Build Your Own Theology: More on Means and Ends

Since last writing, I went to the class where we actually discussed the Ends vs. Means problem. We were given a handout with 10 "Ethical Rules" as conceived by a man named Saul Alinksy, who was responsible for the quote: "I agree with your ends, but find your means distasteful. The most unethical of all means is the non-use of any means.... The means-ends moralities, or non-doers, always wind up on their ends without any means."

Naturally, it's not surprising that his rules could be seen as controversial. I enjoy their use as a springboard for discussion. Here they are, followed by my thoughts on each one.

1. One's concern with the ethics of means and ends varies inversely with the degree of one's personal interest in the issue. When we are not directly concerned, our morality overflows. As La Rochefoucauld put it, "We all have strength enough to endure the misfortunes of others." A Parallel rule is that one's concern with the ethics of means and ends varies inversely with one's distance from the scene of the conflict. 

This is certainly true in many instances. Let's look at the ethics of killing animals for meat and the hypocrisy of meat-eaters who condemn hunting. When we are not directly faced with the truth that meat = killing, as in... when we go to the grocery store and find neatly wrapped packages of body parts so completely divorced from the appearance of the being they used to belong to... we are much less concerned with the morality of killing the animal. When we hear of dogs being killed for meat in China, because we know and love dogs much more than we know and love pigs (which are just as intelligent), we feel naturally enraged at the immorality of it. The same goes for horse slaughter. When we hear of people going hunting for food, or hear of people butchering their own animals that they raised from infancy, we feel a natural shudder of revulsion for the violence involved. But this same shudder rarely affects us when we are buying meat at the grocery store and, in effect, funding the slaughter and in many cases life-long mistreatment of animals. Similarly, I have actually seen ads where companies try to convince us that the animals involved in producing our food were happy to do it, and gave themselves willingly to us. Some of us find the "necessity" of meat-eating in our lives to be sad, but not too much for US to bear... we can bear with a little suffering and death in the animals we eat. We have strength enough for that.

I had to make a choice at one point that I would no longer pay tithing to the LDS church. This is because I had no way of knowing whether my contribution was funding huge ranches and hunting places (there's probably a technical term for that but I can't remember) that the church uses to produce more revenue and/or to add meat to the church welfare programs. For a long time I thought maybe the end (funding good programs in the church, getting food to hungry people) justified the means (exploiting animals), even though the means were against my morals. But then I decided that I'd rather put my money to a cause where both means and ends aligned with my morality. I still occasionally contribute places that use meat to feed people. But there are ways to help people without exploiting animals and I will choose those whenever I can.

I also find this question of distance applicable to enforcing our morality upon others who do not believe as we do. One example is the LDS church's stance on same-sex marriage. A law prohibiting our gay neighbors, children, or friends from marrying those they love is a hardship we simply have to bear. In regard to the command for active queer LDS people to remain celibate... I often hear the phrase, "we all have challenges and struggles in this life. This is no different from the person who never finds their eternal companion in mortality, or who for whatever reason cannot have children". With these words we distance ourselves from the suffering of those whose experience we do not want to face. In fighting marriage equality we try to claim a word as our own, reassuring those who oppose us that they are still our equals, they must simply be content with a civil union or domestic partnership. But if our own marriages are prohibited or threatened, regardless of whether we have the option of a domestic partnership, heaven help whatever force is trying to pull such a stunt!

2. The judgment of the ethics of means depends on the political position of those in judgment. To us, the Declaration of Independence is a glorious document and an affirmation of human rights. To the British, it was a treasonous statement, notorious for its deceit by omission.

