Is Caring a True Sign of Kindness or a Hidden Agenda?

[trueo]

Caring is a good positive sign of kindness, kind people care about other people, but why ? does it necessarily mean that they care about others on purpose in which they become unkind and the reason for caring is unknown or they care about others just because they are truly kind ?
Except my relatives, I don't have anyone who would take care of me unconditionally.

 

[Simon Bridge]

I think you'll find there are circumstances in which even your relatives would disown you ;)
Note" science does not do "why" questions ... and it is not clear what sort of answer you are after: eg. are you after social, psychological, evolutionary, biological, or personal motivations for caring behavior? In general...

If you observe signs of caring -
- it does not necessarily mean the person actually cares at all - many people are lying and/or acting;
- if they do care, it does not necessarily mean that it is deliberate ... many people feel they have no choice;
- many people care without reason, just as they do or feel anything without reason;
- someone who tends to be caring is generally considered to be "a kind person" but kind people are not always caring and not always about everybody.

"Altruism" is a well studied and discussed phenomena in evolutionary biology and psychology.

 

[Drakkith]

I don't believe in unconditional love except in crazy people. All "normal" love is conditional on something. Even the kindest mother has something that would cause her to stop loving her child.

 

[turbo]

If you want unconditional love, rescue a dog from a shelter. You can't scrape them off with a spatula.

Unconditional love from a person? Not so much.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Note" science does not do "why" questions

Eh? Where are you getting this rule of thumb?

 

[Drakkith]

Eh? Where are you getting this rule of thumb?

It's the popular saying around here since many people come here asking WHY instead of HOW.

 

[zoobyshoe]

It's the popular saying around here since many people come here asking WHY instead of HOW.

What difference does it make? Any WHY question can be rephrased as a HOW question or a WHAT question.

 

[Drakkith]

What difference does it make? Any WHY question can be rephrased as a HOW question or a WHAT question.

True, but then it usually isn't the same question. At least around here.

 

[lisab]

What difference does it make? Any WHY question can be rephrased as a HOW question or a WHAT question.

Example:

Why does gravity work? I guess philosophy might answer that.

How does gravity work? Science answers that. Tries to, at least.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Example:

Why does gravity work? I guess philosophy might answer that.

How does gravity work? Science answers that. Tries to, at least.

These two examples are clear, but someone might ask something like, "Iron is denser than water, so why does a boat made of iron never-the-less float?" which would be a perfectly valid physics question. Someone might also ask, "Why does gravity work the way it does?" which is really the same thing as asking how gravity works. The word "why" should not be red flagged in and of itself. "Why do kind people care about others?" strikes me as a perfectly valid question, with acceptable psychological answers (as opposed to philosophical ones).

 

[Simon Bridge]

Sometimes someone will use the word "why" in a manner that implies that they will be satisfied with a "how" answer - yes. You will get responses like "science is not good at "why" questions" when the matter is not so clear cut.

We don't do this to be pedantic or difficult.

In PF we often get people looking for answers that science does not provide. Even when they are not - often forcing a questioner to rephrase the question more carefully helps them reason out the kind of answer science does provide.

Most of us have been doing this scientific answers thing for a long time.

Aside: take a look at this list of "8 simple questions science cannot answer" ... most of them are either phrased as "why" questions or are "why" questions in disguise. Rephrasing to cover the kinds of things science can actually inquire about usually yields answers. (The title is being deliberately provocative - though - so I wouldn't take it at face value.)

 

[zoobyshoe]

Sometimes someone will use the word "why" in a manner that implies that they will be satisfied with a "how" answer - yes. You will get responses like "science is not good at "why" questions" when the matter is not so clear cut.

We don't do this to be pedantic or difficult.

In PF we often get people looking for answers that science does not provide. Even when they are not - often forcing a questioner to rephrase the question more carefully helps them reason out the kind of answer science does provide.

Most of us have been doing this scientific answers thing for a long time.

There is nothing at all wrong with a "why" question that can't also be wrong with a "who", "what", "where", "how" or "when" question. The word "why" should really not be red flagged as a matter of course. I think "what" questions are potentially a lot more unanswerable: "What is a photon?", "What is a magnetic field?", "What is gravity?", "What is an electron?" You can fill many books with what we know about, say, photons, but what we know about them doesn't exactly answer the question of what they are because they are a thing unto themselves. Asking what they are is often asking for a description of them in terms of other, more familiar phenomena, but it turns out they can't be accurately described that way. That being so for photons and the other things I listed, you might feel tempted to assert, "physics doesn't do 'what' questions." But that's not the case. It does do "what" questions when it can. Science also answers "why" questions when it can, as well as "how" questions.

Aside: take a look at this list of "8 simple questions science cannot answer" ... most of them are either phrased as "why" questions or are "why" questions in disguise.

Lets have a look:

#8 Why we sleep

Science doesn't answer this, not because it's a "why" question, but because it hasn't found an incontrovertible answer (according to the site). We actually don't know for sure why we have to sleep, only that it's very bad for us if we're deprived of it for very long.

#7 How many planets in our solar system?

This is not a "why" question in disguise.

#6 Why Ice Is Slippery

Science doesn't answer this, not because it's a "why" question, but because it hasn't found an incontrovertible answer (according to the site).

#5 How a Bicycle Works

Here again, not a "why" question in disguise.

#4 How to Beat Solitaire

Not a "why" question in disguise.

#3 How Many Species of Animal Exist

Not a "why" question in disguise.

#2 The Length of the U.S. Coastline (Or Any Coastline, For That Matter)

Not a "why" question in disguise.

#1 How Gravity Works

Not a "why" question in disguise.

I don't find your characterization: "... most of them are either phrased as "why" questions or are "why" questions in disguise..." to be true.

 

[Simon Bridge]

There is nothing at all wrong with a "why" question that can't also be wrong with a "who", "what", "where", "how" or "when" question. The word "why" should really not be red flagged as a matter of course.

I agree - so I don't do it "as a matter of course."

Science also answers "why" questions when it can, as well as "how" questions.

I believe the reasoning behind the comment is adequately explained - if you want ot explore it further - perhaps opening another thread? In a philosophy forum?

Lets have a look:

Rather than debate the point - Ill concede that you have a different take on those questions to the one I had and leave it at that.

Lets not derail any further.