No, we should only move it up to the lowest level shown by anyone, i.e. that of someone who performs outwardly selfless acts for the pleasure of feeling righteous. Granted, this is not measureable, or precise. But it is pragmatic.
No, we should only move it up to the lowest level of selfishness shown by anyone, i.e. that of someone who performs outwardly selfless acts for the pleasure of feeling righteous. Granted, this is not measureable, or precise. But it is pragmatic.
I think selfish can be seen as a scale. when the value of selfish is a very small number, say, 0.0001 , it can be regarded as selfless,e.g.,you save a strange person JUST because you can't stand seeing him die. The scale that shows how much you care of yourself.
think about it Think, is it possible to put someone besides yourself first? Is it acctually possible to put yourself second in your mind? Can you do something for some if you see that you will get absolutly no benefit from it; you wont even feel good about it?
In your mind Consider that you could never put anyone else first untill you could put someone else first in your mind.If that could happen then you would be able to put someone else first in reality Is anyone going to reply to that? I bet you can't!
Argument: it is not possible to purposely do harm to your self, against your onw will. For Example if some one tells you to hit your self w/ a baseball bat or they'll kill you you will not be able to hurt you self with the baseballbat.
Complete and total selflessness is not required. Some people say that because they don't think anyone can be completely selfless, every act is selfish, which is a false deduction. The problem with your argument is that you are not considering the relationship of the cost, or risk, to that of the return. Suppose the cost of letting someone jump from a bridge is that you will feel bad about it later. The cost of helping is the risk of losing your whole life and being pulled off of the bridge with them. This is not a selfish exchange at all. You stand to lose much more than you could gain, so taking the action to save the person is not sensible. Someone selling their car to help the poor and then getting a good feeling about it is ok, but how many times will they also feel bad from having to take the bus, and always being late, and losing their job? Much worse than if they simply ignored the need of others. If you want to say that it isn't sensible to be selfless, ok. But don't say it isn't possible.
karma yoga? sure, why not, if I have nothing better to do, it seems natural to help (towards a better world), but it never ever must cross my vital interests or needs, because I want a better world for myself too.
I don't expect anything whenever I help out. I just help when and where I can. If I were to want money for helping I would become a doctor, fireman or other job that you would get paid to help.
there is the notion of just doing the right thing. ive helped people before just because they were in reach and their experience overlapped mine some where it wouldnt have made any sense not help, if i had considered it, but i didnt consider it. thinking back i see that on at least half of those occasions ive felt a slight irratability but dodged it feeling. no good feelings about it. none bad. just done. i think we can help people without the focus or intent being to please ourselves or avoid guilt or critisism . in cases where we help someone say giving a homeless person a few bucks and then we feel all warm inside... the act of helping is first and it doesnt possess the warmth of the afterthought. often time to the contrary. a buddhist term describes the impulse we naturally have to help when we see help is needed as the "ethical impulse". it comes entirely naturally and without reason, just because of our ground connectedness we have to the rest of our world. how many times tho have we seen like an old lady shut down, in a crosswalk and thought immediately to help and then considered how it could end up going bad for whatever reason and justified avoiding it.. or seeing some one broken down on the side of the road, same processing? where i found this with the refereence to buddhism, the whole point they were making surrounded the practice of NOT subverting or diverting (whatever) the ethical impulse with the secondary considering being justification for either helping or not helping. im almost certain that the suggestion here goes to say that we are drawn to help first without consideration for ourselves. the reward or its opposite is a secondary experience. i further gather that this is a kind of state of being as such that is included in all of what makes up true compassion. shrugs.
Isn't there a difference between doing something because it benefits you and doing something that just happens to benefit you? There is a delete option. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
well yeah i think there is a difference. the difference is in what motivates you to action. in there first case you consider that you will benefit and for that reason you help. in the second case i think you just help, and are pleasantly suprised by the consequences beyong the act.
> As Mary Parker Follett said, the circumference of the self is elastic. When we say "self," are we referring to our body-self, our ego-self, our family-self, our community-self, our nation-self, our world-self, our cosmos-self? We wear many hats simultaneously. Which one we focus on depends on context. I personally subscribe to an "omnicentric" view of the universe, in which the whole is contained in every part. A simple example for the individual/society relationship is the language that we use. When we think in or speak in a language, we are embodying our entire culture but expressing it from a unique point of view.
I think it is possible to be altruistic. Along the lines of vossistart's buddhist thoughts, I believe humans are motivated firstly by compassion that arises out of our relatedness and nature of simply being human. Having compassionate thoughts (at least for me) does not come from anything other than the recognition of someone else's situation. Secondly, we are also driven by self-preservation and fulfillment. Therefore, although both are always present (ie expecting to feel good), I think that where the first type of thought is the primary motive, the resulting action can be called altruistic.
No way! I think I could get over it, the loss that is. On a global scale if I jump or don't jump infront of a bullet one man dies anyway. I'd prefer it not to be me. Of course there can be exceptions when I may choose to sacriface for the greater good of humankind, but that would have to be something extremely important to our entire species or planet.
I don't beleive in you statement. There have been many times, which I have helped my fellow man when it has not been convient for me and it delivered no sense of satisfaction at all. I did it because they needed my help
I care about my family foremost ... sister especially , due to circumstances im like a father to her, so I feel a responsebility for making her life better than mine has been, I dont care what happens to me at all.