I don't actually know much about the whole Declaration of Independence thing, but let's just take this idea and run with it anyway. Going back to the marriage thing, this makes a lot of sense. Those who are forbidding marriage equality believe they are defending something holy from corruption, that they are participating in the prohibition of immoral actions. In this sense they believe that what they are doing is ethical, despite what attitudes of prejudice and bigotry, what suffering and feelings of isolation may result indirectly from their actions. But is it fair to say they are acting from a belief that the ends justify the means? If they are not doing anything which they believe to be cruel, but people are hurt by it anyway, what then? I can tell you that simply living in an environment where the assumption is that you are wrong for wanting to be with the person you love... it is soul-crushing. Everyone around you can have the very best of intentions and try to treat you with warmth and respect, but it often falls flat or feels hollow when you know that your desire to spend your life with another person is seen as an immoral thing which must not be acted upon. When you know that they would fight your decision to be with that person, all while saying it's nothing personal and that they support you as a person. It gets pretty complicated at this point. I'll leave the question open, because I have no definitive answer.

Going back to animal exploitation, many people believe that animals were made to be used by us, and even that it is against God's law to be vegan. I won't get into the nitty gritty scriptural war of why I disagree. But it is simple to see how in religious systems, God's decree becomes our political position to which the ethics of our means is relative. Take the story of Abraham and Isaac. Infant sacrifice (and killing your child in general) is unethical, right? But when God says to do it, you do it anyway, because becoming an obedient God-worshiper is an end which justifies any means. People could say the same about terrible acts done in the name of one's country. The end of becoming a good citizen or soldier or defending your country justifies nearly any means. You are only obeying orders, and that makes you free of guilt, apparently. Which brings us to the next rule.

3. In war, the end justifies almost any means. Agreements on the treatment of prisoners or the use of nuclear weapons are observed only because the enemy may retaliate. 

This seems to be the general consensus among people, even those who might deny it at first hearing it. My belief? In war, all are guilty, but many are also victims. Everyone always has the choice whether to participate in killing or not. Violence always makes victims of its perpetrators as well. Any time you are violent toward another, you harm your own spirit. This is why PTSD exists, not just because of violence received from the enemy troops, but because of violence done by the one traumatized. Being forced to do violence, to detach ourselves from the source of our own kindness and empathy toward other beings, is severely traumatizing to the pure spirit within each of us.

This is why I am against war. It is a vile machine in which unethical behavior is praised and normalized. It is a glorification of dastardly means in service to often unworthy ends. Even if the ends are good, there are so many unforeseen consequences due to the unethical means involved in achieving them. In the long run, the end of "peace" is never attainable through violence. Violence only grants us a temporary reprieve from our own madness. Violence is the symptom of illness in society. We can stamp out the symptom, but the illness will remain unless we find a more wholesome approach.

4. Ethical judgments may be made only in the context of the time in which the action occurred.
This one was especially thought-provoking. Is there a difference between something being truly ethical, and it being ethical for the time in which it took place? Can something be unethical in one time period and ethical in another, if morality is absolute? I've often heard that you are only responsible to follow the rules you are given, and you cannot be held responsible by God for sinning ignorantly. Like a toddler who takes a candy off the shelf in the grocery store. They don't know what stealing is. Does that mean their behavior is ethical or unethical? The action of stealing is unethical, but we can't honestly say the child is a terrible thief if they didn't know any better.

I think of this in terms of attitudes which have changed over time. At one point black people were considered sub-human, and it was considered the proper order of things for them to be owned and used and "cared for" by people, much as it is considered right to raise animals for exploitation. For someone who truly believed this cultural model of racial hierarchy, is slavery unethical? Slavery is always unethical. But perhaps that person is still guiltless, like the toddler who took the candy. They don't know any better.

Similarly, those who believed women were made for man... those who believed women and children belong to men as possessions. That was the cultural model of the time and it went mostly unquestioned. Was it unethical for a man to rape his wife, even in a time where everyone generally accepted that a wife's body belongs to her husband wholly? Rape is always unethical. But is that man's behavior unethical, because he didn't know any better?

Is meat eating ethical for those who were raised believing that animals are made for humans? Is it excusable?

