Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
Everything that a person does happens according to his own desire.
This desire is not always realized, but if you think about it, then under every action there is an emotion, and under every emotion there is a need.
I suggest you watch yourself.
For example, the fact that you are currently reading this text…
What emotions did you have when you sat down to read this text?
What did you want when you got these emotions?
When working with people, during consultations, we spend a lot of time understanding their true desires, which lead to their life situations.
Therefore, the answer to the question is:
Yes, we do everything only for our own benefit.
And what is the benefit you need to understand.
I think a person always does what they want more. No matter how much he is aware of it and admits it.
Here, perhaps, the expression “for one's own benefit”itself leaves a field for interpretation.
1) “Benefit” is not necessarily material self-interest, it can be a benefit to follow your values and meanings.
2) The self-image ,the “I-concept”, can extend far beyond one's own body and personality. For various reasons, a person can perceive as part of a single whole with himself, for example, his children, family, or a wide community: his platoon led by a comrade ensign, his Homeland led by a wise party and its leader, etc. No kidding. As much as you want. Then, for example, one's own benefit may be perceived as heroically falling on the battlefield for a brilliant leader, Kim Jong-un.
The benefit (interest) may not be recognized, but it is always present in purposeful actions, otherwise they simply would not have been performed.
Often, but no, not always. It depends on the quality of the person. Previously (and probably even now), people were defined by their quality – non-human, human, inhabitant, human, etc. What you are asking corresponds to people of higher castes – those who are guided by the interests of society.
Unfortunately, not everyone understands the benefits of doing good and rejecting evil. And such selfishness is not only not harmful, but also extremely useful. But some people enjoy doing evil to themselves and others. They are simply already at the mercy of the forces of evil
Yes and no. People in such situations think more about the consequences for other people than about their future emotions (or just about the consequences). But it is their emotions that make them act: the desire for the other person to feel good, or the desire to follow the rules of morality, or the desire that they will not be judged and, perhaps, not punished. Only, firstly, they are also driven to do evil by emotions, and secondly, the word “guided” is inappropriate here: people are not guided by their desires, but obey them.
Hello, Mary. Christ is risen!
There are three different things in your question: benefit, agreeableness, and relief from the pangs of conscience.
We can say that benefit is the broadest concept. Let's just say that benefit is a positive number, and harm is a negative number. The loss of a positive is something negative and vice versa.
Pleasant is a kind of benefit in a broad sense, and the pangs of conscience are unpleasant, this is a kind of harm.
The question also implies a reproach to the person that he does not do anything just like that, but only with the benefit for himself. Here you need to distinguish between the quality of benefits.
I think that profit is not a moral evil in itself. But the harm to another person that is required to bring to achieve this benefit happens (and then not always!) morally negative.
If you have been robbed or lied to, you can file a lawsuit. This is not to say that you, as a Christian, do not have the right to do so. It's just that it's often better, nobler, and more useful to forgive this offense and be patient for the sake of the Lord. But this is just like the case with alms. Mercy is good, but no one can be forced to do it, everyone should do it themselves as much as possible (and not like this: quickly got up, went and gave part of their money!) help your neighbor, realizing that he may find himself in such a situation.
So you are slandered, robbed, sued, and the criminal is punished, and your property and your honor are restored. You benefit and harm another person. I wouldn't say it would be a sin for you. Some people need to be punished, otherwise they will continue to shit all around. This harm that you have caused him is fair and beneficial not only for you, but also for society as a whole.
But if you want to relax at a resort and rob wealthy people, go on vacation with stolen money, then this is bad. But, first of all, it is bad, not because you feel good, but because you have caused unfair harm to another person. If you took your own (for example, demanded to pay a debt when the time has already come), then there would be no moral evil on your part. Again, if your debtor was in dire need, it would certainly be better to wait. Such disfavor is naturally sinful before God. But still, the evil is not in your benefit itself, but in the harm that is caused to people (including yourself) for its sake.
So, if the benefit involves harming others or even yourself, it is bad. If there is no harm, but only one benefit to you-this can sometimes be done (after all, when you go to eat or sleep, you do not immediately feed all the beggars around and do not give them a bed for the night). But you can't always do that. It is necessary to periodically do good to others. That is, it is important that our benefit is at least sometimes the benefit of others. And these are such cases of pleasantness about selfless help. It is pleasant for us and good for others.
