What should I do: self vs other
January 9th 2007 01:24
So one of the big questions, is "What should I do?". Given that you have freedom, seeing that, in life, you have a range of options as to how to spend it, how do you spend it?
And freedom is assumed at the level of consciousness, even if behind the scenes you're unfree.
The tendency, in modern philosophy, is for this question to be split. What I should do where other people are concerned, and what I should do where I'm concerned. And immediately the split raises two problems.
Firstly, there's introduced a concept of "self", with all the attendant issues. Is the self mind, body, spirit? Is it some form of continuity, in time-space or in psychology? Is it even distinct from its environment? -- given that biological-entity-you responds differently in different surrounds.
On what basis do you purport to define the word anyway?
Secondly, once Humpty Dumpty is broken, it's hard to piece him together again. The concerns of self-interest and other-interest compete with each other -- for time, energy, resources in general. And while it's easy enough to be consistent (you simply say "selfish bastard" or "Mother Teresa"), it's difficult to defend any such choice as logically superior.
And this question becomes a political problematic -- the individual versus the community.
There are a number of ways to avoid the second problem.
Here's two.
1. An ethical split between self and other can be seen quite early. In Diogenes Laertius' Lives, Epicurus seems to be cheering for hermits: "14. The most perfect means of securing safety from men... is the assurance that comes from quietude and withdrawal from the world."
But the ancients did purport to glue the egg. Confucius and Marcus Aurelius (and Shintoism and Buddhism) conceive of the self as indivisible from other. And the Greeks had two thoughts: that the best way to care for everyone is for everyone to care for themselves; and (with Spinoza, among others) that there could be no contradiction, that self-interested coincided with other-directed.
2. Secondly, there's answers that address the big question without breaking it. A reply like "Obey God" or "Do what is right" cuts across the self and other line.
These sorts of approaches often don't distinguish an ethical realm from any other realm in which one can pose the question of should.
In classic existentialism (on my interpretation anyway), one takes responsibility for everything. If a war starts in a distant country, you're responsible for it inasmuch as you didn't prevent it and you butterfly-effect caused it. There are not separate choices for self and other, but only choices for the world.
This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia articles Humpty Dumpty, Michel Foucault, and Jean-Paul Sartre.
The Epicurus quote comes from Eugene O'Connor, The Esssential Epicurus, 1993. The Confucian claim comes from Roger T Ames and Henry Rosemont Jr, The Analects of Confucius: A Philosophical Translation, 1998, p 52. The Foucault quotes come from P Aranov and D McGrawth (trr), "The ethics of the concern for self as a practice of freedom" in Paul Rabinow (ed), Ethics: subjectivity and truth, 1994, pp 287 and 288. The Sartre quote comes from Jean-Paul Sartre, "Existentialism is a humanism", 1945 translated in Philip Mairet, Existentialism and Humanism, 1982.
Classic utilitarianism, when applied to the political sphere, is sometimes criticised as not having a theory of "fair shares", which is one way of regarding what Rawls and Dworkin tried to build into their "liberal egalitarian" theories.
Questions about affluence and poverty, and what obligations we have, and how far they extend, are treated under an emerging "beneficence theory" (which preserves the self/other line). An early paper discussing the issue is Susan Wolf's "Moral saints" in Journal of Philosophy, 79 (1982) 419-39.
A Catholic example worth mentioning is Saint Brigid of Ireland, who gave away to beggars everything she owned, and began giving away what she didn't own, like her father's jewelled sword to a leper.
In some respects the Sartrean view is quite Kantian -- as if Sartre had one eye on the universalizability of maxims.
And freedom is assumed at the level of consciousness, even if behind the scenes you're unfree.
***
The tendency, in modern philosophy, is for this question to be split. What I should do where other people are concerned, and what I should do where I'm concerned. And immediately the split raises two problems.
Firstly, there's introduced a concept of "self", with all the attendant issues. Is the self mind, body, spirit? Is it some form of continuity, in time-space or in psychology? Is it even distinct from its environment? -- given that biological-entity-you responds differently in different surrounds.
On what basis do you purport to define the word anyway?
And this question becomes a political problematic -- the individual versus the community.
***
There are a number of ways to avoid the second problem.
Here's two.
1. An ethical split between self and other can be seen quite early. In Diogenes Laertius' Lives, Epicurus seems to be cheering for hermits: "14. The most perfect means of securing safety from men... is the assurance that comes from quietude and withdrawal from the world."
But the ancients did purport to glue the egg. Confucius and Marcus Aurelius (and Shintoism and Buddhism) conceive of the self as indivisible from other. And the Greeks had two thoughts: that the best way to care for everyone is for everyone to care for themselves; and (with Spinoza, among others) that there could be no contradiction, that self-interested coincided with other-directed.
| "A city in which everybody took proper care of himself would be a city that functioned well... But I don't think we can say that the Greek who cares for himself must first care for others. To my mind, this view only came later. Care for others should not be put before the care of oneself. The care of the self is ethically prior in that the relationship with oneself is ontologically prior...