5. Concern with ethics increases with the number of means available, and vice versa
It's true that the fewer options a person has, the more readily we excuse their actions. If someone's family was starving, we might take pity on them for stealing bread. If a wife is being constantly abused or threatened, and can see no other way to escape her predicament short of suicide, we might excuse her for killing her husband in self-defense. What does this say about our ideas of absolute morality? Are all of these actions still just as wrong as they would be in a situation where there were many other options? Certainly, a person has much less excuse for unethical behavior if they had many other much more ethical courses of action to choose. This is a primary argument of the vegan community these days--we in America especially have so many alternatives to eating meat, so there is no excuse for eating meat. But does that make animal exploitation more ethical in other parts of the world? I am more likely to accept someone's decision to eat meat if they were literally going to starve otherwise. But in the long run, eating less meat is the more sustainable and bountiful path for this planet. More food can be grown and distributed the fewer animals we raise for food... so the end of preventing starvation is actually crippled in the long run by relying on meat.to feed people. Wherever possible the better means must be chosen in order to reduce circumstances in which there are fewer means to choose from. The more right means we choose, the closer we will get to the best ends.

6. The less important the end, the more one can afford to engage in ethical evaluations of means
In other words, the more you want or need something, the more you are able to rationalize doing questionable things in order to get it. Desperate times call for desperate measures. If you are in a desperate situation, say, watching someone get murdered in front of you, and there is a gun in your hand, how long do you have to argue with yourself about the best course of action? I think that's what this "rule" is trying to describe. The importance of saving a life is what makes it difficult to keep our heads. If the test we're taking in school isn't that important to the grade, there will be very little temptation to cheat on it.

As I said, usually if we make good decisions we are less likely to find ourselves in these desperate circumstances. But sometimes we do anyway, because life is just like that. I think that it's still unethical to kill when we have any other option. But I am more likely to pity or even excuse the person who kills because they felt they had little choice, whether or not that was actually true. The important thing is to be very aware of our options and try to always move toward a situation where there are better ones.

7. Generally, success or failure is a mighty determinant of ethics

My first thought when I saw this rule was "how are we defining success or failure?" There is of course the old adage that history is written by the victors. But I suppose it depends on whether the person in question succeeded or failed at something perceived as a good cause. Take a war where some power goes in to try and liberate the people from their oppressive government. If they succeed, and the people are happy, was the war justified? If they fail, and end up making things worse than before, was the war still justified? What were the motivations of the war? Does that matter? I think it does. Also whether or not we were asked or our intervention was welcomed, and how much we respected those we were trying to save. Similarly, the boarding school movement with the American Indians. If the boarding schools had succeeded in completely eliminating Indian culture and turned every student into a successful white person, would they have been justified in taking children away from their parents and effectively committing cultural genocide? If everyone involved was happy and successful (whatever that means) by the end? Is it still justified, despite the end being based on unethical racism? Similarly, when some gay people were institutionalized in the past or subject to electroshock therapy in order to turn them straight and make them "normal", this was done in the name of compassion, to help these poor "ill" individuals become whole and normal. Was it ethical? Would it have been ethical if it worked 100% of the time? It becomes much harder to point out unethical behavior which seems to be effective in bringing about a desired end.

8. The morality of a means depends on whether one is losing or winning. Consider the United States' attitude about the morality of bombing Hiroshima.

I've already said a lot about this so I think I will just leave this question as is.

9. Any means that is effective is automatically judged by the opposition as unethical.
This seems contradictory to #7.  But I can see how it might be applied to those who are being undermined in their own unethical behavior. So for example, factory farms who are caught in their abuses by undercover investigators (and especially if they are prosecuted or shut down because of the evidence collected)  are quick to label these investigators as terrorists and try to enact legislation to prevent the investigator's "unethical" behavior of sneaking in to take these videos. I can't think of a situation where an ethical party judged an effective opposing party as unethical simply because they succeeded, where they would not judge it unethical if it failed.

10. You do what you can with what you have and clothe it in moral garments. For example, history and religious and moral opinion, have so enshrined Gandhi that it borders on the blasphemous to question whether his means of passive resistance was not simply the only intelligent, realistic, expedient program at his disposal. All effective actions require the passport of morality.

