From: J.W.Harley@newcastle.ac.uk (Jon Harley)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: Altruism (was: two men)
Date: 7 Nov 92 18:54:51 GMT
Organization: University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, NE1 7RU

mlloyd@castle.ed.ac.uk (M Lloyd) writes:

>J.W.Harley@newcastle.ac.uk (Jon Harley) writes:
>>
>>muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>>>
>>>It seems that you are saying that we have the
>>>choice of either being "altruistic" or being "selfish."  Is there
>>>nothing in between?  I certainly think that there is, [...]
>
>I can attest (on conversational evidence) that Muffy does not think oral
>sex, performed by a woman on a man, is a bad thing.  She also does not seem
>to be saying that acting in the primary interest of another is a bad
>thing.  However, I think what she has said points up an important
>distinction in motivations for altruism: benefit against duty.  If you are
>altruistic so that you benefit from the things you do for another, then
>altruism becomes a circular word (even if some of us prefer to use it).
>If you are altruistic for reasons of duty, then there is good cause to
>query the actions, and the motives.  Doing good "just because one should"
>can be very harmful.  That is what I see myself as recovering from.

I would say being altruistic for a balance of both reasons is the best.
I don't think duty is all bad. There are things I do because I believe
them to be good in themselves; do I seem all that "harmed"? (Even if I
do, I don't think I have a choice).

>>>>You never help people, or only if you think you will gain something yourself?
>>>Yes.
>>Ugh.
>Can I also see this as a language problem?  One side presumes this is
>selfishness, and that is judged bad.  The other presumes to do otherwise
>is self-denial, and that is judged bad.  Neither need be true.

That's exactly what I was assuming the language to mean; Yes I do judge
selfishness to be bad - that's at the core of my philosophy - and no I
don't presume that unselfishness equates to self-denial. That, too, is
central to my argument here.

>>This thread was originally about relationships. I think the best way to
>>conduct relationships (at least, for me) is to be unselfish and giving.
>>If the other person is unselfish and giving back, everything is fine. I
>>don't see what's so destructive about that. Doesn't anyone else conduct
>>their relationships this way?
>
>Very good question.  It rather depends on what you mean by "unselfish".
>That word can often be code (at least for people like me, who once
>caught the virus of evangelical religion) for self-abasement.  It
>sets off my alarms over denial of personal needs.  Purely at face value,
>it need not.  Still, I know that I have tended to be far too "unselfish"
>(in that coded sense), and still am not good enough at sticking up for what
>I want and need.  My current perpective is that that is damaging; going
>for the easy life, where I sublimate what I want to avoid confrontation
>of needs, is eventually harmful.  

Well, I don't accept that self-denial is neccessarily harmful; by this
reasoning you think I'm damaged. Oh well.

>It's tough ground.  I don't know where the balance lies.  I do, however,
>believe strongly that neither Jon nor Muffy are that far out in the danger
>zone.  Different sides of the middle, perhaps, but hopelessly at fault?
>I doubt it.

Well, that's a relief at least.

>Mike


/jon
   ___________________ ____ ________________________________________
  / -- Jonathan Harley \  /_   Could be an ever opening flower...  //    //  //
 / J.W.Harley@ncl.ac.uk \/ /  It's the beginning of               // // //////
/_Phone:UK 091 222 8504__\/__a new love inside________________///////////  //
Newsgroups: soc.bi