Doing good for the sake of it
in Philosophy ·
frozenotter232 said:If multiple people happen to fall for the same individual, then logically, that person ought to be someone of genuine substance. It’s a matter of basic interest. For instance, if I find myself enamored with a woman who happens to be in a happy, fulfilling relationship with someone else, I shouldn't be miserable about it. Instead, I should feel a sense of satisfaction knowing she is making choices that she believes are best for her own life. If what we call "love" doesn't include the element found in point 2 of that Hegelian Quote, then in my view, it isn't actually love at all.
I’ll double down on that point. I probably wasn't clear enough when I brought it up before.
"Look for ways to justify what benefits the community by pointing to the good of the individual, and conversely, justify what serves the individual by claiming it serves the greater good..."
My intention was simple: to weigh the collective against the individual, all from the perspective of a single person who actually takes responsibility for their own actions and strives to improve them.
Take, for example, an instance where someone evaluates their own conduct through the lens of both personal interest and the greater good.
There’s this high schooler out there—someone like me, I suppose—who actually gets a kick out of grinding through math and logic. He genuinely enjoys the mental friction, that feeling of sharpening his intellect against a tough problem. But let's be honest: he's lazy. Getting himself to actually sit down and focus is an uphill battle every single time. Yet, once he finally forces the issue? It clicks. He finds a certain rhythm in the reasoning, a sense of satisfaction in the discovery. He knows, deep down, that this discipline is good for him. Looking at the landscape of the American economy, he sees a glaring shortage of engineers and mathematicians. He realizes that by mastering these fields, he isn't just helping himself—he's doing something useful for the country.
It’s also clear that many people struggle to grasp the situation, which only confirms why it’s actually in their best interest to...
Can someone please break down the prefixes for me? I need a clear, entertaining explanation. Also, let’s try to keep things upbeat—I’m trying to make my parents proud here.
His successes in math and logic serve as more than just accolades; they’re the fuel driving him to push even further.
When you look at it that way, a person actually finds more reasons to adjust their behavior. It leads to a much stronger sense of duty—both to oneself and to the common good.Lawrence Robinson5 As stated by:
Your logical addition is on the right track... but it’s walking straight into a trap. Sometimes, doing what is absolutely necessary for my own sake ends up hurting the people I love most. And sometimes, that necessity isn't driven by malice or selfishness—it's just a fundamental requirement for survival. It’s a personal necessity that, quite frankly, hurts me just as much as anyone else.
So, how could this possibly be a win for me? Well—it works, provided we aren't being shortsighted. Sometimes, making the right call for the long haul requires paying a painful price upfront. And if the decision is truly sound, that cost ends up looking laughably small in hindsight.
I don't buy the idea that my ultimate happiness has to be built on the suffering of someone I love. It just doesn't sit right with me.
But then again, I'm just a fool anyway. 😁 It’s a mistake to discuss these topics in such broad, sweeping generalities. It’s much more compelling to observe how lofty, high-minded ideas actually behave when they're squeezed by the messy realities of a specific case. If you have a solid example that illustrates what you wrote, I'd be interested in reading it.
There’s no such thing as "better" or "worse" here. It’s all relative. The only real question worth asking is which good is more vital—which one takes precedence? Or, more bluntly, which good are we willing to sacrifice when they inevitably clash?
Better, more important, primary, high priority, justified, valuable... When you're dealing with questions like this, it all feels like semantic hair-splitting to me.
It could be either.
If we’re strictly looking at the logical structure of the question, then yes—in an inclusive disjunction, they can.
But when you look at what's actually being said, the first part ("exclude") inherently negates the second, making it impossible for both to be true at once.😛 🙂
P.S. This thread is heading down a dead end if we keep chasing these vague generalities.
My goal here is to find answers within the constraints of everyday life—to figure out how an individual can reach an optimal balance with the greater good.
🙂
If multiple people happen to fall for the same individual, then logically, that person ought to be someone of genuine substance. It’s a matter of basic interest. For instance, if I find myself enamored with a woman who happens to be in a happy, fulfilling relationship with someone else, I shouldn't be miserable about it. Instead, I should feel a sense of satisfaction knowing she is making choices that she believes are best for her own life. If what we call "love" doesn't include the element found in point 2 of that Hegelian Quote, then in my view, it isn't actually love at all.
I’ll double down on that point. I probably wasn't clear enough when I brought it up before.
