Selflessness = Ethical behaviour?

[quantumcarl]

No.

Selflessness results in the immediate destruction of the self. How can this help the greater good... which includes the "self"/individual?

The closest approximations to selfless acts are those acts of a soldier, firefighter and police. Volunteer rescuers are also in the category.

The self gratification these men and women derive from their courageous acts is overshadowed by the immediate risks to their lives that they attract in their careers.

After posting in the

"does personhood conflict with ethics"

thread about how automobile owners are being trained in the art of Ethics by following the rules of the road, selflessness came under scrutiny. When drivers don't adhere to the ethics of driving there can be no progress, no arrivals or departures, no road and no commerce and/or spring board for alternative commerce to speak of.

This brings to mind the fact that each person driving is doing so out of self gratification. They have somewhere to go, or no where to go but they are in the car for themselves and their various justifications. They follow the ethics of driving so that they may gratify their individual cause. And in doing so, they are allowing others to do the same/equal/rights/thingy.

And they treat other drivers... for the most part... as they would treat themselves... with great care (to varying degrees).

This brings me to the surprise of my opener. You may be familiar with the saying...

"do unto others as you would have them do unto you".

Yes, you read it here. Confucius wrote this famed philosophical statement... not Deuters Palmes or whoever. It was written 500 years before the Roman/Hebrew conflict. This is something discovered after many visits to the dusty bowels of curious shops in the Chinatown area of the city.

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Does this sound selfless? No. Its cooperative.

How did Confucius come up with this idea? My guess would be that he observed the nature of people and the cause and effect of their interactions.

When Confucius saw the "eye for an eye, tooth for a toof" crowd slowly hacking each other into extinction he realized there must be a better philosophy that tended toward a more permanent form of culture. And what culture has been more permanent than that of the Chinese people?

True enough to say that the famed Budda was alive around the same time and perhaps had an influence in the wording or editing of Confucius's saying.

The Budda took out the last sentence which read "next beer's on Budda".

 

[sameandnot]

how can one act ethically when one is already in prejudice towards "others" for their having beliefs, ideas that are different that theirs?

so long as there's a "you", there is a "me". already we have two sides. i will say that, "so long as there is such a distinction between entities, all actions are ethical and non-ethical; to one side, one acts ethically, and to the other, unethically. this is elementary. no?

 

[jimmie]

this is elementary. no?

No.

so long as there's a "you", there is a "me". already we have two sides.

Yes.

However, I believe that each individual is a two-part combination of a particular "self" and a whole "self", and that there is a difference between right and not right and that the idea of being right is inherent in all individuals.

You are always responsible for your actions and effects that your actions cause, and intent is everything.

One that intends actions to make the 'other' perceived being that is not you, better, requires development of the whole 'self', inside the one being that is truly you.

One that intended actions to make the 'one' perceived being that was you, better, required development of only the particular 'self', inside the one being that was not you.

First whole 'self', then particular 'self', then the combination of the two inside one being that is, balanced.

Should it be believed that there is no whole common ground between all particular individuals, and therefore only the particular gets developed, then it may also be believed that it is every 'man' for themself and they should 'take no prisoners'. Under that 'other' belief, it was a free-for-all war of any kind imagined everywhere, right now.

The 'elementary' part was the particular. The 'secondary' part is the whole.

Under one belief, there is peace right now.

 

[sameandnot]

one self, two selves, other selves... who are you? are you 2 in 1? do you really think this? if so, what does your "other" self think about it?

proposal for contemplation:
every action committed by a "person" (actions projected from the "I"), is, at once, ethical and un-ethical.

even hitler could be said to have acted ethically, by intending to raise Germany from "despair".

morsel for contemplation:
no one can act fully ethically. in trying to act ethically, one acts unethically. when self is "empty", there is no desire to act. this action, which is really non-action, acts neither ethically nor unethically. this kind of action, non-action, comes not from a person, but is the movement of the universe. emptiness is the actualization of universal harmony. in its emptiness, it is always full. such emptiness is always in accord with the Great Integrity (as it has been so beautifully pointed at by Lao Tze).

 

[jimmie]

are you 2 in 1?

