Sometimes but not always.
For example: Nursing is a set of compassionate systems. It is designed, ethically, functionally, etc to be a compassionate system.
But individual nurses can be total jerks, sociopathic even. Yet because they’re working within a compassionate system, their sociopathic tendencies have limited impact because the system they operate from within is compassionate and acts as a buffer to individual outliers.
—
Ideally, a compassionate system will have equivalently compassionate individuals. But individuals are too individual to function as equivalent compassionate units-of-measure.
That is, you won’t find 100 similarly compassionate individuals that will make up an ideal compassionate system.
But you can find 100 individuals with varying levels of compassion that, working from within a compassionate system, averages out to a compassionate function.
==
I welcome correction if I’m wrong but it’s how I see it.
—-
Nursing I use as a stand-out example because they have an International Code of Ethics that was developed in 1953 as a global standard for all 190+ nations.
But that code of ethics is interpreted a little DIFFERENTLY in each country, allowing for a basic standard of care that’s global, yet while also respecting differences between, say, America and Romania and Turkey and China and Indonesia.
So it’s not cookie-cutter by any stretch. But it is a global compassionate system, with local interpretations of compassion, which then are applied differently in different regions (such as different regions of the USA), different states, and different counties, hospitals and finally the individual departments within each hospital down to the individual nurse, who can bypass ALL of that stuff as an individual and raise hell if they like. But by being within a compassionate system, their efforts are mitigated.
===