Eudaimonist

Well said, Bill. Bravo!

ManM

In the first place, a person considerate of others over himself would not always run off and get himself killed. He would also be considerate of those who loved him, wouldn't he? Also, you analyzed the case of saving a loved one's life, but haven't you destroyed the nobility of the act? What was an act of courage became an act of cowardice. You are only acting out of fear for your own future. What becomes of courage?

Eudaimonist

Are you seriously saying that it is cowardly to stand up for your own values and your own future? It seems to me that this is one of the most courageous things someone can ever do.

Bill Snedden

That may initially seem a valid point. However, continuing in this same line of reasoning (to be considerate of others over oneself), would not one also expect one's loved ones to also consider others over themselves? If so, then their potential suffering is moot.

If I believe that to consider others over myself is a moral obligation, then I must also believe that my loved ones share the same obligation. Therefore, I am obligated to sacrifice myself for a stranger without regard to the suffering of my loved ones as their suffering is no more than their obligatory sacrifice made on behalf of the same stranger for whom I gave my life.

I see nothing cowardly in risking or giving my life for my loved ones or the values that make my life worth living. Courage is the ability to face danger with resolve. As one who believes that death is a final end, it seems to me the very height of courage to face utter annihilation in order to preserve the life of the ones I cherish; without whose presence my own life would be worthless. My motivation in doing so doesn't detract from the act or its results.

Conversely, what's so noble about sacrificing oneself at all? The whole notion of "sacrifice" as a noble act is foreign to me. If you're really anxious to sacrifice yourself to others, send me a check for $10,000 and I'll send you one back for $10.00. That should represent quite a sacrifice!

The really interesting thing is that I've heard many other people express ideas similar to yours, but, like you, they don't really follow those ideas to their natural conclusion. I mean, you obviously don't consistently consider others over yourself. You have a computer and time to surf the internet. Couldn't that money & time be better spent doing something for someone else?

Regards,

Bill Snedden

Panta Pei

Bill stated:

"I would say rather that a good person is one who is considerate of others in the same manner as he considers himself. In other words, treat other people as you yourself would want to be treated. (now, where did I read that? )"

You must be referring to the Samyutta Nikaya sutra:

'The whole world we travel with our thoughts, finding nowhere anyone as precious as one's own self. Since each and every person is so precious to themselves, let the self-respecting harm no other being.'

Of course this is a rather commonsense ideal that seems rather self-explanatory given the theme of this particular thread and is not limited to any time period, dogma or culture

~ Steve

ManM

"If I believe that to consider others over myself is a moral obligation, then I must also believe that my loved ones share the same obligation. Therefore, I am obligated to sacrifice myself for a stranger without regard to the suffering of my loved ones as their suffering is no more than their obligatory sacrifice made on behalf of the same stranger for whom I gave my life."

Well, not necessarily. If we are going to project the moral system on everyone, then I can also expect the stranger to have the same obligation. It may be the case that the stranger should not expect to be rescued by me. I may be more obligated to stay alive, not based on my own interests, but on that of others. It is a utilitarian calculation similar to self-interest, but with less weight on the self.

Now, I do not understand how saving a loved one is a courageous act when you are only doing so to avoid life without her. It seems to me that you are acting more out of fear. As an example, let's say someone is blackmailed into robbing a bank. During the theft, that person faces danger with resolve. But the resolve is driven by fear. How then can we call him courageous? Again, the only reason you are saving your loved one is that you are driven by the fear of life without them. It is just as courageous as a soldier who only marches forward if someone puts a gun to his back.

Also, the nobility is not in the sacrifice, but in the value behind the sacrifice. I would hardly consider suicidal terrorists to be acting in a noble manner. They were considerate of others, but 'others' did not include everyone. As for the hypocrisy, I ask your forgiveness. I see the finish line, but I do not yet have the strength to run the race.

Eudaimonist

Where you see a stick, I see a carrot. Where you see a gun at one's back, I see the glory of life.

I am profoundly astonished at the difference between our views.

[ February 16, 2002: Message edited by: Eudaimonia ]</p>

ManM

Saving a loved one for their sake, or saving a loved one for fear of losing them... I believe the glory of life can be better found in the first case, while apparently you believe in the second. Yes, truly a striking contrast...

Eudaimonist

You misunderstand me. This is not the issue as I see it.

I didn't say that I would save a loved one out of fear of a negative, such as lonliness. That is the stick. I see a carrot instead. The important values that make up one's happiness are a positive motivation. To fight for such values is properly heroic and courageous, even loving, but neither fearful nor cowardly. Life would be a nightmare if we felt that everything we do for our own sake is shameful.

Nor did I say that we shouldn't have a positive regard for others for their own sake. That's healthy. I'm all in favor of good will. However, we need to set priorities based upon our personal pursuit of well-being. For instance, loved ones are our first priority when people need to be rescued from some danger. It would be ridiculous to save a complete stranger in preference to a loved one because we feared tainting our actions with self-interest.

Nor did I say that there is no glory in caring about someone for that someone's own sake. I said:

I do not deny that genuinely caring about others is a proper and healthy part of life. I deny that acting for your own values and future is necessarily cowardly.

[ February 17, 2002: Message edited by: Eudaimonia ]</p>

Bill Snedden

Why not? After all, the stranger expects that you should be more interested in his life than your own. Remember, it is you who are making a moral choice in this case, not the stranger. There's no calculus here; only obligation. Your entire argument is that you are obligated to others above yourself.

Eudaimonia has already answered this point and I basically agree with what he said.

There is no motivation by fear. I would give my life to safeguard the ones I love because I value their lives more than my own. Not because of any duty or obligation to them, but because I choose to.

You propose an obligation that exists by the mere fact of relation, one human to all others. That's not noble; that's slavery.

Nobility comes in choosing to value another for that one's sake. To accept upon oneself everything that goes along with that valuation and to do so freely; of one's own volition.

I quite agree. When you make statements like this, it makes me think that we're really saying the same thing, only our terminology is different.

Consider: if a man is forced to commit a good deed, does he attain moral benefit from his act? The outcome was certainly good, but did he do good? I think that you would agree that the answer is "no."

I feel that this is exactly the same situation we have when one does something for another if he does so merely out of a sense of duty, or because he feels morally obligated.

Nobility is born of choice, not obligation.

Your pardon, please. My previous remarks were somewhat tongue-in-cheek. I did not mean to accuse of you hypocrisy, merely of a somewhat "gentler" inconsistency (of which I'm certain that we are all guilty).

Regards,

Bill Snedden