Do you know your own self-interest?

What is in your self-interest? Would a world to live in with less poverty and with more ethical people be in your self-interest? Would it reduce the threat to your health and safety? Would it enable you to not merely survive, but even to flourish?

Would you not flourish more if you gained value in your life? If yes, then let’s investigate: what is this thing called “value”? And how do we gain more of it?
If I start describing a rug on the floor, and I go on and on about it, giving it so much attention, you are justified in inferring that I find value in that rug! Each adjective I use to describe it attributes another property to the rug. If I asked you to describe to me your mother or your best-friend, you wouldn’t know where to begin – because there are so many properties there! It turns out that “value” is a function of properties: the more properties, the more value. To get more value, we add properties, we go in the direction of Life. And when we subtract properties we go in the direction of death. No properties, zero value.

Everybody loves a bargain! When we speak of a bargain, we call it “a value.” So why not optimize the amount of value we get in our lives? Why not’ squeeze every drop’ of value possible out of life? How arrange this? What can we do? One way is – in our personal interactions – to make everyone involved feel like a winner. Let the encounter be one in which you create value, and have it be mutually beneficial: you boost someone up, make someone smile, offer a sincere compliment, show heartfelt appreciation, give the other person recognition, listen intently, show courtesy, offer respect, etc. On a larger scale we take steps to reduce poverty and misery, we help peple find meaningful work to do if they are out of work, we volunteer to serve by taking on a responsibility, and we are ready to be accountable that we aimed for excellence in our performance.

In every situation we look to see how we can add value. And that is in our true self-interest. A better world is in our self-interest. Thus the question arises: What actually is your conception of ‘a better world,’ and if I, along wih others, agree on that ideal, what are the steps that help us get there? If we arrive at a consensus on what we all concur is a worthwhile goal, then what steps lead to it, and how do we implement those steps with a minimum expenditure of time, energy and capital? How do we efficiently begin the process? Those are the relevant questions, the ones of top priority. So let’s get busy on it.

One more observation…. Selfishness is not in our self-interest. Neither is impulsiveness rather than long-range consideration. It is in our best interest to think long-term as well as short-term. Being selfish violates ethics. When we have a “me-first” attitude, and we worship money as a god, we are being selfish. Ethics makes for harmonious interactions, while selfishness causes friction and hard feelings. In my life I must be careful to avoid selfishness! In the popular media self-interest is often confused with selfishness but they are polar opposites.

It is in our self-interest to employ means compatible with out ends-in-view. If we want love in our life, use loving means. If we want peace, use peaceful means, that is, live peaceably. Harm no one intentionally… On a personal level, maintain serenity; on a social level “sign non-aggression pacts” so to speak, with everyone. Call no one your “enemy.” Regard every stranger as a friend – until you understand that there are no strangers. Seek to understand the other person. Consider each individual as highly-valuable. That is what it takes to be ethical.

The content of this link, entitled SUCCESSFUL LIVING: How to have a quality life (2016), made me think and reflect on ethics and morality, even though I could not find either of these words in the brief paper. Can you? Here is the link: - myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/Su … 20life.pdf

What do you think? Do you have any comments or any questions?

Wouldn’t everyone choose their own personal Utopia… as opposed to Idaho.

Greetings, MagsJ

Sometimes these “utopian” visions overlap. When this is the case, we can proceed to cooperate in achieving the common goal - no matter how diverse our ideologies and/or our tribal customs may be.

Ralph Nader has succeeded in doing this with Libertarians, after he made a presentation at the Cato Institute. He found some few Libertarians that despite their fixed dogmatic way of thinking were willing to help work on common objectives.

Sometimes there are individuals that just want to kill you (physically, intellectually, emotionally, psychologically, socially, economically or spiritually) and there is no kind word or action that can be said or done to prevent them from doing so.

Are you referring to this post?

I am referring to the OP

I guess I’m dead then. When I was doing time as a conscientious objector to war I was suddenly confronted by (at least) one of the sort you describe in the yard. [Fortunately, some nice guy ran to get in front of me and was acting as a bodyguard, while friends of the man who was (spontaneously) excited and agitated held him back, pinning down his arms.]

You didn’t answer any of my questions, and I had a few of them for readers to think about and respond.

It sounds like the writer of these quoted words is focusing on what could go wrong rather than adding value. It is preferable if we avoid paranoia, for it is, after all, a mental disorder.

Did OL believe that the philosophers here were not aware of the existence of psychopaths/sociopaths? They happen to make up 2%-3% of the planet’s inhabitants. When I wrote the o.p. I didn’t have them in mind as my audience for it.

Your self-interest is always your own self-interest. My self-interest is always my own self-interest. The word “own” makes your question tautological, Thinkdr.

In the OP you said harm no one intentionally and so please explain the purpose of a bodyguard.

Indeed.

The U.K. is currently trying to find a new workable utopia after Brexit, that will please all, and not just the Europhiles and benefit beneficiaries.

Wasn’t one of the reasons for the Brexit an anti-refugee sentiment (doesn’t seem like an indeed to me).

If we took on any more refugees (as a small clay-based island) we would sink quicker than we already are.

Would you be sinking quicker than the refugees?

Self interest has several factors embedded. One, there is an old controversy between interest for the self taken defensively. This lead to the proposition of contractual agreements forming communities, to have others protect the individual self.

The other more optimistic view of association, is formed not defensively, but as forming communities
of like minded heuristic groups comprising of individuals having positive views of themselves and others, not as threats, but as persons to enjoy their brotherhood with.

Does self interest depend on one, or other point of view? Do people really know where their self interest is vested in ?

Let’s say a person is able to form their own opinions apart from their own group, family, neighborhood, to the extent that they can dis associate their own views from the ones they have learned. But can they do the same to those around and before him, his lineage, and the gross determinants of the views of their others. This is the problem, since many of those views , have become dormant, unknown, generic, or even mainstream archytipical, subconscious.

How difficult it is then, to really know self interest, especially when such becomes a matter of ad hoc and immediate action, in the matter of betterment of interest for the self. Most often, the major determinant will reduce to a gut level determination, an instinctive reaction, founded by long vested interest.

Most of them are not refugees.

Is there any closed argument that refugees make a society sink any faster?

In the US, the minority, yet unproved thought n the matter, is, that the more refugees the batter, because they are an asset, rather then a liability. From an economic point of view, they will take on jobs, for minimum , or even below minimum wage, and their willingness to do so, balance the over the top wages the mainstream is willing to accept. However this issue has not at all been decided in favor of one side, or the other.

Mags, it is sounding less and less like an indeed as time goes on.

Yes.

How quick is your sinking? :wink: