It's all about lines. The Romans said 'nothing to excess', right? I'm inclined to agree with them. A certain amount of self-denial while helping others in need is reasonable and honorable; but if you don't look after yourself, you're not going to be able to continue helping anyone. And sometimes that means stepping back, saying no, and being selfish a little bit.
And the Egyptians felt that health required balancing the needs of the self, the community, and the cosmos; if any were to be neglected, the entire thing would go rotten and cease to function.
I've used the oxygen mask metaphor for a long time. On airplanes, safety instructions say to adjust one's own mask before helping children or other people. If I don't adjust my own mask, I pass out, and I can't help anyone else. If I take care of my own needs first, I'm much better able to help others.
The problem is that if you deny yourself the things you need, and you see it as a denial, then you really cannot help other from a position of strength. You will constantly be wearing yourself out, while not getting back what you need to get along, and it isn't a zero-sum game. You will crash-and-burn eventually.
There is a difference in setting priorities such that you take care of your needs, and help other in need, but don't place a high priority on wants or luxuries.
I think there isn't anything particularly wrong with the idea of subverting some of one's wants while fulfilling the want of helping another fulfill their wants and needs. It can be reasonably moderated as a good and healthy tactic at times - but as a philosophy?
Well, there's that whole "self-denial" as an ethic - seems to me that denial of self is wrought with all sorts of ugliness. I'm much more all about "self-fulfillment".
Apart from that though - I see a slippery slope leading quickly to the martyr scene of looking-to-help-others as an excuse for self-denial. And in that there's all sorts of unpleasant stuff tied up. Guilt, misplaced expectations, obligation, sacrifice, etc. Ewwww.
Borrowing from my own example, not quite as bad is the ethic "self-fulfillment through helping others-in-need" while de-emphasizing the still present tones of the above, it better illustrates the also present above view of value of self through others.
Actually, I'd agree with that, as long as the relative prioritization put any self-fulfillment as secondary to helping others. Shift in emphasis, perhaps, to the second clause.
Some given task doesn't have to fulfill any want of mine at all in order to still be worthwhile... if it helps others. I might not like the task, like the person(s), or feel good about doing it, but that doesn't mean it isn't worth doing...
Let me ask you this then - framing yourself as an altruist here - what are you getting out of it?
It seems to me that you place high value on fulfilling your (apparent) wants of being needed, helpful, reliable, able to provide, available.
And - that you go about fulfilling these personal wants quite aggressively - to the detriment of even considering (or at least expressing) others.
And if this is the case - why do you think you choose to value these wants above others of your wants? Easier to express? Less intimidating to face directly? Less likely to be exposed to disappointment for not getting? These are all things I ask myself in similar situations.
If I understand the question right, my answer is this:
That ethic sets you up for feeling used and/or ignored, because it puts YOUR needs in THEIR hands as well as their needs in yours. If you don't get your needs met, I believe it is better to be able to say "Well I can fix that" rather than "Too bad somebody else would have to take action in order to fix that".
Ah. But my needs are my responsibility, therefore still in my hands... both sets are. No one else can be relied-on to help me in any meaningful way, but I can help others.
No one else can be relied-on to help me in any meaningful way, but I can help others.
Is one meant to infer from this statements that in this context a) nobody can be relied-on? b) that no person can rely on another? c) only you can be relied-on?
If the first two cases, why do you put so much effort into trying to be reliable in a way that you believe nobody is? And why not channel more of that effort into being reliable for fulfilling your own wants and needs rather than on others'?
In the third case - why would others see in you a reliability that is not present in anyone else?
There's some really ugly assumptions that I see in any of those cases. Not a world-view that I would care to share - but if it's working for you... is it working for you?
It depends on whether or not they know what you're doing, and are OK with it. If they are, fine. Otherwise it's using them without their knowledge or consent.
Lets take a reasonable example. I'm over here, and I need a lift to somewhere. You volunteer, and drive me over. Now, on it's face, that's a neutral situation. I get a ride, you get to feel good about having done something for me if that makes you feel good.