If we consider the Christian teaching, then the love commanded to a person should be altruistic. But, first of all, you can not help others and cause yourself spiritual harm. For example, if you are constantly experiencing love desires while helping men, which is sinful, since you are not their wife, then you should think about such help and maybe stop it.
On the other hand, an example of love for others is self – love. One must love one's neighbor as one loves oneself. If we don't learn to think about ourselves, how do we learn to think about others?
So there is always an element of selfishness. But selfishness is different. Taking care of your soul is not the same as taking care of satisfying your passions.
Only the highest saints managed to achieve altruism almost in general. And only the Lord Jesus Christ is completely altruistic. After all, the Cross is of no use to Him, He only did it for us.
So when we see people doing something for the sake of spiritual joy or to avoid torments of conscience, spiritual sadness, we should not equate them with egoists who rob poor old men and women, build castles on someone else's blood. We should welcome the virtuous who fear sin.
And, of course, we must remember that there are few such” egoists ” who are afraid for their soul and the souls of their loved ones. Most people are looking for material things, and at the same time at the cost of the life, health or well-being of other people. These are the true egoists! That's what you need to watch out for, so that you don't end up with the devil and his minions in the lake of fire forever and ever…
So let us, as the Apostle Paul said, do good to all, especially to our own people by faith. And we will guard ourselves from all evil.
God's help to all who avoid lies and evil and strive for truth and good!
May God help you and all your readers in all that is honest and kind!
The parable does not say that the Samaritan saved another for no profit of his own. What makes you think that his feeling of pity didn't bite and he didn't want to satisfy it? Isn't that a benefit? He was extremely empathetic. He could feel the pain of this wounded man, and this pain also tormented him, but psychologically, not physically. And so that this pity (empathy for other sufferings) did not torment him, he provided this help. Even compassion (pity) and the desire to satisfy this pity by helping the “neighbor” is a personal gain. It's unconscious, so people don't notice it.
In the parable of the Samaritan, it is not said that the Samaritan saved another out of self-interest. What makes you think that his feeling of pity didn't bite and he didn't want to satisfy it? Isn't that a benefit? He was extremely empathetic. He could feel the pain of this wounded man, and this pain also tormented him, but psychologically, not physically. And so that this pity (empathy for other sufferings) did not torment him, he provided this help. Even compassion (pity) and the desire to satisfy this pity by helping the “neighbor” is a personal gain. It's unconscious, so people don't notice it.
Based on this, people (like all living things in this World) do something INITIALLY for their own benefit, albeit secretly (subconsciously).
Not obligatory. You can, for example, help someone because it won't cost you anything, but the person will benefit. For example, call an ambulance to someone who is ill on the street or transfer the grandmother across the road. And many other things that do not awaken rewards and self-esteem. Also, in some cases, people do good deeds out of a sense of duty(automatically), because their type of activity contributes to this, and not because they will be praised or rewarded for it.
And what is wrong with the “high” that accompanies a good deed-it's like a teacher's praise, you understand that you were not mistaken. And this is not just a piece of sugar-this “high” from a good deed is like a flash inside – it highlights your other nature so that you learn to see the non-animal in yourself.
And so, yes, a person thinks about his own benefit, even in spiritual terms. Since “I” is embedded in a person, and not “he” or” we ” ^^ Even others are offered to understand through themselves (do not do to them what you do not want to do to yourself). So, the natural egoism of the individual is associated with the good of the neighbor. Sometimes to such an extent even that-as ap. Paul asked him to be excommunicated from salvation instead of his fellow Jews – this is what dependence on the “high” of good comes to.
In one book, I remember, there was such a geometric parable: a circle in which the center is the Creator, and the points of the circle are the creature (in particular, people), and the more the points tend to the center (radii), the closer they come to each other. It turns out that to want good for oneself, and to want good for one's own kind, is bound by one chain.
The Parable of the Good Samaritan answers your questions well.
If you also take into account the fact that before him, on the road, two people passed by the wounded man, who were obliged to help people on duty. But they hurried past. Then it is clear that the Samaritan would not have sought his own benefit, the desire to get satisfaction from his righteousness, or was afraid of remorse if he had passed by. He just showed compassion for his neighbor, first of all. And secondly, nobility. Because in real life, Jews and Samaritans hated each other.
People today are also very much in need of compassion and empathy. And, fortunately, there are many people who show these wonderful qualities.