Agreed, but they never admit that, and it seems relevant. If I start a business or get a new job, I am going to talk about how it is good for me. I am going to feel the need to justify the decision as good for me, even if it is just "I think it is worthwhile."
Causeheads seem to need to justify the decision as good for everyone else, and not them. You never hear them saying "I am a climate change activist because I own stock in a lot of green tech companies." That would be tacky and gross, even if true. Especially if true. Instead we are supposed to approve of them doing good for others with no regard to their personal benefit.
Maybe a shorter rule of thumb would be "Distrust anyone claiming to be an altruist."
Remember the good old days when people showed how much holier than thou they were by abstaining from anything fun and living in a hole somewhere? Maybe we could bring that back.
Not so clear-cut as mostly everywhere in human affairs:
What about doing good for the selfish reason of feeling good? Or for the sake of living in happier community with its obvious benefits for yourself? Selfishness once removed, as it wereтАФis it still altruism? Or no-true-Scotsperson rears its/zer stubborn head here? ┬п\_(уГД)_/┬п
That is still consistent with our points. Particularly the living in a happier community bit, as that is closer, more personal, and one has more of a stake in it.
Long range doing good is all about feeling better about one's self, and the problem is that the actual doing good part isn't too necessary. It is going through the motions, such that the "doing good" part isn't what makes you feel good, but the seeming like you are doing good. In other words, contrary to the making a better community which you benefit from, and if you fail to make a better community you do not get the benefit, the feeling good part of long range benevolence is largely untethered to actually doing good. Your good feels are not based on having done good in fact, but on having done good in theory.
Agreed, but they never admit that, and it seems relevant. If I start a business or get a new job, I am going to talk about how it is good for me. I am going to feel the need to justify the decision as good for me, even if it is just "I think it is worthwhile."
Causeheads seem to need to justify the decision as good for everyone else, and not them. You never hear them saying "I am a climate change activist because I own stock in a lot of green tech companies." That would be tacky and gross, even if true. Especially if true. Instead we are supposed to approve of them doing good for others with no regard to their personal benefit.
Maybe a shorter rule of thumb would be "Distrust anyone claiming to be an altruist."
Remember the good old days when people showed how much holier than thou they were by abstaining from anything fun and living in a hole somewhere? Maybe we could bring that back.
Not so clear-cut as mostly everywhere in human affairs:
What about doing good for the selfish reason of feeling good? Or for the sake of living in happier community with its obvious benefits for yourself? Selfishness once removed, as it wereтАФis it still altruism? Or no-true-Scotsperson rears its/zer stubborn head here? ┬п\_(уГД)_/┬п
That is still consistent with our points. Particularly the living in a happier community bit, as that is closer, more personal, and one has more of a stake in it.
Long range doing good is all about feeling better about one's self, and the problem is that the actual doing good part isn't too necessary. It is going through the motions, such that the "doing good" part isn't what makes you feel good, but the seeming like you are doing good. In other words, contrary to the making a better community which you benefit from, and if you fail to make a better community you do not get the benefit, the feeling good part of long range benevolence is largely untethered to actually doing good. Your good feels are not based on having done good in fact, but on having done good in theory.
ЁЯТм Your good feels are not based on having done good in fact, but on having done good in theory.
Obviously. [Captain, the honorific address fits here somewhere ЁЯШЗ]
Yet in the eyes of the confused beholder it's a different story, ie your theory = zir lived reality ЁЯШЙ