From: Erik Aronesty (erik@zoneedit.com)
Date: Sun May 02 2004 - 10:05:34 MDT
Q1: Is compassion objective?
A1:
1. All organisms base decisions on their own point of view. They use
current input about their environment, combined with past experiences, to
make decision about courses of action. This process is necessarily
"objective" - with the organism at the center of the decision making
process (BASIS).
2. Even if a person claims to be embarking on a philosophy which takes into
accounts "nonselfish" viewpoints, this, itself, is a necessarily selfish
decision - motivated by the experiences and research of the person (1)
3. The foundation of Objectivism is that each of us is motivated by our own
pursuit of happiness and our own reason. This is equivalent to (1).
4. The term "community" comes from the Latin "communis", which is derived
from "com", meaning together, and "munire", meaning defense or
fortification. The proposition of mutual fortification is hardly a
"selfless" goal. It is consistent, entirely, with the objective goal of
happiness and reason (1).
5. A community agreement takes into account the needs of as many members of
the community as possible. If an individuals needs are not addressed by the
community then they have no logical reason to participate.
6. The ability to produce an agreement which addresses the needs of many
people is often called diplomacy. Diplomacy is achieved by seeing issues
from other people's points of view.
7. The ability to see issues from other points of view is also known as
compassion. Taken in this context, however, compassion is a well-reasoned
and objective way of being. Many individuals have come to the conclusion
that their own welfare and happiness is best served by "serving in a
community" or "being compassionate".
8. Compassion is thus a very advanced state of reasoning, requiring much
research and understanding about the causes and effects within a society
(1-7).
Q2: How does selflessness compare with compassion?
A2.
1. Being selfless is having, exhibiting, or being motivated by no concern
for oneself.
2. Compassion, on the other hand, is motivated by seeing things from other
peoples points of view, which, in turn, is motivated by community and
personal welfare.
3. Assuming Q1A1 is true, then claims of selflessness are contradictory and
are therefore false.
Q3: Is there a limit to reasoned compassion? Can someone have compassion
for all living things?
A3.
1. The limit is, based on the definition above, the extent to which an
individual can grasp that the prosperity of others impacts his own
Prosperity, survival and happiness.
2. Since a person cannot make an objective decision without basis, a
persons capacity for compassion, if it is well-reasoned, is limited to their
understanding of other cultures, societies, and, when taken in a larger
context, of our ecosystem, etc.
3. Some people have limited their compassion to others of their own race,
reasoning that the prosperity of people of other races cannot possibly
assist in their own prosperity. Other people limit their compassion to
members of their country, religion, or to other limited communities.
4. Some people claim to have "compassion for all living things on this
earth". This conclusion, also, can be reasonable. Once a person has
expanded their community from self, to family, to nation, to humanity, they
then begin to recognize a pattern. The conclusion of unlimited compassion
is come to, not by direct experience interviewing and living with ant
colonies and herds of buffalo, but by induction - realizing that humanity's
welfare is intimately connected to the welfare of other living species.
5. If a person learns, in an objective manner, that humanity's survival in
inextricably linked to the prosperity of various bacteria, insects, trees,
phytoplankton and that the prosperity of these species are intimately
connected to a complex ecology, it becomes reasonable to claim a global,
ecological compassion in this (4) manner.
Q4: Can someone be charitable and objective?
1. If a person has a deep knowledge of the entity towards which he is being
charitable
2. If a person has rational expectation that the charity will impact his
life in a way such that his own happiness is improved
3. Or if a person has rational expectation that the charity will impact his
progenitor(s) lives in a way such that their happiness, prosperity and
survival are improved
Q5: I don't have direct experience or knowledge about the world in a
detailed and intimate manner. Can I claim an objective selfishness and
non-compassion due to this ignorance?
1. Many people gain information about other societies from television and
rumor. These are, most likely, not authentic sources of information because
they are driven by motivations of others. In other words, the people who
produce this information are motivated by their own profits, as evidenced by
their sale of advertising, subscriptions, etc.
2. If you are a member of group X and are convinced, by watching TV, that
Y-ian people are dangerous, this is inauthentic if you have no personal and
objective basis for your knowledge. Even if a Y-ian person has harassed
you, it's a rather poor statistical sample and you can't ever be sure that
this harassment by a Y-ian wasn't instigated by your own behavior, being one
ignorant of the way of the Y-ians - since you've never had the opportunity
to learn the Y-ian culture.
Certainly your own culture has norms which, when violated, may provoke
unwanted responses.
3. If you are a member of group X and are convinced, by listening to your
friends and relatives, that Y-ian people are dangerous, this is still
inauthentic. Perhaps your close friend had a particular flaw or trait that
lent them to a false conclusion that Y-ians are dangerous. You on the other
hand may not have this trait.
4. Thus (from 2,3), the only way to verify information provided by (1), is
to directly involve oneself in a community. Barring real research and some
degree of direct experience, it is more logical to come to "no conclusion"
about another community, than to assume that they are not deserving of
compassion.
5. Even if you are quite certain that members of group Y are violent,
aggressive and mean you harm, compassion is still an effective mode of
thinking for reducing the aggression and, potentially, mitigating harm to
oneself.
--- To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun May 02 2004 - 10:06:08 MDT