But if you were denying yourself something you wanted to do, like going out to a party, I'd probably tell you to go off to the party and that I'd find a lift elsewhere. If I really needed you, I'd probably feel a bit bad that you sacrificed something to help me out.
Worst case would be that you picked me up, didn't go to the party, and didn't tell me. At that point, despite you having done something for me, I'd be pissed off at not having the option to decline the lift because you going to the party might be something I didn't want to interfere with. I've got an expectation that friends will let me know about these things, and a right to say no if I choose to do that.
If it were something minor that you were denying yourself, like ice-cream or a rest after work, I'd be less inclined to expect to know about it, and not pissed that you didn't tell me. I'd probably be grateful, and also feel a bit bad at having put you out when you wanted rest though.
It's all a matter of scale, and consideration for other people's feelings. Does this make sense?
Since sinboy has put it better then I would have, I'll just chime in with a "metoo" on this one.
BTW.. I think this falls under the "parents do this" blanket too- what you may be expected to do for your children is not what the rest of the world expects you to do for them. It's a different relationship, in dependance, in power balance, and in all sorts of other ways.
You've hit on something. There's a buried arrogance inherent in my approach... a sort of "I'm the grown-up, you guys are the wayward, irresponsible teenagers" attitude.
My usual approach would be your "worst-case"... I wouldn't want any of my concerns to affect your willingness to accept help. In my mind, you should decide based on your needs... and I wouldn't want you to feel guilty afterward.
For example... a couple of years ago, rosefox needed someone to take angilong to SJC airport from her 19th St. apt. I volunteered... driving Mountain View to SF, then down to SJC. Rose wanted to go... they were having a rough time. She was going to take the train, but then asked if I could give her a ride home instead. So I drove her back SJC to SF, then back down again to the South Bay.
That cost me 210 miles driving, about a tank of gas in the Mustang, a day of vacation and three missed meetings at work (one of which I then got chided for skipping). But I was not going to tell her any of that then, and in fact have not mentioned it until now :-). She needed help, that was what mattered. I didn't feel that I was being inconsiderate of Rose's feelings...
My usual approach would be your "worst-case"... I wouldn't want any of my concerns to affect your willingness to accept help. In my mind, you should decide based on your needs... and I wouldn't want you to feel guilty afterward.
Omitting details about putting yourself out is something I'd rather have the decision about left to me. It's been my experince that most people feel this way as well.
She needed help, that was what mattered. I didn't feel that I was being inconsiderate of Rose's feelings...
Putting yourself in rosefox's position, would you want someone to make that much of a sacrifice for you, and then not give you the option of having enough information to decide to accept?
That cost me 210 miles driving, about a tank of gas in the Mustang, a day of vacation and three missed meetings at work (one of which I then got chided for skipping). But I was not going to tell her any of that then, and in fact have not mentioned it until now :-). She needed help, that was what mattered. I didn't feel that I was being inconsiderate of Rose's feelings...
How dare you take that decision out of my hands? How dare you remove my option of informed consent?
It denies that you, yourself, are as important as the individual you are helping. In time that self-denial, could cause more harm than the good you are doing by helping others in need (which negates the utilitarian ethic). In some regards, I could argue that it uses people as a means to avoid your own problems.
Hmm, semi-jumbled. I can unpack that a mite more if you'd like when not on drugs.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
no subject
And the Egyptians felt that health required balancing the needs of the self, the community, and the cosmos; if any were to be neglected, the entire thing would go rotten and cease to function.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
There is a difference in setting priorities such that you take care of your needs, and help other in need, but don't place a high priority on wants or luxuries.
no subject
no subject
Well, there's that whole "self-denial" as an ethic - seems to me that denial of self is wrought with all sorts of ugliness. I'm much more all about "self-fulfillment".
Apart from that though - I see a slippery slope leading quickly to the martyr scene of looking-to-help-others as an excuse for self-denial. And in that there's all sorts of unpleasant stuff tied up. Guilt, misplaced expectations, obligation, sacrifice, etc. Ewwww.
