Like I have been saying, us humans have pity for one another which is why instead of harming one another, we help each other … unless we threaten each other’s self preservation then, that’s a whole different situation. So, I was discussing with my fellow 18th century folks and they told me of this research that some biologists conducted on how we may be born with the impulse to help. In this research they found that, as young as 18 months old, infants immediately help adults who are in need of assistance (for example, if they dropped something or is struggling with opening the door). This research they conducted proved my ideas right, even babies have the ability to empathize with people who are struggling because instead of ignoring the adults they try to help them in any way they can. This innate ability of ours is the reason why we are still here today because if we didn’t have this, “human race would long ago have ceased to exist, if its preservation had depended solely on the reasonings of its members”.
I find this post interesting because the conclusions found by this study are something that I have seen and experienced as well. It seems that it is in our nature to care for others and to go as far as to go out of our way to help them. I know Rousseau says that we have pity, but would not go out of our way and sacrifice our own survival to help another. This leads me to wonder what Rousseau would have to say about this current day study? Would he say that even by the age of 18 months that babies have been influenced by society?
While I would like to completely agree with you, Vera, I can’t say that humans are *only* unwilling to help other humans when it puts their lives at risk. Children who are only 18 months may be more willing to help adults when they are in need, but somewhere along the course of growing up, the likelihood of helping other humans seems to be based more on subliminal selfishness than helping to preserve humanity (as long as it doesn’t impede on our own preservation, of course). I’m not saying that an adult would never help another adult just because the passage of time has hardened their hearts and made them incapable of feeling sympathy for others in need. Instead, I am saying that as we grow older and more aware of the things necessary to survive in society, young, middle-aged, and even some older adults are more likely to helps others who may reciprocate the kindness, or at least more likely to help those considered kin, rather than help strangers they may never see again. I personally have seen many adults, who are more than capable of providing spare change, pay homeless people no mind despite their begging. Providing some spare change to someone in need certainly wouldn’t kill a person, so then why do many human beings ignore other humans when they ask for it?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5570493/#sec016title
I found this post very interesting because in a society where there is constant conflict against one another, where violence and aggression seems to be the only answer, there managed to be a study to show that us humans innately help each other when in dire need. I also completely agree with the points made in this post because I have noticed that humans are like wolves in a sense, we have a sense of unity and community. Similar to how wolves travel in packs and care for one another, humans tend to be wary of one another and assist the moment something goes wrong. However, one point I would like to mention is that I would not claim that humans are innately born with the the mentality to help others. I believe that this mentality was taught upon the infants from their parents. Although everyone’s parenting techniques are different, there are some overlaps: the idea of being a good person in society by helping others and the idea of “treat others how you want to be treated.” I believe that because these core principles are taught everywhere and are essentially engraved into the minds of all infants, this may be why the infants in the study helped the adults.