IN> Selflessness Paradox

[William Keith]

On Jul 17, 2006, at 12:46 AM, Claribel wrote:

> 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:
>
> a meritorious action is one worthy of reward.

There are many ways to resolve the paradox, but this is one axiom that 
is commonly rejected.  There are meritorious actions which can be 
described in various ways as not worthy of reward, inherently 
rewarding, etc.  Taking a minute to head to a trash can before casting 
away your litter is a meritorious action but earns no special legal 
privileges.  Dominic probably promulgates this interpretation 
frequently.

Alternatively, one may say that you reap a reward in satisfaction, or 
you reap avoidance of legal punishment, or you reap part of a 
collective reward, a clean environment.  In this case, one either 
rejects the existence of completely selfless acts, since ethical acts 
are by their nature rewarding, or classifies "internally rewarded" or 
"collectively rewarded" acts as selfless.  Michael, for example, takes 
the latter view, arguing that pride in achievement is a satisfactory 
part of selflessness.

The difference is pretty much what was at the core of Michael's trial, 
really.

William