End in itself

[Eudaimonist]

Also, I think Mark may have won

Yes, it is a victory, though not over anyone else. It is a victory for myself, and that is the noblest kind.

Sadly, few people will understand the full meaning and implication of what I just said. I suppose I can reasonably hope that you do.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[elman]

I have found from personal experience that this is not true. My life has been enriched largely through personal accomplishments. While having positive relationships with others is necessary to personal fulfillment, it isn't everything. In fact, being a "people pleaser" can be a road to major unhappiness. Some of the most miserable people I know try to find happiness by making others happy!


eudaimonia,

Mark

I have found from my personal experience, being enriced by personal accomplishments is temporary. I said nothing about being a people pleaser. Sometimes the way you love people and do what is best for them is not by doing what pleases them.

 

[elman]

Why?


Also, I think Mark may have won

Because that is the way things are.

 

[quatona]

Sometimes the way you love people and do what is best for them is not by doing what pleases them.

But fortunately there are guys like you who know what´s best for the others.

 

[The Nihilist]

Because that is the way things are.

All I'm getting from you is assertions, elman. An argument in your favor would be useful

 

[elman]

But fortunately there are guys like you who know what´s best for the others.

Sometimes, not always. We just do the best we can or we don't try.

 

[elman]

All I'm getting from you is assertions, elman. An argument in your favor would be useful

I said from my experience--i.e. my observations, that is how reality appears to be.

 

[The Nihilist]

I said from my experience--i.e. my observations, that is how reality appears to be.

A desire to grant good things to others, coupled with a desire to decide what good things a person gets reveals a carefully disguised lust for power. I must say, I am impressed by your goals, and I admire your cunning. I didn't know you had it in you.

 

[elman]

A desire to grant good things to others, coupled with a desire to decide what good things a person gets reveals a carefully disguised lust for power. I must say, I am impressed by your goals, and I admire your cunning. I didn't know you had it in you.

One can see evil in good, if they delude themselves. If you see it often enough and everytime, you might on some occasion be right. I am not sure i said grant good things. I said help people in need. Sometimes that is not about granting anything. The attempt to use wisdom in trying to descern the better way to help someone is not always a disguised lust for power.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I have found from my personal experience, being enriced by personal accomplishments is temporary.

Then our experiences differ. I am no mind-reader, so I can't tell why this approach hasn't been successful for you.

I said nothing about being a people pleaser. Sometimes the way you love people and do what is best for them is not by doing what pleases them.

Okay, fair enough. One can distinguish between two different types of people who desire the happiness of others -- the "people pleasers" and the "tough love" people.

In either case, I think it is a mistake to be entirely other-oriented. We are social beings by nature -- we need positive and warm relationships of various sorts in life -- so there is a need for some degree of other-orientation. I think that many people carry this idea too far, however.

They seem to think that if some other-orientation is good, then complete and utter other-orientation is even better. And because of this other-orientation can no longer be enacted in a prudent and measured way consistent with one's own well-being -- one must disregard one's own well-being to the point of being self-destructive and miserable in order to fulfill the unlimited needs of other people. And then this self-destructiveness is praised as "selflessness".

In contrast, the measured approach sees both the pursuit of values involving other-orientation and internal-orientation as justified by the filling of one's own needs for personal growth. It is equally a mistake to focus exclusively on internal-values, as if one were a hermit, and to focus exclusively on other people, as if one had no needs or interests at all. The correct position, IMHO, is wise moderation based on a rational consideration of one's needs, both internal and social, combined with a genuine love and respect for others.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[DailyBlessings]

Genuinely serving another person is not about what you need, though no, completely neglecting the needs of the self would not be good either (for how much help is an ascetic to anyone? And at any rate, God does not desire our unhappiness, nor does a life of service to others actually lead to unhappiness). Rather it is about meeting people where they are, and helping them in the way that they need help. It is a conversation, and a relationship, and both parties are benefited by it.

 

[ArchaicTruth]

Or there is the third type, those who wish happiness upon others through wisdom.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Gracious, you don't even know how to care for another human being. What a cynical life you must lead! Whenever someone extends a hand of love to you, you assume they are out for themselves.

Excuse me?!?

I don't know how you get this from what I wrote. I said no such thing, and this is certainly not what I believe.

NO AD HOMINEM COMMENTS! I WILL NOT TOLERATE THEM!

For both categories of people that you mention are actually quite selfish in their impetus- they act superficially nice, or benevolently wise, to make themselves feel better or rearrange the external world after their desire.

That is not how I interpret such people. This is purely your own viewpoint.

Our conversation is over.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[The Nihilist]

Genuinely serving another person is not about what you need, though no, completely neglecting the needs of the self would not be good either (for how much help is an ascetic to anyone? And at any rate, God does not desire our unhappiness, nor does a life of service to others actually lead to unhappiness). Rather it is about meeting people where they are, and helping them in the way that they need help. It is a conversation, and a relationship, and both parties are benefited by it.

Actually, this is very near my opinion on charity.
But why is helping others better than not helping others?

 

[Eudaimonist]

I've accepted DailyBlessings apology. I will take him at his word that he meant to make a rhetorical point only. I agree with RecoveringPhilosopher that he is an okay guy.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[daniel777]

Actually, this is very near my opinion on charity.
But why is helping others better than not helping others?

you know, without God/ultimate stancard/judge/meaning/truth/o. moral standard,,,, i don't think there is a good reason....where does the desire to help random people come from for people who aren't religious?


happy thanksgiving.

 

[Forest]

Actually, this is very near my opinion on charity.
But why is helping others better than not helping others?

Helping others is usually beneficial to society as a whole.

 

[Eudaimonist]

you know, without God/ultimate stancard/judge/meaning/truth/o. moral standard,,,, i don't think there is a good reason....where does the desire to help random people come from for people who aren't religious?

I honestly don't understand why the religious are puzzled by this issue. Why wouldn't the nonreligious take an interest in human well-being?

Without a belief in God, people still understand what it is like to live a human life. They know what it is like to pursue values nourishing of that life. They know what it is like to be deprived of those values. And they know what it is like to receive a helping hand.

Without a belief in God, people still worry at the state of the world. And when they do something to help the world become a better place, they feel that they are part of the solution instead of the problem, and gain a sense of accomplishment and relief.

Without a belief in God, people may still be idealists. It is natural to want to stand for some benevolent set of values or principles. Not everyone does, but it is common enough.

To answer your question, it is a love of life, abstracted to others through what may be called empathy, and idealistically pursued, that leads the nonreligious to philanthropic activities.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[quatona]

you know, without God/ultimate stancard/judge/meaning/truth/o. moral standard,,,, i don't think there is a good reason....where does the desire to help random people come from for people who aren't religious?

To put it simple:
People have a tendency to imagine they were in the situation of another person. Thus, they feel a bit like them. If the other suffers, they experience a glimpse (or more) of this suffering, as well. People don´t like to suffer.

 

[daniel777]

To put it simple:
People have a tendency to imagine they were in the situation of another person. Thus, they feel a bit like them. If the other suffers, they experience a glimpse (or more) of this suffering, as well. People don´t like to suffer.

so, how would this motivate a person to suffer in another's place?

and i said HAPPY THANKSGIVING.... (you're supposto say it back because that's what society considers the ethical thing to do.)