ManM

Bill,
Just as a technicality, if I am not allowed to think about the choice of the stranger in need, then you should not say I expect my loved ones to sacrifice. If I only consider things from my perspective, then I am justified in choosing the well-being of my loved ones over that of the stranger.

Now I think I see where we are at odds. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you see acting out of duty to another as slavery. I agree completely. What I'm proposing is that you are considerate of others for the sake of the other, not for the sake of duty or for your own sake. It is action that proceeds from love, not cold obligation. Our miscommunication might stem from our different views of obligation as well. We both agree that nobility arises out of a choice, but we see the slavery and obligation in different places. I see action motivated by self-interest to be performed out of duty to one's self. Consequently this is where I see the slavery. Likewise, you see the slavery on the other end of the spectrum.

And so let's focus on where we agree: nobility is born of choice, not obligation. Returning to the topic, what are we to say about a good person? Any conditions we propose can be taken as an obligation. So can reason approach this subject, or is it something we must necessarily leave to the heart?

Bill Snedden

Apologies for the delay in replying!

Good. We agree on something.

Well, what do you mean by "for the sake of the other" and "love"? I would interpret these in a self-interested manner. "Love" is not a word that I use lightly. I do not apply it to just anyone. I do not love "humanity" as a whole although I do feel empathy and solidarity. I love those individuals who have personally touched my life in some special way.

I would also interpret "for the sake of the other" in the same way. I wouldn't undertake serious risk to my own life for just anyone. I would risk my life for my loved ones because of who they are and what they mean to me.

As I've said before, I think that we're saying pretty much the same thing, but we have some differing semantics. The end result would seem to be the same. Both of us would risk or give our lives to protect or save the lives of those we cherish.

I don't see how it's possible to label self-interested actions as "duties" nor do I see any way in which such actions could be called "slavery" without rendering the idea incoherent, but I'll just agree to disagree

Okay, I think that reason can definitely approach this subject and it should not be left to the heart.

I think that we can still use "following the golden rule" to describe "good people", but how about if we say, "a good person is one who considers others as well as himself." In other words, not others to the exclusion of himself, but neither himself to the exclusion of others.

How's that?

Bill