No, in an obligation, you act because you think you must do so ethically. Feeling is irrelevant. Acting because you want to is intrinsically linked with how you feels.

The feeling is irrelevant in obligation, because you MUST do it whether you want to or not.


I didn't say it was to be looked down at, so I don't know where you're getting that from.


Which is obligatory, and therefore not a third possibility.


That analogy is contradictory. Your analogy has already analyzed the situation "The driver has obvious problems changing, and there may be hours before the next vehicle appears." Clearly the emotional empathy is kicking in, causing you to want to help that person because it would suck to be stranded out where no one is around trying to change a tire that you don't know how to change.

Your analogy isn't an act out of love, I agree, but it is also definitely not unselfish. It's completely selfish, you would want someone to help you if you were in that situation, so you are helping that person.

You don't HAVE to think about the feeling of goodness you'll experience, you already are aware that helping someone and receiving gratitude for helping them feels good, that's why you don't have to think about it, your brain automatically will resort to an action that causes a surge of endorphins.


However, if you're driving towards a burning house where your children are trapped in and you stop to help this person change their tire because you think it's the right thing to do, what then?

Hi Asimov...

"If you don't do something out of love (because you want to), and do it out of obligation, you're not expecting something. You do it even though you don't want to, but think you have to.

That's the ONLY unselfish action that could ever occur."

This of course made me think....it seems to me, this could also qualify as selfish for obligation unfullfilled means guilt, so is it a stretch to think that acting on obligation is an escape from guilt?

As for endorphans and unselfishness.....have a couple of thoughts on those too....if this is wired in then it means it has something to do with the survival of the species since nature doesn't so much concern itself with individuals, and if it is wired in then acts of 'unselfishness' is beneficial for the species.

Just some thoughts on the run.

Possibly, and that would only serve to invalidate the OP to a greater degree. That was mentioned before, and I didn't give it much thought beyond that, but I think there is some merit to that concept.


To a certain degree, acts which benefit others but don't necessarily benefit you are beneficial for a species because it increases reproductive fitness. It also helps to build emotional bonds, etc. The problem is that some people who receive acts of voluntary kindness will use a form of parasitism and feed off of those "unselfish" acts, taking advantage of people who feel that they MUST help everyone they can because they think they have to.

That or some people will start to think they are entitled to being helped, as if it's some kind of right to receive help without helping others or without payment of some sort.

I love you and yes, I do expect.
I expect you love me back.

I love you,
Because I love myself,

I love myself,
Because I know myself,

And when I know myself,
I know you,

And when I know you,
I love you.

You love me and yes, you do expect,
You expect me to love you back.

You love me,
Because you love yourself,

You love yourself,
Because you know yourself,

And when you know yourself,
You know me,

And when you know me,
You love me.

A.P.

Asimov...

thanks for the reply.

i have some thoughts predicated on the above information...

it would seem to me, that with endophans wired in, that self gifting (unselfish love) is a natural activity, if so, then could it be said that non self gifting is a species anomaly?

If so, then would it follow, that the more the acts of kindness the more natural the humanbeing?

I don't know where I seem to be implying that it is wrong to voluntarily help other people.

I'm stating that it is wrong to say that we HAVE to help other people as an ethical dogma.

Asimov..

"I'm stating that it is wrong to say that we HAVE to help other people as an ethical dogma."

Yes, very much agreed. To do so, would imply the very opposite of a position of generosity, as i understand it.
Thank you for the clarification.

..


Asimov ,,, '' God Bless You '' ,,, just kidding lol .

You Asimov stated,,,,


----> '' The problem is that some people who receive acts of voluntary kindness will use a form of parasitism and feed off of those "unselfish" acts, taking advantage of people who feel that they MUST help everyone they can because they think they have to '''<----

Okay , seriously ,,,, do you mean ''Psychic Vampire'' ,,,?

What?

Hi Asimov

In everyday life we all get what we call 'psychic' events from the phone ringing when you think of that person , to seeing 'ghost type' things . We usually would not need 'protection' from these 'psi' events .

If you are a 'target' of a 'Psychic Vampire' as presented for example,, at your work where this certain person absorbs your energy and quality time and so on and even quite innocently , the true 'Psychic Vampire' works through us using us to get it's energy from others .

To avoid this you must first see what is going on in this realm by first finding out who in your life is doing this to you and you will know this by their behaviour as it will present to you the faction of your energy being absorbed by this person and you will know now who has you as their target , and of course the innocent host who is doing this to you is innocent of the energy he /she is absorbing from you because it is something else doing it through him/she . This 'something else' is called by some a Psychic Vampire .

To rid yourself of this you acknowledge it as real and 'poof' it will cease to exist because the Psychic Vampire can only manifest it's needed energy through innocent sensitive sort of , Humans but when the Human looks the Vampire 'straight in the face' when looking at the host or person as this person is absorbing your energy the Psychic Vampire will shrivel just like the Witch in the 'Wizard of Oz' did at the end when she got splashed with water .

In the reality or Truth of 'psi' you do not need protection from it because it is non-threatening .

---> What is threatening for example , is innocent young adults with evil intentions getting a book on "How To Hypnotize'' and they Hypnotize their co-operating innocent 'bro' or girlfriend or whoever they know they can target for Hypnotism to do whatever they want and after it is over the person does not even know it happened ,, from his girlfriend going to her bank machine and withdrawing all of it and giving it to him to having another go steal ,, to almost anything .

This could be a reality and if it is discovered this way we are all in big trouble and l know this because l read the book on how to do it and l personally did eleven different Hypnotism Experiments on my then girlfriend and l was amazed but more so l know what can be done with Hypnotism and if it gets to be known collectively throughout the world we are in for an enormous change way beyond Biblical proportions ,,, and anyone can get many ' how to hypnotize' books anywhere anytime.

I swear this is true about Hypnotism and one day it will be against the law to sell such books but it is too late now because of the lnternet and the availability of such books today.

Fortunately today no one is running to the book store to get a book on how to hypnotise and that is because they do not yet know the Truth of Hypnotism , yet .