wrting prompt: If you don't bring anything to the table....
If you don't bring anything to the table, you don't eat. Discuss.
________
I wrote:
It depends if people can contribute.
I used to have a lot of philosophies that were about work, and strength and all. When i was younger though I was strong. I weightlifted, and I was a foot messenger, so I would walk all around the island all day, then walk downtown and go dancing.
Then I got sick. And everything I used to believe went out the window. It had to, because if I'd remained a Darwinist the only option would be suicide. By my own philosophies, I was no longer worth being alive. I was a burden.
I'm not gonna get all social justice-y, but one must consider their privilege, because a lot of those types of philosophies are woefully ableist.
There are handicapped people, yo. and the injured. And the poor. Some of them are there from laziness or their own stupidity, but even if they are, that's their own mindset now, isn't it? If they aren't at least helped a little they may never get back on their feet.
And some of us? May never get back on our feet, because circumstance means we have no feet to stand on, either figuratively or, in some cases, literally.
It's hard to not be bitter and, at times, ungrateful if you do have to rely on others. But the assumption that anyone who can't pull their own weight is simply no good is a messed up thing. Ok, maybe they can't walk, or earn, or help with the housework, etc. but who is to say that makes a person utterly worthless? If we went purely by mobility, wouldn't Steven Hawking be useless?
There are plenty of people whose body is of no use to them anymore, but who can contribute richly in terms of what they can think up. There are artists, scientists, coders, etc. who don't necessarily contribute in strongarm ways, but who still contribute.
And then ok, let's say there's some folk who absolutely don't have anything to bring. They have no or decreased mobility. And on top of that they have no real skills they can contribute anymore, either through infirm, or the very real depression that comes with the realisation you can't contribute anymore. Shouls we just throw them to the wolves?
To me, proof of a person's character isn't how they treat their fellow contributors. It's how they treat someone who is helpless, or who can give nothing back. That is real empathy, and to me empathy is what determines a person as good or not.
________
I wrote:
It depends if people can contribute.
I used to have a lot of philosophies that were about work, and strength and all. When i was younger though I was strong. I weightlifted, and I was a foot messenger, so I would walk all around the island all day, then walk downtown and go dancing.
Then I got sick. And everything I used to believe went out the window. It had to, because if I'd remained a Darwinist the only option would be suicide. By my own philosophies, I was no longer worth being alive. I was a burden.
I'm not gonna get all social justice-y, but one must consider their privilege, because a lot of those types of philosophies are woefully ableist.
There are handicapped people, yo. and the injured. And the poor. Some of them are there from laziness or their own stupidity, but even if they are, that's their own mindset now, isn't it? If they aren't at least helped a little they may never get back on their feet.
And some of us? May never get back on our feet, because circumstance means we have no feet to stand on, either figuratively or, in some cases, literally.
It's hard to not be bitter and, at times, ungrateful if you do have to rely on others. But the assumption that anyone who can't pull their own weight is simply no good is a messed up thing. Ok, maybe they can't walk, or earn, or help with the housework, etc. but who is to say that makes a person utterly worthless? If we went purely by mobility, wouldn't Steven Hawking be useless?
There are plenty of people whose body is of no use to them anymore, but who can contribute richly in terms of what they can think up. There are artists, scientists, coders, etc. who don't necessarily contribute in strongarm ways, but who still contribute.
And then ok, let's say there's some folk who absolutely don't have anything to bring. They have no or decreased mobility. And on top of that they have no real skills they can contribute anymore, either through infirm, or the very real depression that comes with the realisation you can't contribute anymore. Shouls we just throw them to the wolves?
To me, proof of a person's character isn't how they treat their fellow contributors. It's how they treat someone who is helpless, or who can give nothing back. That is real empathy, and to me empathy is what determines a person as good or not.