation and enhancement of life: in the rôle of protector of the miserable, it is a prime agent in the promotion of décadence—pity persuades to extinction." Now, applying this to the world's current problems, I find myself quite stuck by the ambiguity of the situation. Should I donate to starving children in Africa? Should I contribute to their education, to their food, clothing, and other necessities? Should I encourage others to do so? The simple answer to all these questions seems to be: yes. People are suffering, and it is my own self-established moral imperative to support and aid them. However, for a long time I've struggled with these thoughts because it seems that the more I contribute to the life of a stranger, the more i exacerbate the problem. See, when I sustain someone else, several things happen; firstly, they begin to rely on the help and lose incentive to struggle and endure. Secondly, they live in poverty their entire lives, find someone to reproduce with, and produce oodles of children in the hope that one of them will "make it." These children more often than not end up in poverty themselves and have no choice but to rely on foreign aid and overwhelmed welfare systems. So, instead of one mouth that needed to be fed, there are 5, 10, 15. Is it right to help people if it inevitably leads to a worsening of the overall situation? Shouldn't we let evolution take its course and let them starve, as callous as it may seem? Thoughts?
