As far as I know, I am not being particularly innovative, merely clarifying common, traditional ethics, and I still am having some confusion at your responses. I intend selfishness to have negative connotations. I also intend altruism to have a negative connotation. I thought I had made that clear.
I don't know what antithesis you are talking about. In some instances, one does things primarily for the sake of the other, and in other instances, primarily for one's own sake. My point is that there is an overarching principle in operation, regardless, namely, upholding the dignity of the individual. Therefore, I am emphasizing a synthesis, not an antithesis, and it is not necessary to worry over purity of motive, since if good is done for another and happens to profit oneself, there is nothing per se wrong with that, it merely increases the sum of good.
One praises actions that are beyond obligation or expectation, and condemns actions or omissions that are sub- par. That is why I emphasize that transcending one's circumstances to make a better life for oneself is praiseworthy. Now, if one gains an incidental advantage from teaching English to foreigners, it does not have to do with one's admirable performance at all. But it is better, because it increases the amount of good generated by the transaction. With something like learning their language, if someone viewed it as taking an opportunity to improve oneself, one might deserve a pat on the back, though.
The other person is the recipient of one's help. I am sorry, I had thought that was clear.
Since I said that sometimes one contributes enthusiastically, sometimes reluctantly, I am not sure what you are talking about. I said that there is are some things which are obligatory and some things that are extra, but one need not even resent what is obligatory. It depends on one's perception of the relative cost of the act. If the cost benefit ratio is viewed as highly favorable, one is enthusiastic. If it is unfavorable, reluctance enters in, although one may see it as still worth doing.
I said that conservatives agree with libertarians that voluntary action is preferable to coerced behavior, but also affirm, with liberals, that society has a right to expect contributions that are for the common good, to improve society. In welfare policy, there are additional complications I have discussed recently on the thread, like encouragement of dependency, which detract from the dignity of the recipients, and require serious alterations of incentives, such as a work requirement for the able- bodied, but that is a bit far afield.
Anyway, I am sorry that it appears I continue to have difficulty making clear what I have been talking about, and I hope this post helps....... |
