"Some people aren't worth sympathizing / caring for." | INFJ Forum

"Some people aren't worth sympathizing / caring for."

Trifoilum

find wisdom, build hope.
Dec 27, 2009
6,503
1,921
380
MBTI
INFJ
Enneagram
6w5
"Some people aren't worth sympathizing / caring for."

for some reason...

Do you agree with this statement? Why or why not?
 
I disagree. I think everyone deserves compassion. That being said, however, not everyone is able to offer the type of compassion some people need. In other words, you may not be able to care for the person because it is not in your nature to be able to do so, but that doesn't mean they're undeserving of sympathy or that they're 'worthless.'
 
My gut response:

No I do not agree with this statement. To me, this sounds eerily similar to denying someones humanity. To deny someone their humanity is to participate in the creation of the very person that this statement seems to imply has no value. If you think this about a person you can bet that they sense this, and not only from you.

That said, it is appropriate to withdraw when the emotional energy you invest is not being received. Perhaps someone else will have what it takes, but if nothing positive is coming from the investment it's time to move on. I do not think this is a disservice to the other person either. They were at that moment incapable of receiving your help, and by leaving their life, you open a new door for them as well. But this doesn't mean the person is worthless or is not worth sympathy or care. It just means that you were unable to help them.

But these are two entirely different things.

Long and short, I think that every person is worthy of care and sympathy. Maybe not from you specifically, but from some one.

ETA: Hah looks like TDHT beat me to the punch, basically, and with less words ;]
 
  • Like
Reactions: Trifoilum
Yes, I also saw that there are multiple sides in this aspect;

One is the reason why the prospecting giver would think the receiver are worthy / unworthy.

Two is the form under which sympathy is / should be given (and how much, how often, etc).

Three is the capacity; how far / strong / choosing the giver in giving the sympathy, and how good / accepting / picky the receiver in taking it.

Connecting those are, of course, intention and willingness.

Some people seemed to think that lacking one aspect implies another, though; especially when actual goods / money are involved.. :|
 
I agree that the statement has merit. Just because you have lollipop dreams of being the superest, nicerest person evah, doesn't mean that you are. Maybe in magic, fairy lala land people don't make the decision that someone isn't worth caring about but in real life it happens all the time.

Hell, sometimes it is socially acceptable for gangs of people to just say "screw that person, they don't deserve anything!". Check out the outrage about the "welfare" mommas who don't deserve help or consideration.

I think the average, normal person makes this choice more often than they think. Just because we don't see our actions in such stark terms doesn't mean that isn't exactly what we are doing. We tend to see our unlovely selves in the best possible light and paint pretty pictures to mask the truth from ourselves.

Yes, I have make the decision that someone isn't worth the effort to concern myself about, more than once and will probably do it again. It doesn't mean I'm antisocial or hate people, it means I recognize that there are people I don't like and probably never will. Not caring or thinking someone doesn't deserve your care isn't the same as actually wishing them harm. It means that in the grand scheme of things they are insignificant to you.
 
"Some people aren't worth sympathizing / caring for."

for some reason...

Do you agree with this statement? Why or why not?


to me, they are two different things, which usually don't align.

I can care for people whose actions I can't sympathize with at all.

Generally, I stop sympathizing with people that takes rights for granted, and I don't care for most people that I've met. When people have others that care for them, I usually don't stay around. But to answer the question; No, I don't think anyone is unworthy of sympathy nor caring for, however, there are many people I won't either care for or sympathize with, usually neither.
 
I agree. There are some people out there that are simply not worth my care or that I find insignificant to care for. There are also people out there that are negative and would just create a whirlwind out of my life if I brought them into it. I can have sympathy for someone and what they're going through or even feel some empathy, but it doesn't always mean that I'm gonna pull a Mother Teresa and help them through their dismay. It depends on the person they are and how connected I feel to them.

I think sympathizing and caring for someone are two different things though. Sympathy is more superficial, in the sense that you feel/express sorrow for the situation. Caring is usually going beyond that expressed sorrow and wanting to show support to a person.

I see this question as a more personal than generalized one.
 
I think the average, normal person makes this choice more often than they think. Just because we don't see our actions in such stark terms doesn't mean that isn't exactly what we are doing. We tend to see our unlovely selves in the best possible light and paint pretty pictures to mask the truth from ourselves.

Yes, I have make the decision that someone isn't worth the effort to concern myself about, more than once and will probably do it again. It doesn't mean I'm antisocial or hate people, it means I recognize that there are people I don't like and probably never will. Not caring or thinking someone doesn't deserve your care isn't the same as actually wishing them harm. It means that in the grand scheme of things they are insignificant to you.

+1 Preach!

I think the idea that someone is always going to show sympathy/care to everyone they meet is unrealistic. There will always be at least one person that you're not going to care for, or perhaps a few. Like you said, it doesn't mean you feel hate or malice toward them... it's just that you feel apathetic toward them because they hold no personal value to you.

On the idealistic, grand scheme of things it would be great to say that "everyone deserves compassion" etc etc...... but unfortunately, that doesn't always occur.
 
"Some people aren't worth sympathizing / caring for."
for some reason...Do you agree with this statement? Why or why not?

