English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Should one live with one policy over the other? Or is there a compromise?

2006-11-06 19:16:15 · 6 answers · asked by bowlerdudeca 2 in Arts & Humanities Philosophy

6 answers

You ask an important question. Let me give you a serious answer. I think there is a compromise. The trick in life is to find the balance point between extreme claims.

On the one hand, we have the perfect altruist who lives only for others; and on the other, the extreme egoist who lives only for self. I've known altruists who literally "give themselves to death." These are people who cannot say "no" and are quite simply bled dry by the inexhaustable needs of this world. Such people live unbalanced lives, and the effect of that is death.

Likewise the pure egoist lives a death-creating life of complete self-absorbtion. "It's all about me, me, me." They alienate everyone, and end up getting sucked into the black-hole of their passions and desires. This too ends in death.

The trick is to find the balance point between the extremes (or, if you like, attempting to achieve Aristotle's "Golden Mean"). Wisdom is the "Who, What, When, Where, Why, and How of Correct Choosing." and our trick is to know "When" it's right to put the needs of others before our own;and when it necessary to say "enough. I need to take care of myself." Granted, this isn't an easy balance to strike. But then again, who ever said living wisely was easy.

Great question. Hope this answer helps. Cheers, mate.

2006-11-06 19:36:38 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

For everything there are opposites. Opposites attract merely because one thing is of coincedence that they meet substantial goal. Rights will be met with wrongs and rights will seek out wrongs. Balance is the neutral point.
Life is about choices and making the right ones but when you don't make the right one, there's always another chance for you to make the right one.
There is never a compromise because you've got to think of what's best for you or those around you.
We're all selfish one way or another, when we treat people as though they were us and accept them as who they are, that's righteous selfishness and the way humankind should be but when we have no regard for anyone else and treat others differently than the way you'd like to be treated that unrighteous selfishness.

2006-11-07 04:22:08 · answer #2 · answered by Dimples 6 · 0 1

Compromise is no choice, it is rather an unavoidable compulsion. There is no way anyone can avoid compromise for ever! Even selfishness can not be sustained for ever, despite being so basic a nature and need.

2006-11-07 03:39:39 · answer #3 · answered by small 7 · 0 2

A balance is the better way to put it. There needs to be a healthy balance between serving the needs of others, and one's own needs. For example, if you have food, and if you "altrusically" give it all away to others, you'll die, which is not necessarily the most sensible or even moral outcome.

2006-11-07 03:55:57 · answer #4 · answered by Scythian1950 7 · 0 2

selfishness leads to greed and the inability to share and give...

but you have to care for yourself, but you can care for yourself and others at the same time...

2006-11-07 07:29:50 · answer #5 · answered by avava9 4 · 0 0

selfishness is basic.

2006-11-07 03:30:38 · answer #6 · answered by -.- 4 · 0 1

fedest.com, questions and answers