I think Alinsky is missing an important point here, which is that if Gandhi had the option to bomb the British embassy and was guaranteed this would succeed in liberating his people, that option would not be better or as ethical as his actual nonviolent approach. I think the truly ethical solution is always more intelligent and effective in the long run. He had no guarantee that his approach would work apart from his own faith in the ultimate, eventual triumph of good over evil. He simply did what he thought was both moral AND effective. If it had not succeeded, it still would have been moral. If bombing did not succeed, it would have definitely been declared immoral, at least by some. As it is, part of the reason Gandhi's approach was so effective was because even the opposition had a hard time convincing people that it was immoral, even if it was insubordination. People back in Britain, even those who were impacted negatively by India's growing independence, recognized that the morality of standing up nonviolently to oppression and not cooperating with colonialism was far more important than being submissive to arbitrary human laws. Gandhi took the most ethical means available to him and made it work for the most ethical end. That is much superior to taking an unethical means to fight for even an ethical end. Some people might have excused him if he had used violence against the British. But he would not have the same recognition as a deeply moral individual that he does today.

Build Your Own Theology: Do the ends justify the means?

Normally I would say a big fat NO

Because the ends justifying the means... has been used to justify so many terrible things, I just can't stomach it. The reason, I think, that this is... is because as the reading says "Our means are always implicated in our ends; they form a great chain of cause and effect. We can never do only one thing. Our actions have many consequences, not just the ones that are apparent." and then gives examples of like, war and stuff. So think about that video at the flight museum trying to justify the dropping of the atomic bombs on Japan because it supposedly saved more lives in the long run and kept the war from dragging on forever? Was that really justified? Did it not possibly have lasting and unintended effects? I suppose you could say there have been mainly positive effects apart from the immediate loss of life, because now the world knows just how horrifying atomic warfare is, and is less likely to engage in it again (but then what was the cold war all about??) and Japan doesn't seem to be holding a grudge against us, but... I just ... I really am not prepared to ever state that violence is justified simply because it prevents other violence. Because you cannot predict the way that violence will grow. We start as a culture to accept that violence is part of life, something to be praised in certain circumstances even... and that makes it easier to use it when we don't have to. 

I think about my horror about the end of the Watchmen movie (I won't spoil it for you. If you HAVE watched it, you know what I mean) and how thought-provoking that whole situation was. Is killing a hundred an acceptable sacrifice to prevent violence between thousands? I can't imagine giving a "yes" to that answer. I do not feel I have any right to judge whether any other being is worthy of life or death. In the words of Gandalf the Grey: "Many that live deserve death. Some that die deserve life. But can you give it to them, Frodo? Do not be too eager to deal out death and judgment. Even the very wise cannot see all ends."

I understand part of this may be a knee-jerk reaction though. I mean... if some guy is molesting a bunch of helpless kids or something and you're the only one around who can stop him... do you shoot him or what? Is it less violent to stand by and do nothing? Is it useful to go and throw yourself between them only to get knocked out, so that the violence encompasses you as well? This is the kind of thing my brother probably worries about and is why he's preoccupied with mentally preparing himself to harm others if necessary. Obviously, ideally, we want to do the least amount of harm possible. Cue Asimov's three laws of robotics, the first of which is "A Robot may not injure a human being, or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm." There comes the question of what harm is most important to prevent? I imagine a robot in that situation would try to restrain the man and could do it because robots are strong. But say the robot was weak or small and couldn't do it? It would need to incapacitate the man somehow. So if it had some means of doing so I think it would have to. Maybe knock the guy out, or shoot his leg so he couldn't follow while you took the kids to safety. In that case I would condone a certain amount of violence. But I would be upset if it seemed killing him was inevitable. Caught between killing someone and letting someone be killed... initiate roblock! Mental freeze-out! But that's not useful either. 

I am thinking on a certain Star Trek Voyager episode with the EMH and that Cardassian doctor, where the EMH could save a life if he used the Cardassian Doctor's research, but that research was obtained through torturing prisoners with medical experiments. The EMH didn't want to do it, even though much of modern medical knowledge has been similarly obtained through torturing animals. At the point where the episode is occurring, these cruel methods are not generally being used on animals or humanoids. Still, he balks.