"Look for ways to justify what benefits the community by pointing to the good of the individual, and conversely, justify what serves the individual by claiming it serves the greater good..."
My intention was simple: to weigh the collective against the individual, all from the perspective of a single person who actually takes responsibility for their own actions and strives to improve them.
Take, for example, an instance where someone evaluates their own conduct through the lens of both personal interest and the greater good.
There’s this high schooler out there—someone like me, I suppose—who actually gets a kick out of grinding through math and logic. He genuinely enjoys the mental friction, that feeling of sharpening his intellect against a tough problem. But let's be honest: he's lazy. Getting himself to actually sit down and focus is an uphill battle every single time. Yet, once he finally forces the issue? It clicks. He finds a certain rhythm in the reasoning, a sense of satisfaction in the discovery. He knows, deep down, that this discipline is good for him. Looking at the landscape of the American economy, he sees a glaring shortage of engineers and mathematicians. He realizes that by mastering these fields, he isn't just helping himself—he's doing something useful for the country.
It’s also clear that many people struggle to grasp the situation, which only confirms why it’s actually in their best interest to...
Can someone please break down the prefixes for me? I need a clear, entertaining explanation. Also, let’s try to keep things upbeat—I’m trying to make my parents proud here.
His successes in math and logic serve as more than just accolades; they’re the fuel driving him to push even further.
When you look at it that way, a person actually finds more reasons to adjust their behavior. It leads to a much stronger sense of duty—both to oneself and to the common good.
Lawrence Robinson5 As stated by:
Your logical addition is on the right track... but it’s walking straight into a trap. Sometimes, doing what is absolutely necessary for my own sake ends up hurting the people I love most. And sometimes, that necessity isn't driven by malice or selfishness—it's just a fundamental requirement for survival. It’s a personal necessity that, quite frankly, hurts me just as much as anyone else.
So, how could this possibly be a win for me? Well—it works, provided we aren't being shortsighted. Sometimes, making the right call for the long haul requires paying a painful price upfront. And if the decision is truly sound, that cost ends up looking laughably small in hindsight.
I don't buy the idea that my ultimate happiness has to be built on the suffering of someone I love. It just doesn't sit right with me.
But then again, I'm just a fool anyway. 😁 It’s a mistake to discuss these topics in such broad, sweeping generalities. It’s much more compelling to observe how lofty, high-minded ideas actually behave when they're squeezed by the messy realities of a specific case. If you have a solid example that illustrates what you wrote, I'd be interested in reading it.
There’s no such thing as "better" or "worse" here. It’s all relative. The only real question worth asking is which good is more vital—which one takes precedence? Or, more bluntly, which good are we willing to sacrifice when they inevitably clash?
Better, more important, primary, high priority, justified, valuable... When you're dealing with questions like this, it all feels like semantic hair-splitting to me.
It could be either.
If we’re strictly looking at the logical structure of the question, then yes—in an inclusive disjunction, they can.
But when you look at what's actually being said, the first part ("exclude") inherently negates the second, making it impossible for both to be true at once.😛 🙂
P.S. This thread is heading down a dead end if we keep chasing these vague generalities.
My goal here is to find answers within the constraints of everyday life—to figure out how an individual can reach an optimal balance with the greater good.
🙂
I don't follow your logic above, but here's my take: Let's assume "the common good" is clearly defined. Of course, any single person's individual good either aligns with that common good or it doesn't. But while some people's interests align perfectly with the collective good, others' interests often clash with it. In that sense, "both can be true."
Better, more important, primary, high priority, justified, valuable... When you're dealing with questions like this, it all feels like semantic hair-splitting to me.
It could be either.
If we’re strictly looking at the logical structure of the question, then yes—in an inclusive disjunction, they can.
But when you look at what's actually being said, the first part ("exclude") inherently negates the second, making it impossible for both to be true at once.😛 🙂
P.S. This thread is heading down a dead end if we keep chasing these vague generalities.
My goal here is to find answers within the constraints of everyday life—to figure out how an individual can reach an optimal balance with the greater good.
🙂
I don't follow your logic above, but here's my take: Let's assume "the common good" is clearly defined. Of course, any single person's individual good either aligns with that common good or it doesn't. But while some people's interests align perfectly with the collective good, others' interests often clash with it. In that sense, "both can be true."
Fair point. Just ignore my previous rambling; I was just talking nonsense... 😉