IN> Selflessness Paradox

[Claribel]

I've come across a proof that the ethic of selflessness is logically 
contradictory. I'm curious what people think their favorite IN characters 
would have to say about it.

It can be stated in the first, second or third person:

First Person: You perform a selfless action. A selfless action is 
meritorious, and a meritorious action is one worthy of reward. You are, 
therefore, entitled to a reward for your action. Yet, if you actually seek 
such a reward, your action is no longer selfless. If you consider yourself 
entitled to a reward, you are not, but if you do not consider yourself so, 
you are. To be selfless, therefore, you must simultaneously regard your own 
action as both worthy and unworthy.

Second Person: Suppose you are someone who follows the ethic of 
selflessness. You observe another person perform a meritorious action. Since 
you are selfless, you must wish that his act be rewarded; but, since you 
also wish him to be selfless, you must also wish that he not desire the 
reward. Therefore, you must offer the reward only if the other person does 
not want it.

Third Person: Selfless person C observes two other selfless people, A and B, 
performing meritorious acts. C judges both their actions as worthy of being 
rewarded, while A judges only B's action as worthy of reward, but not his 
own, and B likewise judges only A worthy but not himself. Now, suppose that 
one of the three parties is in charge of giving the reward. If C is in 
charge, he will divide it equally between A and B. If A is in charge, he 
will give it to B, and if B is in charge, he will give it to A. Thus, the 
ethic of selflessness provides no consistent answer for the distribution of 
rewards, since who receives the reward depends on who is giving it.

Here's what I think a few of the Superiors would say about this:

Dominic: When you use the word "deserve", you are speaking the language of 
my Word, Judgement. Yet, Selflessness is a Divine Mystery that goes beyond 
my Word. It is not my place to answer this. Maybe you should ask Yves?

Jean: It is possible to recognize that an action is objectively meritorious 
without /feeling/ entitled to a reward for it. To resolve the dilemma, one 
must separate thought from emotion.
(This, of course, is a lot easier for Elohim than for humans.)

Yves: *smiles enigmatically* Yes and no.

Asmodeus: The rules of The Game are always consistent, albeit exceedingly 
complex and many-layered. Heaven's rules are not -- and it is amusing that 
they blame /us/ for cheating.

Lilith: That's exactly what I told the angel at the gates of the Garden of 
Eden. How can God tell us we'll be rewarded for reaching our destiny -- but 
only if we're selfless? That makes about as much sense as Adam's saying he 
loved me -- as long as he got to be on top.