It is not OK to help someone if it is not in your self-interest

My comments are in CAPS 1. Isn't it the case that many ( PROVE THAT THE "NUMBER" IS: "MANY") parents beat their kids (i.e. they come home drunk and angry) or do other things that are against to the well-being of the child? The point is that you assume that being a parent should be something good for the child. We may wish it so, but being a parent does not mean that you are a good parent. MOST PARENTS DO NOT DEMAND THAT THEIR CHILDREN RETURN ALL THAT IS GIVEN. THEREFORE, BEING A PARENT IS DOING ACTS THAT DO NOT GET A RETURN 2. 911 - Isn't it their Job to help people? They may feel proud and good about themselves for doing something nice, but it all just might be a days job. I don't think that helping someone necessarily means caring for him as a person "JOB" MEANS: "PAID" AND IS, THEREFORE, FOR A RETURN AND NOT ALTRUISTIC 3. A person can raise an animal only to make it his meal one day. FEW, IF ANY, DOG AND CAT OWNERS EVER EAT, OF INTEND TO EAT, THEIR PETS. 4. Someone might help a homeless person but does he always do it because of "good will", perhaps he just had some loose change that he wanted to get rid of. MOST PEOPLE GIVE WITH KARMA IN THEIR MINDS AND only A PERSON WHO HAS NOT KNOWN POVERTY WOULD ever THINK OF "GETTING RID" OF CHANGE What I am trying to say is that we can not separate an action from its intent if we are to classify it as good or bad. YES. WE CAN. ACTIONS, LIKE SNEEZES, HAVE NO BRAIN-INTENT If we don't do that then all actions can be looked at retrospectively in more than one way. ALL ACTIONS CAN BE LOOKED AT IN MORE THAN ONE WAY WITHOUT YOUR, ABOVE, SENTENCE. For example: If we look at the action "Helping a lost child" then say it's OK and not to someone's self-interest, then we assume that there wasn't a self-interest to begin with, thus essentially affirming our own implicit thought about the action. WHAT WAS THE IMPLICIT THOUGHT ABOUT THE ACTION? IS "OUR" THE PERSON- HELPING, OR, US - OBSERVING THE PERSON AS IT HELPS? In another respect we can not say for certain that an action is OK, or good without looking at its consequences. THIS IS A DIFFERENT DEBATE. For example "Helping a lost child", the child was lost but returning it back to a lunatic father does not mean that we really helped the child. It may have been lost because it run away from something. "RUNNING AWAY " IS DIFFERENT FROM "LOST". My argument is this that if intent and consequences are necessary to classify an action as OK, good or moral, then I argue that a good action has an intent for the desired consequences. "INTENT" AND "CONSEQUENCES" ARE NOT THINGS THAT CAN BE TERMED AS "NECESSARY". I THINK THAT YOU ARE TRYING TO SAY THAT, A PERSON SEES THAT SOMETHING GOOD CAN BE DONE AND INTENDS TO DO THAT THING, THAT PERSON INTENDS TO DO THAT THINGS TO CAUSE A GOOD OUTCOME. I THINK THAT YOU ARE USING THE WORD "CONSEQUENCES" IN CORRECTLY. "CONSEQUENCES" MEANS "RETRIBUTION FOR BAD BEHAVIOR" AND IS A BAD THING. I add to that that a rational human being can not possibly desire negative for himself. AND YET, A MOTHER LIFTS A CAR OFF OF HER SON AND GETS HURT. SHE LIFTS, KNOWING THAT SHE WILL GET HURT. Therefore a rational human being can not will something bad to happen to him through his actions. YES. SECURITY GUARDS FOR THE RICH ARE REQUIRED TO THROW THEMSELVES IN FRONT OF BULLETS It is your self-interest not to will something bad to happen to you through your actions. if An action is defined by its content, its intent and its consequences. ( THIS SENTENCE IS PRETTY GOOD) The content is the circumstances that the action takes place. ( THIS SENTENCE IS A, GRAMMATICAL, MESS.) A rational person wills what is the best outcome for his action. I THINK THAT YOU MEAN "HOPES", NOT "WILLS". A rational person can not will something that is bad for him. MANY RATIONAL PEOPLE GET VERY DRUNK AND DO IT WILLFULLY. An "OK" action is to will something good to happen to you as a consequence of that action. ( THIS SENTENCE, TOO, IS A, GRAMMATICAL, MESS. ) When good comes to you through your actions is to your self-interest. ( IS THE USE OF COMMAS AGAINST YOUR RELIGION OR DO YOU JUST NOT KNOW? WITH, OR WITHOUT COMMAS, THIS SENTENCE, TOO, IS A GRAMMATICAL MESS. ) Therefore, I reach the conclusion that: a rational person can only will what is good for him, which is his self-interest SOME TIMES, GOOD PEOPLE GIVE UNTIL IT HURTS AND GAIN NOTHING