Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (86517)	8/26/2000 12:04:49 PM
From: jbe	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 108807

Neo, I would agree that the distinction between what is "altruistic" and what is "selfish" is often drawn too sharply. Yet there are many cases where there is clearly a distinction. Take the parable about the widow's mite, for example. The widow gives only a tiny bit, but it is all she has, and she gives it unobtrusively. The rich man gives a much larger amount(he has much more), but he makes sure everybody sees him doing it. The widow's giving is altruistic; the rich man's giving is selfish, because he wishes only to impress his neighbors. The result may be good (Jesus does not say that one should refuse the rich man's alms); but the motivation is all wrong. "Morality" is a trickier matter, IMO. Speaking of distinctions, I like to draw one between "morality" and "ethics," even though, etymologically, they are synonyms. Thus, I think of ethical principles as "eternal," as it were, while I see "morality" as reflecting particular behavioral codes, which may vary widely from society to society. If "morality" is so understood (as "propriety"), I would say there is nothing either altruistic or selfish about observing it, because it is merely a matter of "doing as the Romans do." "Do not act so as to offend the sensibilities of your neighbors, as you would not have them offend yours." The point here is that the claims others make on us, as well as the claims we make on them, may objectively be unreasonable/immoderate/unjustified/whatever. We might even say that in some cases the claims of "morality" can be "unethical." (I suppose a scriptural example of that would be the Pharisees' criticism of Jesus for consorting with publicans and prostitutes. They were interested only in his behavior, which "offended their sensibilities," rather than in its motivation.)