I believe everyone is that. It's up to each individual to choose which domain they develop. Full development of the one whole secondary domain comes at the expense of the other particular elementary domain.

If you believe it is not possible for any individual to "act" fully ethically, then you believe that it was not possible for any individual to transcend from the elementary domain to the secondary domain by realizing the act was illusion, and only the still point-of-reference is real.

Trying to do anything was illusion.

(rightintent * selflessness)/ethical behaviour=rightstate

 

[quantumcarl]

Ethics = Balance

how can one act ethically when one is already in prejudice towards "others" for their having beliefs, ideas that are different that theirs?

so long as there's a "you", there is a "me". already we have two sides. i will say that, "so long as there is such a distinction between entities, all actions are ethical and non-ethical; to one side, one acts ethically, and to the other, unethically. this is elementary. no?

Not really.

Ethics is the study of how to harmonize individuals... as in harmonizing their energies and efforts toward a culture of cooperation. This can't be done by infringement. It can only be done by offering laws which reflect the obvious choices nature presents in its mechanisms... though, they're not so obvious to some people, apparently. (You'll notice the least properly ethical people are the ones with chauffers... they don't drive so they are not trained in modern ethics!)

Ethics are the various methods a group puts together to accommodate and utilize each individual's beliefs and disbeliefs, strengths and weaknesses. The most balanced and effective form of ethics performs this seemingly magical function.

There are various kinds of ethics... but only one domain of ethics that will result in the most harmonious, cooperative, progressive and efficient forms of human culture.

The ethical laws which results in a well maintained, prosperous, introspective and respectful society are the ethical laws that, to the untmost degree, reflect nature and its attributes with regard to maintaining, existence, balance, progress, evolution and so on.

The 10 commandments are an example of ethical laws that were established by a group who lived nomadically together for many years.

Through their observations the Hebrew tribes were able to determine and define a set of "non-infringment" clauses that helped to keep the people together, working together and progressing together.

The Hebrew people have had a strong culture that has lasted as long (and through trying and unethical times) if not longer that the Chinese culture(s). We could also note the Japanese culture(s) and the ethics that evolved out of it simply because of the confined proximities for individuals who live within the boundaries of an island.

This longevity of the Hebrew culture is a testament to the efficiency of their ethics. It is the inefficient ethics practised by others (whose cultures have all but disintigrated), in the past, that have diminished their gene pool and therefore their culture.

If you think the Nazi's ethical laws were to "raise Germany to greater heights"... think again. Their only ethic was heirarchy, control, disrespect, fear and greed. And it lasted, in full bloom, 10 years at the most.

The Nazis 10 year rule (approx.) of Germany was an extreme example of an inefficient ethical policy.

 

[sameandnot]

This longevity of the Hebrew culture is a testament to the efficiency of their ethics.

or, its a testament to their being culture-centric. not to say that they are, but to particularize and choose one side is to neglect and abandon the other side. in extreme cases where we have strong emotional reactions to one or both sides, we are over-whelmed by emotion and are incapable of perceiving the damage that nationality produces; the conflict inherent in duality.

efficiency and inefficiency are one. when something is efficient in one way it is, as a result, inefficient in another way. just like all causes are effects and vice versa, efficiency and inefficieny are two sides of one coin.
with paying attention to particulars, one neglects others.
when attention is on oneself, others are neglected.
when attention is oneself, nothing is neglected and nothing is lavished. all are equal in the field of attention. this is the fulfillment of self in negating individual self-importance (not the destruction). paying attention costs one the commodity of self. when attention is paid, and ignoring (ignorance) is naught, the self, too, being of ignorance, is naught.

most importantly:
the idea of selflessness already implies that there is a really existing self, to begin with. are you certain that there is such an entity, in reality?

 

[jimmie]

the idea of selflessness already implies that there is a really existing self, to begin with. are you certain that there is such an entity, in reality?

I am certain there was an existing self to begin with.

efficiency and inefficieny are two sides of one coin.

The whole and the particular are two sides of one coin.

 

[sameandnot]

I am certain there was an existing self to begin with.

what does that mean, "there was... to begin with"? where did it go, and what began?

The whole and the particular are two sides of one coin.

yes! there is One Coin.

