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 (86661)	8/28/2000 5:11:58 PM
From: jbe	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 108807

Wow, didn't realize you were offering a whole new ethical system, Neo! <g> Seriously, I see a problem with the term "selfishness," simply because there is no way to rid it of its negative connotations. Now, Ayn Rand,I gather, did write a book entitled The Virtue of Selfishness, but then Rand did like to "epater les bourgeois." I can't see you as liking that, let alone doing it. ;-) In any event, I personally would recommend coining a new term. (Ahem! Ahem! Harrumph!) I also question the logic of the following: In my scheme, a deed which improves the lot of someone else and happens to do one [oneself]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. 1) Your antithesis is not entirely valid, in my view. For example, in most religious "schemes," a "purely selfless act" does do the doer of the act "some good." He gets some brownie points with The Man Up Above, or improves his Karma, or whatever. In that sense, there is no such thing as a purely selfless act. And as I tried to point out, religions actually encourage a certain form of self-centeredness. 2) If by "some good" you mean some material advantage or some career advancement, something "concrete," the fact is that this "good" is often fortuitous. For example, on a number of occasions I have volunteered to help immigrants with their English. If one of them had offered to teach me his/her own language in return, I would have been delighted, and certainly would have accepted it. But how would my acceptance make my original act of volunteerism (I wouldn't call it a "purely selfless" act, because I enjoy it) more praiseworthy? Suppose (as is the case) nobody actually made such an offer? It's a matter of luck, and morally, luck is neutral. 3) When you refer to the "other person" ("the principle that the other person counts too"), I presume you mean the "doer of the purely selfless act." Same objection here as in (1) -- no act is "purely" selfless (nor need it be). Even kissing leper's sores was considered a sure way to Heaven -- for the person doing the kissing, not for the leper. I get the impression, however, that, in your "scheme," the "other person" is an unwilling or reluctant donor. He "gives," but only because he feels he has no choice (e.g., income taxes); or only because he experiences social pressure to contribute to causes he does not really believe in; or simply because he is a miser in every sense of the word. Well, we all have our favorite causes, and our unfavorite ones. So what? All that indignation about "welfare queens," for example, struck me as downright unpleasant, smacking too much of ordinary resentment. I personally find resentment one of the most destructive emotions there is (to the individual experiencing it, not to the object of it), just one tiny notch above the worst of all - envy.