Q1: Can we only act to benefit ourselves (psychological egoism)?
A1:
Psychological Egoism is really a perspective and not an argument. It
cannot be disproven. This impasse has cost me plenty and dearly, so I
just nod and smile and let it meander on by in it's supposed argument.
When even subconscious reasons for altruistic can be argued selfish, I
can think of no fitting rebuttal. Too sterile and arbitrary for my
liking or accepting, so when someone chooses to hold it, I no longer
bother to contest it.
Q2: Ought we all be selfish (ethical egoism)?
Q3: Are we obligated to consider others [first] (altruism)?
A2,3:
I see no divide here. Maybe I am wrong. -I- (my free person) cannot
give or help others unless I be free and whole in my means and
capacities, so I must consider myself first if I am to be able to
consider the needs of others, for what can I give that I do not have??
The first and last thing we have is our being -- that prime subjective
observer and actor we cannot rid ourselves of, that we ARE. That may
seem self serving, but for the following: by giving to others, by the
pouring out of my being as fully as I may, I redeem the value of what I
am, and possess it all the more, as the light of a torch shared and
spread to others is not diminished, but more present and realized. So,
in giving to others, I have what I am more, and in strengthening myself
for this purpose, I give to others and myself a greater ability to share
through my person. Giving to my self does not deny others, giving to
others does not deny me.
Were living a competition alone, this
may seem mad, but what hermit is fulfilled in a solitude without at
least praying for others? Likewise, what devoted spouse or parent is at
all diminished by striving to better their loved ones?
To
finalize this example of self & other being fulfilled in a BOTH/AND
vs. an US-vs.-THEM or a SELF-vs.-OTHER, consider a lifeguard trying to
save a drowning victim under a pier. Should the lifeguard:
1. let the person drown, neither protecting them nor cultivating anything worthwhile by his position?
2.
place his own body between the drowning person and the pylons, risking
both their lives hould he hit his head against one when a wave pushes
them? Or
3. place the victims body between him and the pylons, so that, should
the victim be concussed, the lifeguard may yet save them both, if not at
least himself and any future victims he may save?
Your
best interests and mine are not, and must not be thought to be opposed.
If I am to love you, to serve you, to protect you and the value of what
life and means I have, I must love and protect myself as well. If I am
to love, serve, and cultivate what I am and have, I must put it to use
in service of others.
Q4: What do you think?
A4: Altruism and
Ethical Egoism are both extreme and needlessly-opposing views that
don't do nearly enough. We cannot attend to others without benefitting
our own interests, as I am better when you are, and we cannot cannot
attend to ourselves without benefitting others interests, as you are
better off when I am. Only in the mind-state of opposition are these views possible.
- - - - -
p.s.
I admit my view of ethics may seem either completely off, or too radical
to consider viable. It does not seek the comfort of ending thought,
which is what Ethical Egoism, Altruism, and Psychological Egoism seem
to. Living in a world where opposition is so often taken as the rule and
not the exception, the BOTH/AND view of solidarity always
risks dismissal, doubt, and opportunism. It is especially uncomfortable
in the arenas of religion and politics.
-xv, 31st October 2013
No comments:
Post a Comment
related non-hostile comments welcomed