 

[Dmstifik8ion]

Selflessness is an attempt to negate the reality of personal responsibility. Denying ones own desires only destroys ones desire to be deserving of that which one desires. Believing that one can have or be anything apart from achieving or earning it demonstrates ones contempt for ones self and the reality in which they have abdicated their right to exist.

 

[jimmie]

Selflessness is an attempt to negate the reality of personal responsibility.

No.

Selflessness is about making the welfare of other beings your first priority, and your own welfare your second priority.

And, so as to "accomplish" your first priority, you develop in balance, your "other-than-self" and your "self" inside of you, with your first area of development being your "other-than-self", the area that considers all other beings first and does what is best for them.

You are not what you did but what you did affected that which you are now, and that which you are now is not the finished product.

First there is you, then there is what you did. Many individuals stake a claim and title to what they did, and thus, live in the past.

First there is "I am", then there is "I am a drywaller".

Be here now.

 

[Dmstifik8ion]

No.

Selflessness is about making the welfare of other beings your first priority, and your own welfare your second priority.

And, so as to "accomplish" your first priority, you develop in balance, your "other-than-self" and your "self" inside of you, with your first area of development being your "other-than-self", the area that considers all other beings first and does what is best for them.

You are not what you did but what you did affected that which you are now, and that which you are now is not the finished product.

First there is you, then there is what you did. Many individuals stake a claim and title to what they did, and thus, live in the past.

First there is "I am", then there is "I am a drywaller".

Be here now.

Close but in reverse:
First there is "I am a drywaller", then there is "I am".

 

[jimmie]

Close but in reverse:
First there is "I am a drywaller", then there is "I am".

If, in fact, you were correct with the above statement, "Close but in reverse", and I believe that you are not, then the statement quoted above should read: "Drywaller am I".

Order.

First I, then I am whatever you think.

 

[Dmstifik8ion]

First we are potentially something, then we may become something. If and when we become something that enables us to be responsible for our own existence then we are someone; and everybody wins.

 

[jimmie]

If and when we become something

Clearly, you believe action is being.

Please provide your definition of the word "something".

 

[Dmstifik8ion]

Being human gives us the potential to be many things; some good, some bad. Acknowledging and assuming responsibility for our own lives is how we realize our potential to be something that has potential value to others who have realized theirs.

My responsibilities tell me I need to go now. It’s been nice chatting with you.

 

[jimmie]

Being human gives us the potential to be many things;

No.

Being human gave you the potential to do many things.

 

[Dmstifik8ion]

Learning what I can be has led me to do what I have done. What I have done has made me what I am. Knowing that what I have become is good motivates me to do everything I can do to be all that I can be.

If we are all to serve others above our selves, humanity is condemned to subvert to the lowest common denominator; the person who values no one, let alone them self. When each of us pursues our own rational self interest and achieves our highest individual potential we are then of the greatest possible value we can be to each other.

 

[quantumcarl]

When each of us pursues our own rational self interest and achieves our highest individual potential we are then of the greatest possible value we can be to each other.

This is my understanding of ethics as well. When a person is self-sufficient they are of the most use to others while relying less on others.

When everyone can achieve a self-sufficiency, they are able to rely on each other as well as their own power. This is a condition of maximum progress.

You see it when someone is able to give you a boost with their booster cables. They're prepared for their own dead battery... and, yet, this self preparedness is of great use to you as well... if you happen to be cableless for whatever reason. It almost boils down to fair trade between individuals.

However, when a firefighter comes busting through your wall to put out your burning couch and he's caught on fire for a while, risking his entire life, how do you repay this... what is the fair trade?

The fire fighter will tell you that you being alive is his big pay off... that the fact he is alive is a major bonus too.

These are extreme instances that do not seem to fit into the democratic ethic other than to say that they are a part of the democratic mix... or... multi-cultural/multi-disciplinary tolerance of a democratic society.

 

[waht]

Someone who has achieved a higher state of being is willing to share some of his power with an individual in need.

A true selfless person has control of his fears, unlike most fire fighters that do what they do because they are getting paid.

A distincting has to be made between a person that constantly helps and supports somebody else capable of develepment. And that somebody else leeches on all recources.

