Dining With Hitler

[Orpheus]

Has there ever been a time where you placed the happiness of another below that of your own happiness or for the desire of a material possesion(s)? I would be very surprised if there is a single person out there who could honestly say no.

You are probably wondering about the title. It is a reference to a book that I read a while back "Blue Like Jazz" by Donald Miller. In the book Don is feeling remorse for the fact that he placed the happiness of his mother below his own desires; he bought her a cheap christmas present with his left over change. Are we so inherently selfish or is this something that we have learned?

It's rather late so I'm going to get some sleep. Perhaps I'll finish writing this later if anyone decides to take interest in the topic.

[Redzeppelin]

It is impossible to say "no" to your question by very fact that we are human. Our nature is inherently selfish; only correction from loving parents helps us avoid becoming imprisoned within the "hell" of our own ego. The question you ask is interesting because it gains force and intensity as one gets older (assuming one is introspective enough to think about the ways we have placed ourselves in the number one position).

[RichardHresko]

I am not sure that putting someone else's happiness below one's own is necessarily selfish. Surely some sense of proportion should be allowed, no? Or are we to laud a person who indulges another's whims, no matter how trivial, over our own desires? Would you want to be in a position where you knew that your fancy would trump another's desire every time?

[weepingforloman]

I should say that a person whose every whim or fancy is indulged is NOT in fact happy. The well-being of others should always take precedence over self-interested pleasure (as separate from happiness).

[caffeinecups]

I believe that our experiences taught us to take care of ourselves. There have been those who in the past had tried to put others' needs before his own, and each time ended up losing everything while others have gained. In the end, what matters is how much happiness an act of kindness really does to us.

Is a selfless act indeed selfless? How many times have you done something for another and wondered if that person is genuinely grateful for the good that you've done? And if you found out that that person is indeed very ungrateful, and is not really willing to give back the favor given the chance, would you change your mind about the act of kindness that you've done for him?

[NikolaiI]

Has there ever been a time where you placed the happiness of another below that of your own happiness or for the desire of a material possesion(s)? I would be very surprised if there is a single person out there who could honestly say no.

You are probably wondering about the title. It is a reference to a book that I read a while back "Blue Like Jazz" by Donald Miller. In the book Don is feeling remorse for the fact that he placed the happiness of his mother below his own desires; he bought her a cheap christmas present with his left over change. Are we so inherently selfish or is this something that we have learned?

It's rather late so I'm going to get some sleep. Perhaps I'll finish writing this later if anyone decides to take interest in the topic.


Is a selfless act indeed selfless? How many times have you done something for another and wondered if that person is genuinely grateful for the good that you've done? And if you found out that that person is indeed very ungrateful, and is not really willing to give back the favor given the chance, would you change your mind about the act of kindness that you've done for him?

"The giver should be grateful."

I agree that we have probably all done things like this. In my experiences, the worst conflicts arise out of misunderstandings, and when we are at cross-purposes. An effort to understand another party is key.

I don't think we're inherently selfish. You know, hardly anyone thinks that they are bad. Selfish people think that it's the right way to be. If you're in prison, for instance, you have a different idea about compassion and generosity than if not. It's a completely different world, and anyhow, almost everyone thinks they're doing right- even if the entire world condemns them, then they just think they're purging the world of evil.

About selfish and selfless acts: in The Road Less Traveled, Dr. M. Scott Peck describes love as an action. We have the feeling of love for someone, perhaps we are in love; anyway, we show this love by acts of kindness or something, we 'cathect' the object of our desire- and that can be about interpersonal relationships, but it also applies to inanimate objects. We might love an object, and miss it sorely if we lose it. With people, Peck also talks about ego boundaries, and about when we let those down, and sort of become one with other people, or the outside world, and he calls this a mystical union. But as Nietzsche says, to bring someone into your confidence doesn't mean that you are in theirs; he calls it an error to think this.

As we talked about on another of your threads, I don't think these things (selfish impulses?) are inherent to humans, I think they are mostly conditioned. Perhaps they are inevitable, but that doesn't mean we're born with them.

[RichardHresko]

I should say that a person whose every whim or fancy is indulged is NOT in fact happy. The well-being of others should always take precedence over self-interested pleasure (as separate from happiness).

But by that reasoning, our self-interested pleasure is not our happiness either. So a better question would be when we should put the well-being of others above our own well-being. Once again, I would argue that there is a range of well-being and thus that there is no hard and fast rule.

[caffeinecups]

The new replies for some reason reminded me of Ayn Rand's philosophy of objectivism, which states, among others, that the proper moral purpose of one's life is the pursuit of one's own happiness or rational self-interest. This idea is not an issue if happiness can be pursued by another independently without effect for another's attainment of the same.

The problem, though, arises when one act will make either one of two persons happy. Will I use the money I have for a present that will make my mom smile or do I disregard her happiness and buy something that will make me happy?

