The affirmation of the principle is my main focus. Both selfishness and altruism negate the principle. I am using the coined term for a reason, and calling it bad, not good. It is praiseworthy to transcend one's circumstances and succeed against odds, just as it is praiseworthy to lend a helping hand to others. It is censurable to waste one's gifts (the parable of the talents?, the prodigal son?), just as it is censurable to turn a blind eye to a suffering stranger. In my scheme, a deed which improves the lot of someone else and happens to do one some good is even better than a purely selfless act, so there is no problem with charity that is supposed to benefit one spiritually, as long as the principle that the other person counts too is honored.
I am less interested in the difficulty of untangling motivation than in the general idea that we care about others as well as ourselves. Sometimes we are enthusiastic about acknowledging their due, or succoring their need, and sometimes we are grudging, but in each case we recognize that we are upholding the dignity of the individual, and thus "objectivizing" our value as well as theirs, that is, treating claims of value and respect as universal, so that we give recognition even as we ask for it. I am content, for the moment, to lay aside whether it is in fact objective. Right at the moment, I merely want to suggest that we, as social creatures, have an interest in articulating rules to govern social intercourse, and that this is the most fundamental rule that we can generate. |
