Living for others won’t help. Living for the self won’t help, either. The trick is to live for the self, through living for others; and that too, not always. Confusing?
Religions mostly talk of selflessness and sacrificial living. I won’t say that the religious wisdom is all wrong. But the problem with wisdom is that it seldom bears good fruits when it’s borrowed. Religious people living sacrificial life look pitiable to me. They are always whining about how they are nice to everyone and still they are being treated unjustly by the world. Things like that. They are lonely, and God is their only true relation. That is a tragic state of being.
We are by nature selfish. Making sacrifices for the sake of it is not conducive to our psychological wellbeing. That is why most of such sacrificial religious people are perennially unhappy. They have taken sacrificial way as a “moral ought”. Occasionally they even “cheat” and live a little bit for themselves, and then go to God and ask forgiveness; as if living for oneself were some crime.
For a truth-seeker, it’s a good idea to start by living for oneself. As one understands more about oneself and the life thus, one would automatically see the problems arising out of selfish living (social alienation, loss of respect, loneliness etc), and the importance of healthy human relationships and working towards collective welfare. Through this journey as one develops, one would naturally feel inclined to live for others. Because then one would understand that working towards other people’s wellbeing is, in a way, securing one’s own future wellbeing. In the long-run, cheerful co-existence in the social world is only possible when the members show altruistic tendencies.
But this realization has to come from within. Coming in the form of borrowed wisdom won’t help.
Again, it would be a mistake to believe that altruism is THE right way. We are naturally designed with double standards, since we are directed by two conflicting mechanisms, biological instincts and intellect. That makes it necessary for us to operate with double standards, too; by being selfish when the instincts call for it, and living altruistically when the intelligence says so.
Everyone who is living by intuitions is living with double standards. It’s when one becomes aware of it, and tries to become perfect, that’s where one blunders. The balance of selfishness and altruism is vital. And intuitions, though not immaculate, are the best mechanism for finding the optimal balance.
Religions mostly talk of selflessness and sacrificial living. I won’t say that the religious wisdom is all wrong. But the problem with wisdom is that it seldom bears good fruits when it’s borrowed. Religious people living sacrificial life look pitiable to me. They are always whining about how they are nice to everyone and still they are being treated unjustly by the world. Things like that. They are lonely, and God is their only true relation. That is a tragic state of being.
We are by nature selfish. Making sacrifices for the sake of it is not conducive to our psychological wellbeing. That is why most of such sacrificial religious people are perennially unhappy. They have taken sacrificial way as a “moral ought”. Occasionally they even “cheat” and live a little bit for themselves, and then go to God and ask forgiveness; as if living for oneself were some crime.
For a truth-seeker, it’s a good idea to start by living for oneself. As one understands more about oneself and the life thus, one would automatically see the problems arising out of selfish living (social alienation, loss of respect, loneliness etc), and the importance of healthy human relationships and working towards collective welfare. Through this journey as one develops, one would naturally feel inclined to live for others. Because then one would understand that working towards other people’s wellbeing is, in a way, securing one’s own future wellbeing. In the long-run, cheerful co-existence in the social world is only possible when the members show altruistic tendencies.
But this realization has to come from within. Coming in the form of borrowed wisdom won’t help.
Again, it would be a mistake to believe that altruism is THE right way. We are naturally designed with double standards, since we are directed by two conflicting mechanisms, biological instincts and intellect. That makes it necessary for us to operate with double standards, too; by being selfish when the instincts call for it, and living altruistically when the intelligence says so.
Everyone who is living by intuitions is living with double standards. It’s when one becomes aware of it, and tries to become perfect, that’s where one blunders. The balance of selfishness and altruism is vital. And intuitions, though not immaculate, are the best mechanism for finding the optimal balance.
Hi Darshan,
ReplyDeleteIt's true that "we are by nature selfish." This is the only way it can be, as we have a "self" that needs tending to, and nobody else can do it for us. I believe that everything in service of this self is good (in service meaning that which helps the "self" thrive) while things not in service of it is bad (or I could use the words "moral" and "immoral" here, probably too). When helping others is good for your "self," then it is moral. When helping others is not good for your "self" then it is immoral. "Altruism" is usually defined as "putting the interest of others ahead of your own." Therefore, I believe that, by this definition, altruism is not moral. Nor is it really possible, because people either help others because doing so truly helps them feel good about their own "self," (example: someone who works in a soup kitchen to feed the homeless), or they help others in an effort to gain more power, authority, and control over their vital interests (example: a wealthy philanthropist giving large donations to his pet causes).
This is a great topic and I would like to see you write more about it. But my bottom line opinion is that there is no such thing as altruism, i.e., complete self-denial. Except perhaps for suicide.
Thanks for another great post!
Kitty
Hi Kitty,
ReplyDeleteI agree with what you said, but only partly. But the reason for that, I think, lies in semantics. Since you said you would like to see me write more about it, I have posted my response as a separate article —
What is altruism? Does it exist?
Thanks for the constructive comment. :)
dc