Your Answer ▼
I disagree with this statement because I believe it is dependant on the cherishing of poeple, satisfying with tiny happening, and the history of human being. Firstly, why people feel happiness of life is cherishable to other people. The Aristoteles, in quoque, has said people have to hang out people for no isolation in the sosiety. Whereas, if people don't care of other people, they don't be satisfied with theirs mindset which good people used to care. If you have pretending to care people, you can help others exept for being rich. Secondly, if you don't have enough money to help others, you can share with your behavior and afterward you can be satisfying from this attitude. In other words, you and others will be gratified from this actions. For example, when a poor man is suffered from famine, you can give a bread to him without your money. Thirdly, our ancestors used to help others from time to time. For instance, if our ancestors who live in natural competition can't hunt meats from the nature, they share with theirs foods around the community. Afterward emerging being rich, we keep thinking others to whom hardship happen don't be supported without rich being. However, we can help others as the human being. For example, let you educate poor child who don't get enough money. In conclusion, we can care for others as the love of human beings. If you think considerably a way of help, you can find out various behaviors without rich being. |