Just stand there and let me yell at you while completely ignoring my own hypocrisy

I think there is the distinction between using positive outcomes of negative actions in order to create more positive outcomes... and justifying or supporting more negative actions because they produce some positive outcomes. So like... it's not good to say "well the animal's dead already so what's the harm in buying the meat to give to a hungry neighbor", because if you have an alternative to paying for the death of an animal, you should always take it. But if you are supporting demand for animals to be killed, you have created the positive outcome of feeding people by directly supporting a negative action (killing animals). However, if a plane crashes in the Andes and a bunch of your fellow humans are already dead, you might be justified in eating them in order to survive. I may be grossed out but I'm not gonna judge you for it. Your action in that case doesn't precipitate more killing of humans for cannibalistic purposes (unless you get some weird taste for human flesh but let's not go there). It's making the most of a bad situation. If two people are stranded on a desert island, is one justified in killing and eating the other in order to survive longer? Or in purposely starving the other to death in order to survive longer? That is the way I feel about killing an animal in some imaginary life or death situation. I guess I pity anyone who is desperate enough to make such a choice. Maybe that's arrogant of me. I can't say since I've never been in a situation like that. I don't speak of veganism to people who have no other option than to eat meat because I've never encountered anyone like that.

But as for the Cardassian doctor thing... his bad methods were no longer being pursued, but the results of his research could save an innocent life. I believe using the research would be justified if it saved a life and if the use of it did not act as a stimulus for similar cruelty in the future. This is not supporting the continuation of bad research methods. It is using the positive products of a bad situation to create something better. Say I hated plastic with a burning passion (which I kind of do). Would I go and bomb a plastic recycling plant? Say that plant was creating affordable and much-needed items for a poor population which had been ravaged by environmental poisons and disaster? Plastic is terrible because it uses up resources to produce and then never breaks down, continually poisoning and littering the planet. But if it's already been made, the best thing we can do is find positive ways to use it, and halt or diminish the demand for new plastic. The existence of that plastic recycling plant may seem to be condoning the creation of plastic (without plastic, it wouldn't exist), but it is in fact creating a more positive outcome than if it hadn't existed. 

I suppose what it comes down to is that... yes, there is violence in the world. Sometimes we cannot always act in an entirely ideal way, because the world we live in is not ideal. But we can try our best to not deviate from our ideals more than absolutely necessary. 

Some days I wish I could do something drastic to shut down all the factory farms. I wish I could force people to go vegan, to stop killing and exploiting animals. I fully condone the deception required in order to make undercover videos of factory farms. I would condone stealing animals from factory farms unless this proved to cause more negative effects for the animals remaining... for example, if it damaged the credibility of the animal rights movement to the point where we could not win any more people to our side. When you really think about it, theft might result in them trying to breed or buy even larger quantities of animals, or in cutting cost of care even further, leading to even greater neglect or abuse. Being branded eco-terrorists does very little to help animals. I think this is part of the thing about our ends being implicated and tied up into our means. If we are not careful, we may accomplish one positive end only to find that we have cut off future opportunities to do more good. So that is why the liberators of animals have to be careful how they go about things. It is incredibly frustrating at times. I think of the undercover investigators themselves, who must stand by and watch these innocents being killed and hurt. Some people have the audacity to call them cold-hearted, saying "if I were there I would have grabbed that piglet and run! How could you just stand by with your videocamera?" But the undercover investigator is working for a greater end. They must gather enough footage to present as evidence against the company, which could result in the company shutting down or having to change their practices due to public outcry. The end here is to try and prevent as much harm for as many animals as possible. It is heartbreaking that so many animals must suffer and die before the truth can be brought to light. But what else can we do? The world is so perverted that there is no way to stop all of this at once without creating a potentially worse situation.

