CURRENT DEBATE: How do
you distinguish passion applied only to the self (lacking meaningful benefits
to others) from selfishness? How do you measure the value of what you do?
·
NL- Something I think about on a daily basis, seeing that the nature
of my job benefits people marginally in comparison to someone working in health
care, non-for profit, etc. I measure the value of what I do against what others
in my field do. But overall, I do not feel as valued in society because of it's
lack of immediate impression on others...hence why I am always open to a career
change or side passions.
·
L.P. I think that passion will always ripple
outwards to uplift others. If you do what you love with theintent of service
above self then whther youare a Peace Corp worker or a bus driver, you will be
benefitting others. Selfishness will never uplift in the same way, even if only
on a metaphysical level.
D.F. I'm unsure why a person's worth or measured
value stems solely from what they do to uplift others. If they aren't hurting
others, is it morally wrong to pursue your own interests and passions
regardless of service? I'd say no.
·
E.D. Selfishness adversely affects others, passion
positively affects others, even if indirectly.
·
J.E. I think a lot of people forget that another
sector that helps people is government. Whether it's providing services like
education or healthcare or solving societal problems like climate change or
unemployment or poverty, government helps a lot of people. That's why I'm so
passionate about it and I want a career in the public sector. Self interest
plays a role in the sense that I want to influence public policy to make the
world more in line with how I want to see it.
·
B.K.
·
I love these discussions and how insightful
the comments are in this thread. Perhaps a more concrete example: how does your
admiration differ between a person who passionately collects buttons and a
person who passionately feeds the hungry (assuming that
both are equally passionate about both)? The button collector has collected
over 10,000 buttons, and the feed the hungry contributor has fed 10,000
starving people. Or, as Dan said, is the question unfair, and if so, why?
·
D.F. I think it's an unfair question. We don't have the big picture
of the person from that statement. The button collector could also be a
philanthropist whose donations have helped 1 million people, while the other
person is a drunk who takes frustration out on his/her family. Then who do you
admire most? You can't measure someone's intrinsic goodness or self-worth
without examining all elements of his/her life.
·
·
·
Brad- It's worth looking to classic works on
morality and happiness to frame the discussion.
Aristotle and a virtue ethicist would argue that there is a clear hierarchy of virtues here. The ultimate end for everyone is happiness. However different people have mastery over different subsets of a virtue, which can in themselves bring happiness, but the greatest happiness comes from striving for excellence in the master virtues. (those which subsume others.) Here, the person who feeds the starving is clearly happier than the button collector. (though they both are happy and should be striving for more things if they wish to continue being happy) That being said, how do we establish this hierarchy? How do we know what the master good is?
Of course a Utilitarian like Mill or Bentham would take issue. To Bentham, happiness or passion is intrinsic and that which brings about the most happiness to the highest number is best. No other motive need be supplied. Mill would agree but stipulate that certain happiness is instinctively better than others (art, education, music etc) and that we should endeavor harder to bring those things into the world. I'm not sure if charity makes Mill's second order list, but he does argue that helping others is one of the highest orders of happiness. With Utilitarianism, you can probably make the case for the button collector, but it is hard to argue that the charity worker isn't bringing about more happiness for more people, which is the goal for Bentham and Mill. That being said, how can we quantify the most happiness? Is it right to sacrifice the passions of a few for the many?
Then of course you have Kant with his pseudo-deontological approach. To Kant, it's all about rule and to what extent you desire to follow them. For Kant, universal rules about what is moral and bringing about good are based on rules that we all agree to be best. Here, it is hard to make a case for the button collector. To Kant he is pursuing a passion that benefits only him to satisfy only him. To Kant this is both selfish and shallow. However the person who does charity is interesting. To Kant, it's all about motivation to follow the rule and selflessness. If the charity worker is passionate because he does not feel a compassion to be charitable, but knows it is his duty so he does it anyway, he is VERY moral and should be very happy. However, if he does it because it brings him happiness or it is in his nature to be charitable, than he acts for selfish reasons and can not be said to be as moral in character as the person who does not. But how can we know what someones motives truly are? For that matter, how do we know what our true motives are?
Just a few perspectives from history.
Aristotle and a virtue ethicist would argue that there is a clear hierarchy of virtues here. The ultimate end for everyone is happiness. However different people have mastery over different subsets of a virtue, which can in themselves bring happiness, but the greatest happiness comes from striving for excellence in the master virtues. (those which subsume others.) Here, the person who feeds the starving is clearly happier than the button collector. (though they both are happy and should be striving for more things if they wish to continue being happy) That being said, how do we establish this hierarchy? How do we know what the master good is?