 

[jimmie]

A true selfless person

Someone who has achieved a higher state of being is willing to share some...

Share all.

 

[Dmstifik8ion]

Before you can share you must have. Before you can have you must get. Before you can get, it must be available for the getting. The creation of value and what makes this possible must be appreciated above all other considerations or there can be no value to give, share, get, etc. Respect for the person and the methods of creating value are essential to the maintenance of that value. When the appreciation and understanding of a value and what makes it possible is ignored the value ceases to exist. Appreciation and value are inextricably linked.

 

[jimmie]

Appreciation and value are inextricably linked.

Yes, and that link is either right or not right.

A selfless person values that which is inside each individual prior to anything observed outside the individual.

creation of value

methods of creating value

Creation is prior to invention.

If a person believes that which is outside the individual holds value, there are various methods of inventing value, and invention is not creation.

An individual that values that which is outside the individual will not appreciate all that is outside the individual, including all individuals.

A selfless individual always intends to value that which is inside all individuals, so as to appreciate all that is outside all individuals, including all individuals.

 

[Dmstifik8ion]

Yes, and that link is either right or not right.

A selfless person values that which is inside each individual prior to anything observed outside the individual.





Creation is prior to invention.

If a person believes that which is outside the individual holds value, there are various methods of inventing value, and invention is not creation.

An individual that values that which is outside the individual will not appreciate all that is outside the individual, including all individuals.

A selfless individual always intends to value that which is inside all individuals, so as to appreciate all that is outside all individuals, including all individuals.

Value is determined by what it can do for the individual who possesses it. Only how a value is perceived or used can be right or wrong. Appreciation of some things value does not create the value but without a recognition of what gives it value, its value will cease to exist.

That which is inside an individual is personal, sacrosanct and the responsibility of that individual. No one, no matter how “self-less”, has any business inside of another individual in any manner shape or form without their desire and consent. What they have and freely choose to offer is the only thing another person has any right to consider.

 

[quantumcarl]

That which is inside an individual is personal, sacrosanct and the responsibility of that individual. No one, no matter how “self-less”, has any business inside of another individual in any manner shape or form without their desire and consent.

I have a desire inside of me to eat broken glass and I'm 2 years old. Some selfless person is trying to stop me. Can I sue them for infringement of my rights when I'm older?

I have an unconsious desire to stand in a burning house til the fire consumes it. Some selfless samaritan breaks in and "rescues" me from my unconscious desire. Do I thank them, sue them, resent them, light them on fire?

What they (selfless one) have and freely choose to offer is the only thing another person has any right to consider.

Sometimes there is no time to consider what is being offered. This is where instinct and innate reactions kick into either refuse or accept the offer. For instance, someone shot their head with a gun in the parking lot of a hospital. The act didn't kill them and they were "rescued" by the staff of the hospital.

It was the differences in the values held by the person attempting suicide and the people trying to keep that person alive that determined the acts of all those involved. There was no one assisting the suicide because of the value differences yet the attempt to maintain the life of the suicidal person was deemed the appropriate action - even though it is an obvious infringement upon the values of the person attempting suicide to have their life maintained by a "selfless" group of good samaritians.

I think what is apparent here is a standard value that is widely held by most people. It is that life is good and worth living for every person. This is the default attributed to the fact that life exists in the first place.

When we encounter people who's life appears to be in danger, for whatever reason, we do not stop to ask questions but immediately respond to the understanding that life must be maintained... as has been demonstrated by the mechanisms of life and those mechanisms that support life.

Once the potential for the life saved is restored it is obvious that the life can resume their own value system... suicide... desires to stand in burning houses... desires to eat broken glass etc...

That's the beauty of saving a life. You save the potential of what that life can become or continue to be.

However, this view wouldn't necessarily jive with Dr. Joseph Mengle or his chronies.

 

[Dmstifik8ion]

I have a desire inside of me to eat broken glass and I'm 2 years old. Some selfless person is trying to stop me. Can I sue them for infringement of my rights when I'm older?

I have an unconsious desire to stand in a burning house til the fire consumes it. Some selfless samaritan breaks in and "rescues" me from my unconscious desire. Do I thank them, sue them, resent them, light them on fire?