Borrowing from my own example, not quite as bad is the ethic "self-fulfillment through helping others-in-need" while de-emphasizing the still present tones of the above, it better illustrates the also present above view of value of self through others.
no subject
Actually, I'd agree with that, as long as the relative prioritization put any self-fulfillment as secondary to helping others. Shift in emphasis, perhaps, to the second clause.
Some given task doesn't have to fulfill any want of mine at all in order to still be worthwhile... if it helps others. I might not like the task, like the person(s), or feel good about doing it, but that doesn't mean it isn't worth doing...
no subject
It seems to me that you place high value on fulfilling your (apparent) wants of being needed, helpful, reliable, able to provide, available.
And - that you go about fulfilling these personal wants quite aggressively - to the detriment of even considering (or at least expressing) others.
And if this is the case - why do you think you choose to value these wants above others of your wants? Easier to express? Less intimidating to face directly? Less likely to be exposed to disappointment for not getting? These are all things I ask myself in similar situations.
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
no subject
That ethic sets you up for feeling used and/or ignored, because it puts YOUR needs in THEIR hands as well as their needs in yours. If you don't get your needs met, I believe it is better to be able to say "Well I can fix that" rather than "Too bad somebody else would have to take action in order to fix that".
no subject
no subject
Is one meant to infer from this statements that in this context a) nobody can be relied-on? b) that no person can rely on another? c) only you can be relied-on?
If the first two cases, why do you put so much effort into trying to be reliable in a way that you believe nobody is? And why not channel more of that effort into being reliable for fulfilling your own wants and needs rather than on others'?
In the third case - why would others see in you a reliability that is not present in anyone else?
There's some really ugly assumptions that I see in any of those cases. Not a world-view that I would care to share - but if it's working for you... is it working for you?
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
As they say before each flight
no subject
Lets take a reasonable example. I'm over here, and I need a lift to somewhere. You volunteer, and drive me over. Now, on it's face, that's a neutral situation. I get a ride, you get to feel good about having done something for me if that makes you feel good.
But if you were denying yourself something you wanted to do, like going out to a party, I'd probably tell you to go off to the party and that I'd find a lift elsewhere. If I really needed you, I'd probably feel a bit bad that you sacrificed something to help me out.
Worst case would be that you picked me up, didn't go to the party, and didn't tell me. At that point, despite you having done something for me, I'd be pissed off at not having the option to decline the lift because you going to the party might be something I didn't want to interfere with. I've got an expectation that friends will let me know about these things, and a right to say no if I choose to do that.
If it were something minor that you were denying yourself, like ice-cream or a rest after work, I'd be less inclined to expect to know about it, and not pissed that you didn't tell me. I'd probably be grateful, and also feel a bit bad at having put you out when you wanted rest though.
It's all a matter of scale, and consideration for other people's feelings. Does this make sense?
no subject
BTW.. I think this falls under the "parents do this" blanket too- what you may be expected to do for your children is not what the rest of the world expects you to do for them. It's a different relationship, in dependance, in power balance, and in all sorts of other ways.
no subject
(no subject)
no subject
For example... a couple of years ago,
That cost me 210 miles driving, about a tank of gas in the Mustang, a day of vacation and three missed meetings at work (one of which I then got chided for skipping). But I was not going to tell her any of that then, and in fact have not mentioned it until now :-). She needed help, that was what mattered. I didn't feel that I was being inconsiderate of Rose's feelings...
no subject
Omitting details about putting yourself out is something I'd rather have the decision about left to me. It's been my experince that most people feel this way as well.
She needed help, that was what mattered. I didn't feel that I was being inconsiderate of Rose's feelings...
Putting yourself in
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
no subject
How dare you take that decision out of my hands? How dare you remove my option of informed consent?
I think I'm too angry to continue this right now.
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
no subject
no subject
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
...as an ethic
Hmm, semi-jumbled. I can unpack that a mite more if you'd like when not on drugs.
Re: ...as an ethic