[T]he risk of dominating others and exercising a tyrannical power over them arises precisely only when one has not take care of the self and has become the slave of one's desires... Thus, there is no danger. That idea will appear much later, when love of self becomes suspect and comes to be perceived as one of the roots of various moral offenses. In this new context, renunciation of self will be the prime form of care of the self... But I think that in Greek and Roman thought the care of the self cannot in itself tend toward so exaggerated a form of self-love as to neglect others". -- Michel Foucault |
2. Secondly, there's answers that address the big question without breaking it. A reply like "Obey God" or "Do what is right" cuts across the self and other line.
These sorts of approaches often don't distinguish an ethical realm from any other realm in which one can pose the question of should.
|
"For Westerners, there is ostensibly a distinction to be made between being boorish and being immoral. For Confucius, however, there are simply varying degrees of inappropriate, demeaning, and hurtful behavior along a continuum on which a failure in personal responsiveness is not just bad manners, but fully a lapse in moral responsibility... A careful reading of the Analects... uncovers a way of life carefully choreographed down to appropriate facial expressions and physical gestures, a world in which a life is a performance requiring enormous attention to detail." -- Roger T Ames and Henry Rosemont |
| "[E]thical in the sense in which the Greeks understood it: ethos was a way of being and of behavior. It was a mode of being for the subject, along with a certain way of acting, a way visible to others. A person's ethos was evident in his clothing, appearance, gait, in the calm with which he responded to every event, and so on...
The care of the self is ethical in itself; but it implies complex relationships with others insofar as this ethos of freedom is also a way of caring for others. This is why it is important for a free man who conducts himself as he should to be able to govern his wife, his children, his household; it is also the art of governing. Ethos also implies a relationship with others, insofar as the care of the self enables one to occupy his rightful position in the city, the community, or interpersonal relationships, whether as a magistrate or a friend. And the care of the self also implies a relationship with the other insofar as proper care of the self requires listening to the lessons of a master... I think the postulate of this whole morality was that a person who took proper care of himself would, by the same token, by able to conduct himself properly in relation to others and for others." -- Michel Foucault |
In classic existentialism (on my interpretation anyway), one takes responsibility for everything. If a war starts in a distant country, you're responsible for it inasmuch as you didn't prevent it and you butterfly-effect caused it. There are not separate choices for self and other, but only choices for the world.
|
"When we say that man chooses himself, we do mean that every one of us must choose himself; but by that we also mean that in choosing for himself he chooses for all men... Our responsibility is thus much greater than we had supposed, for it concerns mankind as a whole. If I... choose to join a Christian rather than a communist trade union... I do not commit myself alone to that view... Or if... I decide to marry... I am thereby committing not only myself, but humanity as a whole, to the practice of monogamy. I am thus responsible for myself and for all men, and I am creating a certain image of man as I would have him to be. In fashioning myself I fashion man." -- Jean-Paul Sartre |
***
This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia articles Humpty Dumpty, Michel Foucault, and Jean-Paul Sartre.
The Epicurus quote comes from Eugene O'Connor, The Esssential Epicurus, 1993. The Confucian claim comes from Roger T Ames and Henry Rosemont Jr, The Analects of Confucius: A Philosophical Translation, 1998, p 52. The Foucault quotes come from P Aranov and D McGrawth (trr), "The ethics of the concern for self as a practice of freedom" in Paul Rabinow (ed), Ethics: subjectivity and truth, 1994, pp 287 and 288. The Sartre quote comes from Jean-Paul Sartre, "Existentialism is a humanism", 1945 translated in Philip Mairet, Existentialism and Humanism, 1982.
Classic utilitarianism, when applied to the political sphere, is sometimes criticised as not having a theory of "fair shares", which is one way of regarding what Rawls and Dworkin tried to build into their "liberal egalitarian" theories.
Questions about affluence and poverty, and what obligations we have, and how far they extend, are treated under an emerging "beneficence theory" (which preserves the self/other line). An early paper discussing the issue is Susan Wolf's "Moral saints" in Journal of Philosophy, 79 (1982) 419-39.
A Catholic example worth mentioning is Saint Brigid of Ireland, who gave away to beggars everything she owned, and began giving away what she didn't own, like her father's jewelled sword to a leper.
In some respects the Sartrean view is quite Kantian -- as if Sartre had one eye on the universalizability of maxims.
| 158 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
subscribe to this blog
Comment by katyzzz
Photography Tips
MS Paint Art
Great work for the mind but of little practical purpose. We could debate life forever, I prefer to just get on with it, dilemmas reamain just that, dilemmas.
