2007-06-06 08:11:21 · 4 answers · asked by Hot Coco Puff 7 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
She believed that exploiting others or being exploited for the good of another is bad, since the people being exploited will never live to their full potential since they gain no perks for themselves, and are weighed down carrying the burden of others. The exploiters kill individuality for the sake of brotherhood and fraternity, and seem comfortable with mediocrity for the sake of power over others. By letting people do what they want, they are allowed to create or do whatever they want with the talents they have, which benefits other individuals, which in turn benefits society. By being an individual, everyone prospers, and innovation grows even more.
2007-06-06 08:21:14 · answer #1 · answered by Dr. Psychosis 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
She understands all virtues to be in some way acts directed toward our self-interest-- meaning that in some way we benefit from these actions, and this benefit to ourselves should be our primary motivation-- not because an action is "good" in itself.
2007-06-06 08:22:48 · answer #2 · answered by Timaeus 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
personal greed cannot help but spread out to help others. It is like a tree that houses many birds. The tree dosn't "care" about the birds, it just selfishly grows as big as it can.
Rockefeller didn't care about the poor, he just made oil affordable with his personal greed.
2007-06-06 08:15:47 · answer #3 · answered by osisdorsey 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
One has to take care of ones self first before they can have the ability to take care of someone else! To put it simply, if a mother does not take care of her self first, and her needs, there is no way that she would be capable of taking care of her child!!! Now that's virtuous!
2007-06-06 09:03:08 · answer #4 · answered by tonal9nagual 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