Some people argue that getting companies to tone down the violence a little bit will only result in the general public becoming complacent about animal rights, thinking "well, they're not getting REALLY tortured anymore, so I don't have to worry about whether exploiting them is right or wrong." They want to take things a step further and say "what use is going from cages to cage-free when this only tricks the public into thinking the chickens are actually treated well, when they're still packed into a tiny space and not allowed to really live their full lives, only until they're big enough to eat?" The opposing side counters with the argument that we must do whatever we can to improve the lot of the animals, since it is highly unlikely that everyone will go vegan no matter how terrible things are in factory farms. We have to do whatever we can, even if it takes a long time. We have to be patient.

not cage free

cage free

And maybe those people who feel good about their choice to buy cage-free eggs will balk at being told that that's not good enough. But maybe they won't. Maybe they'll learn about how bad the situation still is, and eventually take another baby step toward a more compassionate lifestyle. I think this comes back, again, to us, to how careful we must be in approaching others. We should not criticize them for not making a big enough step toward veganism or a big enough try at helping animals. We must appreciate every effort anyone makes. Discouraging positive behavior simply because it does not do very much good is likely to do even less good than if we had said nothing at all. 

So I guess this all goes back to another quote from the reading which is by Saul Alinsky:
"The true question... is 'Does this particular end justify this particular means?'"

In other words, we have to use our brains and think about what the potential outcomes might be before making any decision which could be seen as violent, harmful, or otherwise immoral or illegal. This goes back to the situational ethics idea from last week (I haven't quite posted a journal on that one yet, since everything overlapped so well with the journal on motivation). We must take into account what the reality of the situation is, and then decide how best to proceed. Sometimes there is no hard and fast rule. For me, the closest thing that I have to a hard and fast rule is "avoid doing harm as much as possible." But the flip side of that is "prevent as much harm as possible". Which once again goes back to the lovely First Law of Robotics. I will repeat all three laws here because I really believe they are a good model for human morality as long as there is room to interpret them situationally.

A robot may not injure a human being, or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm. (obviously we cannot prevent all harm everywhere, but we must do what we can to not cooperate with evil through our silence or inaction).
A robot must obey the orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the first law. (we can take this to mean we must obey the laws of the land and cooperate with others unless this is causing harm)
A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the first or second law (we must have respect and regard for ourselves. I would say that this one is the one we most need to stretch because humans need to take care of themselves before they can really care for anyone else. We must find our own strength so that we are not a burden to others, and then we are free to be a more positive influence in preventing harm and cooperating freely and sincerely with others, not through coercion or resentful obligation.)

Obviously Asimov wrote many stories about how the laws' strictness could be an obstruction to proper functioning and utility of robots. That is because robotic brains have a very difficult time with creating exceptions or abstractions. These three laws are as close as anyone could come to concrete rules which leave little room for interpretation, and even still there are questions and ambiguities which throw some robots for a loop. The robot stories Asimov writes warn against following a rule simply for its own sake without questioning the effect it might have. But it also warns against how strict rules often result in trying to find loopholes rather than actually following the spirit of the law, the reason the law was written.

So there's another thought dump about ethics. Conclusion: our means should always complement our ends as much as possibly. We need perspective in decision-making and to ask ourselves what our true end goals are (not merely short-term or immediate), and whether our means will hurt or help our quest toward that end. Similarly we should question whether our end goal is even worthy. And remember the reason for rules and moralities. It is to affirm life and help everything live to its fullest potential of happiness... in my opinion.

Build Your Own Theology: Motivation

Hello!

I haven't posted on here for quite a while. Over a year! And what a year 2013 was. The most difficult year of my life so far, I do not hesitate to say, but in that difficulty are also some wonderful memories and outrageously fun adventures. I'm on the verge of moving for a second time since my last mentioned move on here. I'm becoming more active in Unitarian Universalism and also studying Zen Buddhism, and this has given me a lot of help and clarity in the midst of crawling out of one of my darkest times. So I'm in a good place right now, and I wanted to share some of my thoughts lately for anyone who might find them interesting.

So here's my first journal for a class I'm taking on ethics called "Build Your Own Theology".

