Self-interest, kindness, and responding to meanness

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

I once noted with interest a comment by a fellow who viewed a brief video clip on the topic of a kindness ‘boomerang.’, The theme of the video was that we reap what we sow when we sow the seeds of kindness, He informed all those withing hearing of his belief that when we sow, we don’t necessarily reap.

He expressed it in these words: “Reaping what you sow is not for sure. You might reap what you sow, and then again you might not.” The video which that gentleman may have taken a look at is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8HKxXR22vn0

I later discovered this rather brief column from Ode Online which, in a sense, disagrees. It cites three research studies and summarizes their findings: http://odewire.com/176916/the-helper’s-high.html#respond

The article points out that giving, and sowing seeds of kindness is actually in our real self-interest. The author reports that the studies show that we can receive a kind of high, and also improved health effects from being kind to someone - even to a stranger:, someone we don’t know. In that way we do ‘reap’ what we have sown. (We recognize self-interest when we see it; as I shall explain below, it is distinctly different from selfishness !)

Later on that same fellow told me: “Why would anyone want to be nice to someone who did not treat him good or did him absolutely no good?" He added: "No one in society is nice to someone who treats him bad.” He is not aware that some individuals have often been nice to those who treated them badly because (– in some cases, learning from the new system of Ethics, described in the writings of Dr. Marvin C. Katz –) they have resolved to be ‘a good person who wants a good character’; they have dedicated themselves to this self-image and, as a result, they, treat people nice. They want to generate added value in each situation in which they find themselves.

[Furthermore the history of the Civil Rights Movement provides many examples of nonviolent resistors who responded to abuse and brutality with civility and courtesy.]

As I have pointed out in the thread entitled The Beautiful Simplicity of Ethical Concepts: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=179140

  • one of the ethical principles in the Unified Theory of Ethics is to honor others [more formally stated: to Intrinsically value them], and hence to treat them decently.

Is Dr. Linden wrong when he argues that kindness is really beneficial for the giver?

Keep in mind that if the recipient of a kindness is not made happy by it, then the giver won’t get that high. True kindness usually is mutually beneficial.

To act in accordance with the logical Hierarchy of Value [HOV] is in one’s self-interest; to violate the HOV is not in one’s self-interest. That means we give priority to the Intrinsic Values, such as people. We are to care more about people than things, and things rather than systems, bureaucracies, and technicalities. It also means avoiding selfishness, that is to say: avoiding catering to your own ego (above and before consideration of others.) If we fail to do this - to live by the HOV - we are acting in a counterproductive self-defeating manner. :sunglasses:

What are your thoughts about this?

2

I suppose my experiences with people generally preclude me starting with kindness and giving. I mean, if I see someone fall down in the street I may act kindly and help them up, and so on. But I am more neutral as a base. Kindness to me includes feelings and my experience with humans just doesn’t seem to lead to me having that outlook. I am not unkind, likely even fairly pleasant as a starting point, but I do not go into all encounters with the intention of giving. And I think this is wise. I used to be more like that. Give first, be kind, understand where they were coming from, meet them half way, etc. What I found was this was used, often. Certainly not always, but often. So now I take situations as they come, give when giving seems appropriate, kind when the feeling arises. I mean, I suppose I am kind, as I said, when someone is in clear need - not always, but it happens. But in general I make no assumption of giving. This has improved, actually, my attitude to other humans. Giving as a starting point and empathetic action as a starting point led me to hate humans in general. Now I have that reaction less since they have less chance to be assholes at my expense.

3

The OP is still ignoring the Threat Assessment issue.
Without which, no value can be revealed.

Specifically, what does Katz recommend concerning the one who pretends to be kind while secretly betraying others?
That question is at the heart of the entire world of social behavior (the only significant issue).
Any ethics theory that doesn’t address Threat Assessment is dangerous/“threatening”, and tempting the “serpent”.