How is it that so often I am the first to respond, even when there's been ample time for others. I guess I'm just more generous, everyone rush in on that one, those willing to stir themselves that is.
katyzzz
Comment by Damo
One of my favorite people loves his life and lives with as little as he possibly can and want very little for himself.
Are we really think of life as one whole with one purpose or is it a series of smaller projects that add up to a whole life?
Comment by Adrian
Philosophy Blog
Thanks for the comment! As I read it, you make two important claims: (1) that the questions in the above post are unanswerable, and that asking them is therefore futile ("dilemmas reamain just that, dilemmas); and (2) that they're impractical.
As to impracticality, I think that these are questions you face every day. "Am I selfish? How much time and money should I spend on myself, how much time should I spend on others? When the Red Shield Appeal comes to my door, how much money should I give?" etc. So I think they're very practical.
As to mulberry bushes, I guess I haven't ruled out the possibility that there are answers. For instance, any of the people mentioned in the second half did answer the questions to their own satisfaction.
Dear Damo,
As I interpret your question, it's less related to self vs other, and more related to the very idea of answering "What should I do?" and deciding on a course of action.
I think a lot of people would agree with you -- that they should just go with the flow, and that, on the whole, there is nothing that they should do (if this is a fair paraphrase).
Personally, I think that making a decision is a "personal choice", dependent on a wide range of other possible beliefs.
For instance, if one believed in "waste", then making conscious choices about life would seem to be the main way to avoid waste.
Or if one believed in God or similar, then there would be some sort of objectivity to the good life, and it would be possible for some lives to be better than others. And one implication might be that, all else being equal, one should carefully guide one's actions in terms of the principles one believes are correct, assuming one wanted to have the best life possible.
Comment by KylieW
Celebrity Obsession
BTW, love your comments back to Katy and Damo!!!
Comment by Adrian
Philosophy Blog
"He [pointing at Martin] says there are no easy answers. I say: he's no looking hard enough!"
Class laughs and applauds...
Comment by Cibbuano
Hunt Famous
Orble Post of the Day
Fat Cult
Techbreak
Comment by Adrian
Philosophy Blog
But here's a Wikipedia entry...
Comment by Damo
I was just think aloud thats all.
However what I do find funny is that notion of people thinking that someone who does something for others once is locked into that routine forever. Some people give only a number of years to a cause then go back to their lives and ambitions. Sometime charities describe what they do in terms of projects. Schools are set up under a project and person joins the project after which they can join another. Perhaps there are no clear lines of doing some good for someone else and doing something good for yourself. Perhaps it a question asked at every stage of every little thing we do.
Comment by Norm
Consumption Malfunction
Equal and Opposite
Arses and Elbows
Footy Power
Cheer cheer the hermits!
Norm
Comment by Anonymous
It seems everyone is living according to some ancient, unspoken law passed down from generation to generation that sadly does not adhere to either self or other but rather to following the next sheep infront of them and trying to get ahead.
It is easy to say we would like to stand out from the crowd and live according to our own choices, however we have that innate desire to belong to society, we are social creatures.
Nathaniel Hawthorne's "Scarlet Letter" is an example of this - the heroine is ostracized from her community after having a child out of wedlock - later she is burnt at the stake for being a witch - was she a witch or did she just not conform to the rules of society? This was a warning of breaking away from the flock. (This is a very simple explanation of a much more complex novel by the way!)
I guess what I`m trying to say is are we really and truly given the ultimate choice of how we want to live or is that choice not really in our hands?
Ash
Comment by Lilla
From The Home Front
Enviro Warrior
Dream Herald
Esoteric Bookshop
... another fine question ...
just two words in response : Wu Wei
Lilla...
Comment by JoshZ
Good ethical question.
I think that we have the responsibility to act as best we can to others. What we also have to remember though, is that if we do not take care of ourselves, we hurt the ones that care for us. Which I think leaves us in an interesting position.
I think you should read some stuff by Jacques Ellul. At the moment I am reading his "Subversion of Christianity" and finding it to be brilliant. You might also enjoy some of Bonhoeffer's Ethics and Cost of Discipleship.
JZ
Comment by Hellvis
Earache Hotel
As usual, your posts are so full of food-for-thought that I can't consume them all in one sitting. Do you provide doggie bags?
Just a thought on selfishness vs altruism. You use the examples of 'selfish bastard' and 'Mother Theresa'. But aren't altruistic actions also selfish in a way? Surely doing good things and giving to others is a way of making one feel better about oneself. And when God is involved, couldn't seemingly selfless actions be seen as selfish also: helping the individual get good with god and ensuring their place in heaven.
I'm not saying people shouldn't do good things for others; in fact I think the world would be a much better place if everyone was more giving. This seems to relate to the existentialism argument and Sartre quote, but I'm too tired to expand.