Everyone is worthy of caring, sympathy, empathy, and compassion. However, each individual and situation requires a set of boundaries that determines and monitors each situation.
 
In absolute terms, anybody should be able to be cared for. Practically speaking, there are some people who've done evil things that are hard to grasp fully because of their enormity -- Hitler, Stalin, the Khans, et al. purposefully starving and slaughtering millions for their own benefit (and that doesn't come close to describing the misery they've caused) -- who I would say people shouldn't feel obligated to show compassion or sympathy towards. If somebody were to take it upon themselves to care for 'Hitler' like that, they're probably a better person than I could ever be, assuming it isn't enabling. I think that through compassion and sympathy, people can come to understand the bad mistakes they've made or how to be more compassionate and sympathetic themselves. This might not be related to the topic, but when one does to the perpetrator what the perpetrator has done to others, they may find themselves looking more like that person.
 
I think that compassion inherently brings positive force into the world and causes no harm, regardless of who it is directed to. I think it would be nice if people as a whole could be more compassionate. That's what I believe, but how deserving a person is of compassion is ultimately subjective. Measures of worth are created by individuals. I wish everyone thought that people like the homeless and even people like Hilter etc were deserving of compassion, but not everyone sees it that way. Sometimes people feel what they feel for a reason, or they withhold compassion because giving out resources wouldn't be worth it to them.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm going to have to agree.

It's subjective to some extent, and there are people out there who could stand to be a little more open-minded, but there are also instances where the vast majority of people would undoubtedly be incapable of caring/sympathizing, and I'm pretty sure that there's a good reason for it.

Saying that I don't agree is saying that compassion must be absolute and even though I suppose it would be nice, I don't think that it's at all realistic. Look at the Steubenville rape case for an example of how compassion can be misplaced. I guess you can argue that if the perpetrators had more compassion it wouldn't have happened in the first place, but that's not the world we're living in...
 
"Some people aren't worth sympathizing / caring for."

"worth" as in the value of what personal gains you can get from it? If so, then yes, sometimes your personal egoistic gains from caring for a person aren't enough to make the caring "valuable" for you.

"worth" as in the value of the person itself? If so, then no, because all persons deserves to be valued and respected.
 
"worth" as in the value of the person itself? If so, then no, because all persons deserves to be valued and respected.

Why?
 
Because its the only power we have to live in a world we truly wish to live in. To hold that belief and enforce it in your daily life is the only way to make it real. That we are not intelligent enough to really truly judge something objectively, so we should err on the side of compassion. Because you never know when its going to be your head on the chopping block.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sassafras
Because all people have a worth. No matter how small they may seem from one perspective, another might see their value. Even though viewed from hundreds of objective perspectives, there would probably still be at least one that speaks in the persons favour, no matter who they are.
Billy gave a good response too, to which I agree a lot in.

Maybe your emotional load outweighs your personal gain for caring for a certain person, then so be it. You can't love everyone and have your reasons for not doing so.
 
"Some people aren't worth sympathizing / caring for."

for some reason...

Do you agree with this statement? Why or why not?

I think everyone is worthy of compassion. I don't think one should be expected or required to be compassionate about everyone though.
 
Because its the only power we have to live in a world we truly wish to live in. To hold that belief and enforce it in your daily life is the only way to make it real. That we are not intelligent enough to really truly judge something objectively, so we should err on the side of compassion. Because you never know when its going to be your head on the chopping block.

'A world we truly wish to live in' is a pretty vague goal-- do you really think that humanity has a single universal vision of their ideal world? Don't you think that if this were the case, and everyone agreed that caring for each other made everything better, then we would have already solved all of our 'problems'? You don't think it's possible that we'll never be truly happy with anything? Or that the only happiness/peace that people could ever achieve involves contenting ourselves with the world around us on an personal level?

In the grand cosmic scheme of the universe, it's likely that we're all insignificant and so it really doesn't matter what we do or how we feel about anything... but on a human level, we DO have an interest in being cold/not showing compassion/caring to certain others... namely, the destructive influences. And by that I mean the people who intentionally, unapologetically commit hugely destructive acts only for their own pleasure.

If it were my head on the chopping block, then how deserving of sympathy I would be would probably depend on the reason I'm there. There's a difference between the people who don't think that unwed mothers should get welfare (that's just cold/ignorant/selfish) and the people who think that serial child molesting murderers should be given the death penalty (that's a little more reasonable).

If we were living in a society where people were actually in demand, then I would probably advocate greater compassion but we don't actually NEED hugely destructive forces in our society and accommodating them/showing sympathy for them seems counterproductive.

I guess there's always the potential that they might 'see the light' one day, but at best they're going to be unexceptional... another waste of space in a world where space is disappearing rapidly.Why would we waste time and effort trying to get them to the point where maybe they can edge out a good person to become the bagboy at your local supermarket?

They'll be forgiven when they're forgotten. Death is extremely compassionate-- it treats everyone equally.
 
Last edited:
Because all people have a worth. No matter how small they may seem from one perspective, another might see their value. Even though viewed from hundreds of objective perspectives, there would probably still be at least one that speaks in the persons favour, no matter who they are.

kirk-and-spock-needs-quote.png