To arrogants, suiciders, and saints...
February 1st 2007 12:17
Hey,
after the first presentation on the subject, here we go for a second post on ethics. This time i'll spend some time talking about our "saints", people who spend their lives in favour to others, we "humans", and arrogancy.
First of all, we have to clarify things: there are 2 basic extremes in helping people: you can help them at the same time you're helping you, and you can help them in spite of yourself.
I give 2 examples: the first case can be a lift you give to someone to a place where you're going to pass through. In this case helping your friend won't be anything that "unhelps" you, it will even be cool, since you're having someone to talk while driving. A second case would be giving a ride to a guy who wants you to leave him somewhere that is far away from where you are heading to. This is pointless, because it will make you loose time. This one is taking you as a fool, or is being completely selfish.
These are 2 oposite cases, where you can see the difference i'm trying to show you. The fisrt one is a cool act, you're using your power to help more than only you. Your putting the "active forces" you have control in "real" in your and in his service. In the second case though you have an act that is useless: even tough you're helping you're friend, you're creating you a problem. Thus you're not helping the "universality", you're only helping him.
As i said in the other post, don't be arrogant. You shouldn't help this guy (unless you have other interests in giving him a ride..), because helping him would be like: "i'm helping him cause i'm a nice guy, i help people." But, unless you're quite fool, you can't obly people to treat you in the same way. "Of course, i don't ask people to do this kind of things to me." Conclusion, you're arrogant, you're putting yourself in a higher standard than the others around you....
People normally like when we try to resume what we're explaining, it helps understanding things. So, as my first conclusion on ethics, i would say that the first and most important thing in this matter is "respect". "Respect" in the large sense, "respect" to others will, but to yours too.
To avoid misunderstanding: my respect to other people says that each one do to his life what he/she wants. I mean, in this last paragraph i've said that you have to have "respect" for yourself as for others.
This doesn't mean that you can't do to yourself what you want.
Taking the worst case, if you want to kill yourself, fell free. I can't be inside your skin to tell you that life is not so hard as you feel, i can't evaluate if everything is going to bad or not to you.
In the same time, continuing to avoid misinterpretation: it's not because you would kill yourself that you can kill people. One might think: "Well, this guy is saying that i shouldn't be arrogant, and that i can do to myself what i want. Thus, if i think i'd kill myself, i have the right to kill others too.." But you're not thinking well. Somewhere in your life i'm pretty sure that you were not thinking of killing yourself. The others around might (still,hehe) be in this phase, so, applying the "respect" rule, it's not right to kill them.
Notice that this goes beyond the christians "don't do to the others what you wouldn't do to yourself". The "respect" i'm talking about leaves you more rights, but asks you to think more about your acts. I disagree with christians in some aspects of their moral, even though i have to agree that (in theory) their developments in ethics were awsome.
Conclusion: if you're helping someone, help in a way that doesn't "unhelps" you. If you want to "unhelp" you (kill you, use drugs, become a faquir...), don't think that people should be "unhelped" too.
Hehe, we still can have people who want to be strict (i don't think this is bad, at all): "How can i tell what is helping or "unhelping" people?" The answer i have for you is not in this post, but will be when i talk about the "pensée élargie" of our 20th century humanists.
Cheers! Uula
after the first presentation on the subject, here we go for a second post on ethics. This time i'll spend some time talking about our "saints", people who spend their lives in favour to others, we "humans", and arrogancy.
First of all, we have to clarify things: there are 2 basic extremes in helping people: you can help them at the same time you're helping you, and you can help them in spite of yourself.
I give 2 examples: the first case can be a lift you give to someone to a place where you're going to pass through. In this case helping your friend won't be anything that "unhelps" you, it will even be cool, since you're having someone to talk while driving. A second case would be giving a ride to a guy who wants you to leave him somewhere that is far away from where you are heading to. This is pointless, because it will make you loose time. This one is taking you as a fool, or is being completely selfish.
These are 2 oposite cases, where you can see the difference i'm trying to show you. The fisrt one is a cool act, you're using your power to help more than only you. Your putting the "active forces" you have control in "real" in your and in his service. In the second case though you have an act that is useless: even tough you're helping you're friend, you're creating you a problem. Thus you're not helping the "universality", you're only helping him.
As i said in the other post, don't be arrogant. You shouldn't help this guy (unless you have other interests in giving him a ride..), because helping him would be like: "i'm helping him cause i'm a nice guy, i help people." But, unless you're quite fool, you can't obly people to treat you in the same way. "Of course, i don't ask people to do this kind of things to me." Conclusion, you're arrogant, you're putting yourself in a higher standard than the others around you....
People normally like when we try to resume what we're explaining, it helps understanding things. So, as my first conclusion on ethics, i would say that the first and most important thing in this matter is "respect". "Respect" in the large sense, "respect" to others will, but to yours too.
To avoid misunderstanding: my respect to other people says that each one do to his life what he/she wants. I mean, in this last paragraph i've said that you have to have "respect" for yourself as for others.
This doesn't mean that you can't do to yourself what you want.
Taking the worst case, if you want to kill yourself, fell free. I can't be inside your skin to tell you that life is not so hard as you feel, i can't evaluate if everything is going to bad or not to you.
In the same time, continuing to avoid misinterpretation: it's not because you would kill yourself that you can kill people. One might think: "Well, this guy is saying that i shouldn't be arrogant, and that i can do to myself what i want. Thus, if i think i'd kill myself, i have the right to kill others too.." But you're not thinking well. Somewhere in your life i'm pretty sure that you were not thinking of killing yourself. The others around might (still,hehe) be in this phase, so, applying the "respect" rule, it's not right to kill them.
Notice that this goes beyond the christians "don't do to the others what you wouldn't do to yourself". The "respect" i'm talking about leaves you more rights, but asks you to think more about your acts. I disagree with christians in some aspects of their moral, even though i have to agree that (in theory) their developments in ethics were awsome.
Conclusion: if you're helping someone, help in a way that doesn't "unhelps" you. If you want to "unhelp" you (kill you, use drugs, become a faquir...), don't think that people should be "unhelped" too.
Hehe, we still can have people who want to be strict (i don't think this is bad, at all): "How can i tell what is helping or "unhelping" people?" The answer i have for you is not in this post, but will be when i talk about the "pensée élargie" of our 20th century humanists.
Cheers! Uula
| 45 |
| Vote |
Subscribe to this blog