Orpheus mentioned that the character in the book he read (I have yet to read that one, if you highly recommend it ^_^ ) felt remorse after putting his happiness above another. After trying to pursue his own happiness and thereby disregarding another's, the character ended up not being entirely happy himself. But he won't be entirely happy either if he bought his mom a gift because, although his mom's happiness will somehow give him some amount of happiness, he still doesn't satisfy his own interest, and that is enjoying the fruits of his labor.

What if this recipient is not a family member and just some random ungrateful drunk out in the street? Would you consider spending your hard-earned cash to make him happy? Isn't the choice of whose happiness to place above your own dependent on the amount of happiness it will give you in return? It seems likely, considering the dilemma only arose out of the mention of a family member, who we expect to be naturally grateful and understanding that your act is an expression of love.


"The giver should be grateful."


If the receiver does not understand how it is an act of love, and is not grateful for that act, how could the giver possibly feel grateful?




About selfish and selfless acts: in The Road Less Traveled, Dr. M. Scott Peck describes love as an action. We have the feeling of love for someone, perhaps we are in love; anyway, we show this love by acts of kindness or something, we 'cathect' the object of our desire- and that can be about interpersonal relationships, but it also applies to inanimate objects.


A show of your feeling of love for someone through acts of kindness seems to me to be not entirely a selfless act. By showing acts of kindness to someone you love, you not only satisfy someone's happiness, but also your self-interest, and that is showing/proving your love to someone you love. There's no problem in that since it sounds like a two-way thing. But if you have to choose between making yourself happy, or your loved one happy, which will you choose? If you knew beforehand that the one you love is going to break off the relationship a few minutes after you gave a gift for her, would you have bought the gift in the first place or just stuck to buying yourself something?

I seem to have come off-tangent on some things, pardon my line of thinking.

[RichardHresko]

I would argue that my answers are more in tune with old-fashioned utilitarianism than objectivism.

I don't think that there is or should be a hard and fast rule for deciding between the happiness of another or for oneself. Nor is there necessarily a moral calculus to determine the right course in each case (thus I jettison the utilitarian Jeremy Bentham). Rather, bearing in mind as Aristotle has pointed out, that one should not demand more precision than the subject allows, we should carefully and as dispassionately as possible weigh our acts in such a way as to produce the greatest good we can. Sometimes that may mean to do something for ourselves, sometimes for others.

[NikolaiI]

The new replies for some reason reminded me of Ayn Rand's philosophy of objectivism, which states, among others, that the proper moral purpose of one's life is the pursuit of one's own happiness or rational self-interest. This idea is not an issue if happiness can be pursued by another independently without effect for another's attainment of the same.

The problem, though, arises when one act will make either one of two persons happy. Will I use the money I have for a present that will make my mom smile or do I disregard her happiness and buy something that will make me happy?

Orpheus mentioned that the character in the book he read (I have yet to read that one, if you highly recommend it ^_^ ) felt remorse after putting his happiness above another. After trying to pursue his own happiness and thereby disregarding another's, the character ended up not being entirely happy himself. But he won't be entirely happy either if he bought his mom a gift because, although his mom's happiness will somehow give him some amount of happiness, he still doesn't satisfy his own interest, and that is enjoying the fruits of his labor.

What if this recipient is not a family member and just some random ungrateful drunk out in the street? Would you consider spending your hard-earned cash to make him happy? Isn't the choice of whose happiness to place above your own dependent on the amount of happiness it will give you in return? It seems likely, considering the dilemma only arose out of the mention of a family member, who we expect to be naturally grateful and understanding that your act is an expression of love.

If the receiver does not understand how it is an act of love, and is not grateful for that act, how could the giver possibly feel grateful?

A show of your feeling of love for someone through acts of kindness seems to me to be not entirely a selfless act. By showing acts of kindness to someone you love, you not only satisfy someone's happiness, but also your self-interest, and that is showing/proving your love to someone you love. There's no problem in that since it sounds like a two-way thing. But if you have to choose between making yourself happy, or your loved one happy, which will you choose? If you knew beforehand that the one you love is going to break off the relationship a few minutes after you gave a gift for her, would you have bought the gift in the first place or just stuck to buying yourself something?

I seem to have come off-tangent on some things, pardon my line of thinking.

I'm a fan of Rand. I've only read one book, The Romantic Manifesto, and that only because it was lying around, but I liked it.



If the receiver does not understand how it is an act of love, and is not grateful for that act, how could the giver possibly feel grateful?

I am trying to find where I saw this recently. There was some story about it, and I wish I could find it. I had thought it was in a book by Suzuki on Shin Buddhism, but looking in it I can't find it, and that kind of story doesn't quite seem like it would be in the book. If I had that, it would better explain the reasons for it, but one way to look at it is, you're grateful to be able to give, that you're in the position of giving and do not have the necessity to receive. Or you are grateful for the opportunity to share, if you feel sharing is what you should do with your gifts, then you are grateful that you are able to do what you're supposed to. As in, you are grateful for the ability to help. Or, taken even further, you are grateful on behalf of your gift-receiver.