Sometimes there is no time to consider what is being offered. This is where instinct and innate reactions kick into either refuse or accept the offer. For instance, someone shot their head with a gun in the parking lot of a hospital. The act didn't kill them and they were "rescued" by the staff of the hospital.

It was the differences in the values held by the person attempting suicide and the people trying to keep that person alive that determined the acts of all those involved. There was no one assisting the suicide because of the value differences yet the attempt to maintain the life of the suicidal person was deemed the appropriate action - even though it is an obvious infringement upon the values of the person attempting suicide to have their life maintained by a "selfless" group of good samaritians.

I think what is apparent here is a standard value that is widely held by most people. It is that life is good and worth living for every person. This is the default attributed to the fact that life exists in the first place.

When we encounter people who's life appears to be in danger, for whatever reason, we do not stop to ask questions but immediately respond to the understanding that life must be maintained... as has been demonstrated by the mechanisms of life and those mechanisms that support life.

Once the potential for the life saved is restored it is obvious that the life can resume their own value system... suicide... desires to stand in burning houses... desires to eat broken glass etc...

That's the beauty of saving a life. You save the potential of what that life can become or continue to be.

However, this view wouldn't necessarily jive with Dr. Joseph Mengle or his chronies.

The context of coming to the aid of another who is obviously incapable or otherwise unable to act in their own rational self interest was not a consideration I found essential for responding to the previous post but you have made some very good points regarding this aspect of intervening on another’s behalf. I especially agree with assessing the fundamental value of life as a primary consideration in the face of an emergency situation, the rescuers no less than the rescued.

I do not view the actions of those who endanger their own life to help others as a selfless act. Depending on the degree of personal jeopardy they impose on themselves in the process, this kind of action is measurably heroic.

Endlessly debating with ones self whether they had done all that they could have to prevent the worst possible outcome in such a situation is selfless and absurd. I have heard of people who end up committing suicide because of their inability to rationally resolve such issues.

The respect due someone who helps someone else should be duly honored, not only by those who directly benefit, but by all of us who value human potential. This payment is also due in the form of self-respect by the heroes themselves, responsible parents included, but this is a personal matter and the responsibility of the individual concerned.

 

[quantumcarl]

The context of coming to the aid of another who is obviously incapable or otherwise unable to act in their own rational self interest was not a consideration I found essential for responding to the previous post but you have made some very good points regarding this aspect of intervening on another’s behalf. I especially agree with assessing the fundamental value of life as a primary consideration in the face of an emergency situation, the rescuers no less than the rescued.

I do not view the actions of those who endanger their own life to help others as a selfless act. Depending on the degree of personal jeopardy they impose on themselves in the process, this kind of action is measurably heroic.

Endlessly debating with ones self whether they had done all that they could have to prevent the worst possible outcome in such a situation is selfless and absurd. I have heard of people who end up committing suicide because of their inability to rationally resolve such issues.

The respect due someone who helps someone else should be duly honored, not only by those who directly benefit, but by all of us who value human potential. This payment is also due in the form of self-respect by the heroes themselves, responsible parents included, but this is a personal matter and the responsibility of the individual concerned.

True enough that endangering my life, for whatever reason, is not necessarily a selfless act. For instance, I can be within an inch of losing my life while I scale a cliff, skateboard, drive a car... etc... and all these acts are mostly selfish acts... when there is great amount of gratification experienced by a rescuer... during a life threatening situation... this can also be deemed a selfish act.

The ethics of Heroism do seem to apply to this thread and you are brilliant to enter the concept.

I have identified what I perceive to be a genetic predisposition to maintain life and to support its development in all living things. I believe that the trait is a behaviour that is engrained in the physiology of all living things because it is entrenched by the example given by the mechisms of life.

In fact, it seems appropriate to say that all matter is programmed to support the emergence and evolution of the phenomenon of life... this tendency is reflected in the mechanisms and evolutions of life itself.

This tendency is as plain as the tendency for grains of sand to funnel through the narrow part of an hour glass because of certain forces suchas gravity and containment.