So the first class I went to was all about whether motivation matters in ethical behavior. The crux of the matter was examining whether we do things for ultimately selfish ends (getting into heaven, getting credit somehow) or if doing good is truly its own reward. Is there ever such a thing as a truly selfless act, if we know that we will get some kind of positive benefit from it, even if that's just taking joy in another's joy or avoiding guilt?

So it was interesting because I've thought about this a lot myself... what is true selflessness, and is it possible or desirable? With the Zen stuff I've been reading lately, and all the ways I've been pondering the concept of self-love, I've realized that being "selfish" in some ways is a good thing if it is motivated by a desire to be more of a positive force, more useful in the long run. If someone gives and gives with reckless disregard for whether they will be able to support themselves, they become a burden to others financially and emotionally, and this could breed resentment, which is not creating a more positive outcome in the end. It is not elevating or enriching or helping the world in general even if it might temporarily help someone specifically. Sometimes spontaneous generosity is a good thing, it's true, and sometimes people who give without worrying too much about their own problems end up finding those problems solved unexpectedly through some kind of karma. Basically, for myself, I realize I have to in a sense withhold a part of myself, guarding it and nurturing it, in order to actually be a more positive force rather than a negative one. I have to take the time to nurture myself instead of expecting others to do it or getting mad at myself for having needs in the first place--neither of those are productive. I have to guard against the guilty "I must" in order to be able to say sincerely that I want to.

It's funny because I was also thinking about this in terms of an article on polyamory that a friend posted. The crux of it was that people who are not jealous about their partners finding what they need with other people or being free to have their needs met by a variety of people... they end up being more secure in their relationship with their partner because the relationship does not depend wholly on them being everything to their partner, and they become an option instead of an obligation, which means that they can be confident the love that flows to them is genuine. It is a choice to stay together, a choice to be fully committed to one another's happiness even if that happiness does not always come from them. So that commitment actually translates into encouraging one another to seek fulfillment elsewhere when necessary. I thought that was really interesting.

Also I think about it in terms of being one's true self in order to better serve the world. If everybody felt free to follow their passion, would the world collapse? I don't know about that. Sure there are jobs that nobody really wants to do, but then, some people would always be skilled in those things and appreciated all the more for them I would think. Of course this is an idealistic utopian sort of idea. But at least from what I've observed with my favorite band, Steam Powered Giraffe, magic happens when you truly devote yourself to your passion, and you end up blessing the lives of others in ways you never even dreamed. I think about this a lot. Is it selfish for them to be artists and performers, to ask money for something that they enjoy doing? We obviously believe it is a fair price to support them so that they can continue to enrich our lives with their music and charm. My mom showed me this really cool TED talk by Amanda Palmer (which is so cool and funny because isn't she David's like favorite musician?) all about how people really do value the arts and our most powerful business in life is in giving of ourselves and trusting ourselves to others to be reciprocated in whatever way. That it's okay to ask for things from people because often in receiving we are also giving something valuable to others.

So basically... living for ourselves in terms of living to be our best selves, our most positive and helpful selves... being selfish in that way, is ultimately not selfish, because we are meant to value ourselves and empower ourselves to bless others. That is the essence of what Swil Kanim meant when he told me that the world is counting on me to live my passion, and when he said that to everyone else as well. To be myself authentically and to live my truth because no one can be me like I can. Guilt and the heaviness of unwilling obligation stunts that growth, it blocks that positive energy from flowing freely. I think that's why Jesus said it's better not to give a gift grudgingly. We also don't want to give anything we would feel we are owed for... that's not a true gift. Gift-giving is powerful because it comes from a place of truly wanting the best for everyone, truly wanting to see others happy, not from wanting to get anything out of it even if that something is a closer bond with someone or a sense of being able to ask for the same in return. It's okay to ask for things but not if you are going to resent being told no. Acknowledging the freedom others have to honor their own selves is really good... wanting to only be told yes when that yes is sincere... that is probably what we all want most without realizing it, but our own fear gets in the way, because we think if nobody gives us what we need, how will we survive? So we must demand? So we must give more in order to lock people into reciprocal obligation? That's sad.