Of course a Utilitarian like Mill or Bentham would take issue. To Bentham, happiness or passion is intrinsic and that which brings about the most happiness to the highest number is best. No other motive need be supplied. Mill would agree but stipulate that certain happiness is instinctively better than others (art, education, music etc) and that we should endeavor harder to bring those things into the world. I'm not sure if charity makes Mill's second order list, but he does argue that helping others is one of the highest orders of happiness. With Utilitarianism, you can probably make the case for the button collector, but it is hard to argue that the charity worker isn't bringing about more happiness for more people, which is the goal for Bentham and Mill. That being said, how can we quantify the most happiness? Is it right to sacrifice the passions of a few for the many?
Then of course you have Kant with his pseudo-deontological approach. To Kant, it's all about rule and to what extent you desire to follow them. For Kant, universal rules about what is moral and bringing about good are based on rules that we all agree to be best. Here, it is hard to make a case for the button collector. To Kant he is pursuing a passion that benefits only him to satisfy only him. To Kant this is both selfish and shallow. However the person who does charity is interesting. To Kant, it's all about motivation to follow the rule and selflessness. If the charity worker is passionate because he does not feel a compassion to be charitable, but knows it is his duty so he does it anyway, he is VERY moral and should be very happy. However, if he does it because it brings him happiness or it is in his nature to be charitable, than he acts for selfish reasons and can not be said to be as moral in character as the person who does not. But how can we know what someones motives truly are? For that matter, how do we know what our true motives are?
Just a few perspectives from history.
B.K.- Thanks for bring a
classic philosophical lens to the conversation. Which do you subscribe to in
your life?
C.A.- If you are bringing in the oldies but goodies then throw in
the classic Aristotelian middle way.
Your original question is a little strange to me, do you mean
something that is just for yourself but gives nothing to others vs. something that
is just for yourself that takes from others, Narcissus vs. Napoleon?
Is the question about the distribution of goodness in self-contained
actions, or what is the generosity of these two self-fulfilling actions? My answer- it is better to be an autoerotic hermit
than a tyrant. Narcissus was so
beautiful he needed no one else, he found in his reflection a self looping
prison. Before he fell into the lake he
was loved by Echo, a lot of repetition of sound and sight in this myth. In the same way, because we don’t live entirely
in a vacuum, if the autoerotic behavior, self will for self pleasure, has inherent
goodness in it, if it in any way serve others, then others will desire to
replicate it. When you see something
beautiful you desire to grow towards it, just like when you see something good,
something that serves you, you act like it.
We are super simple in some ways, imitating all the time. The level of beauty and the level of good is
the meeting of as much quantity with as much quality for as many people as
possible. Narcissus touches no one, but hurts
no one.
I am using Napoleon because he is the model of excess in
western history. Selfishness detracts
from others, like the friend who takes all the yummy parts of a kabob and gives
you two onions. Selfishness lacks the foresight
of causation, the laws of this begets that, your actions of today craft the response
you will get tomorrow, it detracts from your feedbag of communion, as in
intimacy and connection. Selfishness takes
away trust and will eventually leave you abandoned. Selfishness is not entirely ugly, there are
moments of preservation that require it, but our integrity is usually sacrificed
in those instances, like the person trapped by a bolder who cuts off their leg
to escape. On the road to solitude the
selfish person takes from others, detracting from an equal good, forcing
defensiveness in the ones around them, and that is worse than simply abstracting
yourself from others but not actively harming them. We all want ourselves, so some isolating
behaviors such as moving faster than others or moving slower than others can be
productive, so long as it is in balance with our responsibility to sustainability
and distribution.
Our actions will hopefully not only pay us off today but continually
into the future. This once again is
Aristotle talking about happiness in terms of work, like Brad brought up, it is
better to do something that makes you feel great when you are finished, like
studying philosophy, or going on a run, actions where the benefits have a longer
more stable effect. These two examples
involve actions done for yourself and not directly for others but actions that
will residually benefit others, if you have a healthy mind you can instruct or
love, if you are healthy of body you can assist, etc, these actions are not
initially intended to benefit others but no cause can be judged strictly by its
first effect, there is always a chain reaction and the selfish effect or the
isolated effect might yield something positive, this goes back to Dan’s
comment. The total amount of gain can be
thought of like a gathering, the first effect is usually the strongest and the
lingering effects weaker but all effects of a cause should be tallied in how we
think about its virtue. If you take the
total effect of one cause, you can compare it to the total effect of another cause,
and from there consider which one is fairer.
The middle way involves balance, beauty, justice, scales, and
the human love of symmetry.
I should stop being distracted at work. Totally a fun prompt. Maybe that was helpful? See you soon Bri, and yes, thanks for
asking. Was that what you were asking? Exaggeration can breed clarity.
No comments:
Post a Comment