Comment by Adrian
Philosophy Blog
Dear Damo,
You're probably right that we never rest easy with our conclusions on the matter (or, at any rate, we like to think that we never rest easy).
Your comment also reminds me of something from Levinas -- the idea that other people are inextricably part of our consciousness; that the self is itself experienced in terms of an other; and that questions of duty towards others, our rights in the face of others, are always present...
Cheer cheer the hermits!
Norm
Dear Norm, the crazy mumbling-to-self axe-carrying hermits are bad, but the rest seem to be good -- for a laugh.
Dear Ash,
It's not in our hands.
Dear Lilla,
Thanks for the link! I'd never heard of the idea before.
A related Confucian term is "yi" -- "one's sense of appropriateness that enables one to act in a proper and fitting manner, given the specific situation". Though differences from "wu wei" would include: that there seems to be no concept of effortlessness or yielding; and that "yi" is also very much to do with tradition and ritual.
Dear Josh,
"Christian" is sometimes used as a synonym for charitable, altruistic, neighbourly; and I think it's probably true that "Love thy neighbour", in modern Christianity, has been seen as one of the central tenets, next only to something like "Believe in God", "Love God" (even if, in practice, no one ever turns the other cheek, and few people, let alone countries or presidents, will put others' interests above their own).
I suppose that even given this command, there are questions in my mind over how exactly it is to be interpreted. For instance:
-- can God call you to a self-enclosed, hermit life?
-- there's always going to be tricky questions over the lesser of two evils, and potential conflict between humanity's interests/happiness, and moral code/God's will. How many guilty people are you allowed to kill to save one innocent person? How many innocent people, if any (for instance, when dropping a bomb), are you allowed to kill to save a lot more innocent people, etc?
-- is it immoral to take any pleasure at all past a bare minimum? Schindler, when the war is over, is aghast at himself -- "This gold ring on my finger, it is a person; this car, it is ten people". And similarly, perhaps every meal we take at a restaurant is immoral, given that we could have dined more cheaply elsewhere, and are using money that could be donated to save a starving child.
Dear Hellvis,
You're suggesting that no one does anything except out of self-interest -- that all altruism is selfishness.
Well, you're right to be cynical. And I think the people who organize charity advertising are very aware of this -- you get more money by appealing to egotism than to altruisim. Benevolence is often masturbation.
But four thoughts in reply.
-- Are people by nature selfish? -- Assertions have gone back and forth on the topic for over two thousand years. But perhaps one now common view is that, ultimately, it's the gene that's selfish, not the person. This might mean, for instance, that self-sacrifice is natural under some circumstances.
-- I think people can have desires whose fulfilment won't necessarily give them pleasure or avoid them pain. For instance, they can be evolutionarily programmed, or conditioned. So I don't think that actions are necessarily taken with the self (or with anything) in mind.
-- If some people act partly out of altruism, and mostly out of self-interest, that by itself would be enough to disprove the idea that people act only out of self-interest.
-- Even if being altruistic gives you a kick, it's often not as much of a kick as being selfish. So even if it's true that altruism is always mixed with selfishness, it could be claimed that a lot of altruism is still basically altruism.
Comment by JoshZ
Interesting what you say about christianity and virtues. Unfortunately we also quite often (and at times quite rightly) also get hit with being racist, discriminatory, bigotted and self-righteous. Kind of sucks.
But my pointless digression aside.....
The two main commandments of christianity, from where all the others come from, are Love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, soul and strength. The second is love thy neighbour as you love yourself. After this, it's all just details. Important ones sometimes, but never as important as those other two. In practise, of turning the other cheek and placing other people's interests ahead of my own, I can say that I have trouble with the first and the second, but I know I have done the second a few times.
To answer your questions:
1.Don't know. What I can tell you is that I haven't been called to live such a life. I remember reading something somewhere that stated that some of the truths these hermits uncovered where crucial to christianity and so hey, yeah it was a good thing they went and did that.
2.DOn't know.
3.Don't know.
I'll have to answer this later.
JZ
Comment by JoshZ
To be honest I don't think there is an "okay" number of people that you're allowed to kill. I remember reading in a book called "The Guns of Tanith" by Dan Abnett one of the characters thought about the saying "a necessary evil". He believed it to be the kind of thing said by men looking for an excuse. There's plenty of unnecessary evil in the world already without adding to it.
As to the other question you asked......Good one. Very good one. To be honest I don't think that I can answer it. St Francis of Assisi would be in a similar vein to Schindler, in that both gave away all that they had. But that doesn't answer the question.
THanks though, you've given me something to think about.
JZ
Comment by Adrian
Philosophy Blog
Frankly, I think there's always going to be problems of how exactly to interpret "Love thy neighbour". But I think you make a good point when you write:
Comment by Norm
Consumption Malfunction
Equal and Opposite
Arses and Elbows
Footy Power