4

At the risk of tempting the serpent, I can tell you this: you are describing a phoney, an inauthentic individual. Katz - in the writings to which links are offered at the bottom of the first post in the thread “The Beautiful Simplicity of Ethical Concepts” - has plenty to say about Authenticity. It is a mark of full Morality; and he writes about morality at some length. See the Preface, especially, to Part IV of the Unified Theory of Ethics, entitled “Aspects of Ethics.”

An authentic person is congruent in behavior with his self-ideals (part of his Self-image) and is transparent. He “lays his cards on the table,” is open and frank about his principles, and the policies for which he stands.

Besides, someone who is not genuinely and sincerely kind will not get that “high”, which is the whole benefit for being kind. So he will be less likely to practice kindness in the future ---- unless s/he is a psychopath or sociopath. These latter are a very tiny percent of the population, maybe 3 percent at most, and they have a form of brain damage (that blocks empathy); so they are to be regarded as among the handicapped, the disabled.

5

I am getting the impression that Katz has no idea of the iceberg of which society is formed. There is far more unseen than seen.

Not that such is an accurate figure, but It only takes 3% of the people in the world to keep the others suffering. Israel depends entirely on that technique as it casts the USA into wars against its personal adversaries.

Doesn’t it become an ethical issue concerning the best way to behave when considering how to ensure that the 3% are not merely blinding the others into false flag wars? Merely saying that such people do not get very high, is not merely ignoring reality, but ignoring the more Ideal Ethics that would have prevented such people.

The Ideal Ethics must presume that such people substantially exist, even more than the proposed 3%, else they will become more than 3%. And it only takes 3% to destroy the proposed “be kind” ethics due to mis-perceived threats (false flags). When deception is created, the one person creating it can affect millions. Those millions then behave such as to cause unnecessary suffering (even murder). The behavior of those who were deceived then creates more deception so as to win the war. Israel is particularly proud and even boasts on its ability to turn nation against nation. They don’t use “be kind” ethics, but rather “pretend to be kind” ethics (specifically pointed out in the Torah, Talmud, and Kabbalah).

6

Oh, no, being ‘kind’ has all sorts of practical benefits. Think of salespeople. There are all sorts of rewards for pretending to be kind, nice, giving, generous, etc. In fact, my sense is even most kind people pretend to be kind much of the time they are ‘kind’. Etiquette, tradition, habit, guilt, shame are all powerful motivators.

7

Please don’t divert discussions to your personal hobby horses. There are enough threads in Social Sciences for this subject, without dragging it into unrelated Philosophy threads.

8

OP’s post is very 1 dimentional filled with good intend but leaving out essential psychology, resulting in irrelevance.

  • sociopaths will exploit doormats, not appreciating the doormats attempts of kindness. Ie wifebeaters and dictators, etc.

  • group thinkers and sheeple, many will blindly obey the rules and behaviour of masses, specially seen in the times of segregation in USA, where colored people were discriminated and the white would see it perfectly morally, only a very few white would have sufficient intellect and rationally to make up their own minds and see the wrong in the official rules.

  • oppotunism, oppotonists will help in order to gain something, but cynically avoid helping if there is nothing gained.

9

Well, I appologize for giving actual empirical evidence to refute the hypothetical.
After all this IS a philosophy forum for discussing only the unreal, mental, disassociated theories of existence and life…
…and selling books of similar nature.
Mea Copa

10

“mea culpa” ?
Philosophy are “love for wisdom”, modern philosophy are based on logic and reason which are based on modern science, not spekulation, assumption and cozy chat which most seems to be fond of in various philosophy fora.

11

Yep… sorry.

“speculation” ? :confused:
:wink: :laughing:

In case you are not aware, on this forum people are always demanding empirical evidence to backup anyone’s theory or to refute anyone’s theory.
Such is understandable… unless someone doesn’t want to hear that particular bit of evidence. :wink:

12

Touché!

While what you say is very true, yet not everything are put into scientific formula, if it’s based on Wiki articles it’s usually very wrong as they can be misleading by their oversimplifyed nature, just take articles like psychopaths and group think.