If your desired experience is to cut off your own arm permanently, then it is impossible for you to have your desired experience without it costing your own arm. Of course, if your arm is something that neither harms you nor benefits you, then you’re not doing something that costs/pays you anything. Where being benefited is your goal, if your arm benefits you, then you’re sacrificing something (your beneficial arm). This is costly but harmful for you. Where being benefitted is your goal, if your arm harms you, then you’re sacrificing something (your harmful arm). This is costly but beneficial for you. In both instances you pay something (your arm). In both instances a payment is made to you (harm or benefit).
Where goodness or being benefitted is your goal/wage/salary/reward/payment, the latter move (cutting off the evil arm) is reasonable, the former (cutting off the good arm) is not. Where evil or being harmed is your goal/wage/salary/reward/payment, the former move (cutting off the good arm) is reasonable, the latter is not. Having said that, it is unreasonable for anyone to seek evil (or being harmed as payment/reward) for their efforts or actions. It is unreasonable for anyone to be evil/unreasonable.
If everyone sought to harm each other and were successful in this, then everybody would live at each other’s expense (this is bad because everybody is harming each other). If everyone sought to be generous to each other and were successful in this, then everybody would live at each other’s expense (this is good because everybody is benefitting each other). If there are those who don’t want to engage in the latter two activities/deeds, then that is their choice. If there are those who want to be generous to those who harm them, then they are insane/irrational/evil. If there are those who are willing to truly harm another against his will, but object when this is done to them, then their objection is insane/irrational/unreasonable/evil. They should be put in Hell regardless of their cries for mercy. They should remain in Hell regardless of their begging for death (because they would harm another despite the other begging for death). They are being payed for what they are. They are being valued fairly. They are being treated as they ought to be treated with respect to their consent/choice/will.
Though of course it’s not really at each other’s expense (in the way I think you mean expense) when generosity is the case. It’s God being generous to the generous, and the generous being generous to the generous, which is essentially Heaven when generosity is absolute (to my interpretation of the Quran, Satan did not reciprocate God’s and Adam’s generosity, and Adam did not reciprocate God’s generosity). If there was to be a good way of living at each otter’s’ “expense”, then this is it. The alternative is that you have a solipsistic world wherein which nobody benefits or harms each other. You just play with non-sentient toys and try to draw happiness from such deeds (which may not be impossible, but it is certainly short-sighted and unambitious. It will not bring about maximum fulfilment/pleasure/joy/excitement/satisfaction/happiness. It’s the sort of thing you might expect of children, and we tend to attribute innocence to children (until they willingly approach the tree that they know they are not supposed to (evil), and then actually eat from it).
Where you take the word “cost” to mean that which you sacrifice despite not wanting to, or that which is taken from you, despite you not wanting it to be taken from you, then the following applies:
God is Generous to Himself (because He is Reasonable, Loveable, the Rightful/Righteous/Just, the Innocent, the Good, the Rich (everything belongs to Him, all are contingent on Him), the Sustainer). God never does anything costly to Him. For Him to do so, would be for Him to wrong Himself. He never does wrong. Thus, if God satisfies Himself via punishing us, then this is at cost to us. Where God Satisfies Himself via benefitting us, then this is at no cost to anyone. If God were to be Generous towards that which is unappreciative of Generosity, then He has not exercised Generosity (for it was not recognised). If He is not Generous, then He is not Loveable. If He is not Loveable, then He is not Perfect (because he cannot be as happy. He cannot be Happy/Satisfied/Fulfilled). If x thinks it’s better to exist via raping others, then he should be payed in accordance. He should be paired with others like him so that they can all rape each other. Of course, such a payment is costly to him. If x thinks it’s better to exist via benefitting others, then…
Domination, pain, and pleasure, is perfection in the context of God, Hell, and Heaven. In all other contexts, it is not Good (as in in comparison to Good, it is lesser or perverted. It’s not as good)
“Why do you call Me good?” Jesus replied. “No one is good except God alone. (Luke 18:19)
Of course, Jesus is being absolute with the standards good when he is saying God alone is good (because only God is absolutely/truly/completely/perfectly/omni good)
You can’t guarantee such things because you are not omniscient. You wrote something that had some intriguing elements to it two posts ago (and I feel like I’m being generous in saying this, but then again, generosity is my goal here), so I replied. But you seem to think yourself legendary because you were able to produce something with some intrigue despite the foundational contradiction in your belief system. So I doubt that I’ll reply to you after this. At some point it no longer feels like helping the needy. At some point, it no longer feels like a good deed. At some point, it starts to feel insincere to God/Good (as opposed to sincere to God/Good) to try and benefit you.