Similarly I think if there is a God who truly wants us to follow certain rules, I think this being would like it best if we do it not out of fear or an obligation to please God like some slavish trembling child who fears disappointment, but if we do it out of recognizing that this is truly the best way and if we do this it will make everything better for everyone and make our loved ones AND US happy (if God is one of our loved ones then doing it because we truly believe it will make both us and God happy also counts). I know this is basically also what Mormonism teaches when you get past all the leviticus-like nitpickers but coming at it from a fresh angle really helps.

On a slightly related note I think about this in terms of veganism as well. Because yes guilt does have a big impact on that decision, realizing that harm is coming because of your actions... but I think if people come at it resentfully feeling like they were GUILTed into it by someONE then they are not going to stick with it probably, and it's not going to help because they will not be a good activist in that case. If they come at it with love and a true desire to improve the world and help change people's hearts genuinely then that helps enormously... it passes along that change much more effectively. If someone comes to the decision as a result of being aware of their own conscience, their own desire to be kind and compassionate being at odds with their actions, that is what will enact true change. So motivation does matter... it matters if it truly comes from within yourself and does not feel forced by outside sources. In order to be truly good, you have to truly want to be good of your own will. It's okay if that comes from learning that you want to be good because it makes a loved one happy. But if that is the only reason, it's not going to last, you have to internalize it and realize that you want to BE the person that person thinks you are, regardless of whether that person continues to think so or remains in your life or changes their opinions. There is a transition, a transformation, a transference of power and agency in that process, where you take that motivation upon yourself. You become good when you truly want to be a good person, when you want it to be an intrinsic part of your personality that radiates outward to help others. At that point the distinctions of selfish and selfless become less important because you are recognizing that in being true to yourself (the good in yourself) you are spreading goodness. In loving yourself you are also freeing yourself to spread love to others and teach them to love themselves. You are able to be confident that what is best for you (not always in a worldly sense) will be good for others as well.

of course there is room for confusion and mistakes and self-delusion here. People can misinterpret this and become arrogant or misguided if they don't have enough self-awareness and awareness of others in order to really get their head on straight. You don't want to block others from affecting you with their words entirely. But if you are centered in seeking goodness for yourself and others then criticism will be an opportunity to continue in that path, rather than something to become defensive over. You can calmly examine whether it is useful to you, and then either apply or discard it as needed with no hard feelings. It's just like... if your primary goal is to become a really good writer, and you are enthusiastic and confident in your pursuit of that goal, then criticism will not make you feel like giving up as easily, because you will see it as an opportunity to take another step toward that goal, or at least to understand what the obstacles are that lie between you and your goal.

Geez I'm saying all of this as if I'm living it already. I'm trying to more and more each day. It's not always easy but it is definitely more positive than what I had been doing.

Here's a quote I underlined from the reading.

"Of course, all motives are a mixture of altruism and self-interest. It appears that all of us and all our actions, even the most altruistic, are tainted by self-interest. There is always some regard for the self in human relations. There is no love for the other without self-love, and without self-respect there can be no respect for the other."

Tainted is not the word I would use now but I get what it's trying to say. It's really strange sometimes to recognize the difference between wanting to be good so that I can feel better about myself, maybe even better than other people (yikes!) and wanting to be good so that there is more good in the world. There is a big difference, though subtle and sometimes hard to see. But it feels very different. There is actually less self-consciousness in pure motivation. There is less checking of ourselves because we are only checking ourselves against our own compass rather than trying to predict what other people will think, either good or bad. It's easy to fall into, certainly. But I'm hopeful that I can keep going this way without becoming self-righteous again. True humility, I think, is not putting ourselves below others necessarily... but recognizing that we are all exactly the same level of awesome, in the words of Michael Reed. We may have a different balance of awesome. It might have a bit different composition. But the quantity or potential is the same... the fact that we were all created to add to the beauty of the world. That is the best part of our nature and we all have the opportunity to embrace that. We all have something to give by being our truest selves.

I'm getting a little repetitive now so I guess that's where I'll stop with this journal. May write one for the week I missed later.