IN> Selflessness Paradox

[Claribel]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "William Keith" Paradox
>> 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.

"Meritorious" would at least imply worthy of praise (or self-praise -- that 
is, pride.) Some definitions of selflessness forbid a person from taking 
even internal satisfaction from a selfless act, or, at any rate, doing the 
act for the /sake/ of such subjective pleasure.. It must be done /only/ for 
the sake of the other, God, or a higher cause. This requires an Elohitish 
level of detachment, which is why humans find such codes of ethics very 
difficult to follow.

It would be quite interesting if such views were originally inspired by a 
Habbalite. I've been contemplating a Habbalite Princess of Selflessness.

>.  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.

This definition collapses the distinction between selflessness and 
enlightened self-interest. It would work well for a Bright, low-contrast 
setting, in which it's relatively easy to achieve destiny or be redeemed.
>
> The difference is pretty much what was at the core of Michael's trial, 
> really.

And Michael was vindicated. I wonder how the incident influenced Heaven's 
general philosophical climate.

- Claribel