All these tendencies are manifest in each individual. They seem to be defaults. However, we get exceptions that can be analogous to the P52 gene of a cell.

The P52 gene is the regulatory gene that will kill the cell its a part of if the cell is threatening the organism that the cell is a part of. It is thought that the mutation that gives rise to tumours also turns off the P52 gene.

 

[tuco]

define Selflessness

is Selflessness the opposite of Selfishness?

--
Main Entry: self·ish

1 : concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself : seeking or concentrating on one's own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others
2 : arising from concern with one's own welfare or advantage in disregard of others
-
http://www.webster.com/
--

is this selfish?

now i will use words of someone else who floats around these boards, just coz why to reinvent the wheel *waves @ Nimz*

Going back to the dictionary definition of selfish (which, imo is a good definition in this case), it has to do with pleasing oneself with disregard to all others. Cooperation is not selfish, since it cannot exist if someone disregards everyone else. Cooperation is the working together to provide mutual benefit. To the extent that it is cooperation, it is not selfish. The good feeling you get for being selfless is not a selfish motivation for your actions, for if it was, paradoxically, you wouldn't be able to achieve that good feeling. - Nimz

to the initial question: Selflessness = Ethical behaviour?

define Ethical behaviour ;)

but my opinion is that Selflessness does not have to equal Ethical behaviour. nowhere is written that acting with disregard of oneself will necessarily lead to what is right nor to what benefits others.

 

[quantumcarl]

define Ethical behaviour ;)

but my opinion is that Selflessness does not have to equal Ethical behaviour. nowhere is written that acting with disregard of oneself will necessarily lead to what is right nor to what benefits others.

Ethical behaviour:

Since, there is no general theory of ethical leadership, there is no research or solid evidence that shows that ethical behavior produces superior "leadership results" in the long term or the short term. And as long as we define "leadership results" as success (e.g. sales, revenues, sports victories, promotions, awards, etc.), and do not monitor or analyze the underlying leadership behavior in terms of whether it was ethical or not that produced these results, we can never show statistically that ethical behavior, however defined, is a superior result producer than unethical behavior.

In order to begin to develop a theory of ethical leadership, one must realize that the term "ethical" in front of the word "leadership" today is merely seen as imposing constraints on the leader. Ethics today is taught from a negative point of view. One studies ethics in law school, other graduate schools and in new courses springing up in the business and non-profit worlds and each of these courses tries to teach people what not to do. No body of knowledge and certainly no successful behavioral modification training can ever be based on trying to teach people what not to do. The number and categories of unethical behavior are infinite and only limited by the imaginations of the six billion people on the planet. No course can ever tell someone all the things not to do or even describe all of the categories of actions that are proscribed.

From: http://www.refresher.com/!hrrethical.html

and the health professions have come up with a PDF that defines ethical behaviour. What none of these definitions include is the integration of human behaviour with the rest of the natural environment. Ethics has very recently come to include environmental policies of non-infringment and sustainability the opposite of those policies is deemed "unethical".

read:

http://healthprofessions.dal.ca/policy/ethicdef.pdf

In the long run I agree with your statement

Selflessness does not have to equal Ethical behaviour.

because it illustrates what I am trying to point out with this thread. The Self is entitled to ethical treatment by the afore mentioned Self just as any other part of the Self's environment (including other organisms) are entitled to ethical treatment. When one forgets one's self, this action lends itself to the definition of unethical treatment of the said Self... (see first link).

 

[Rade]

The question of the OP has been answered by Ayn Rand in her book... The Vitue of Selfishness 1961.

 

[quantumcarl]

The virtue of selfishness is pretty obvious in the practise of ethics that's why I've focused on ethics and selflessness.

One virtue of ethics is that it is a way of avoiding uncomfortable, unbalanced and even destructive consequences. This is often considered a selfish motivation. Furthermore, the pleasure derived from the enjoyment of peace and safety in a community that is a result of the practise of ethical behaviour can also be classified as a selfish aim and motivation.

I would disagree with the idea that selfishness is defined by complete disregard for the welfare of the environment and for other people. That is a better definition for unethical behaviour than it is for selfish behaviour.

Thanks for reminding me I posted this thread:uhh: .