IN> Selflessness Paradox

[Claribel]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Nigel Cole"

> If someone performs a selfless action, then they aren't seeking a
> reward. Whether or not they get one is irrelevant, only whether they
> are seeking one. If they are seeking a reward, then their actions are
> no longer selfless.

This is similar to Jean's answer -- one can objectively recognize that an 
action is praiseworthy without having a motivation to receive reward or 
praise.

Humans, of course, don't have as much direct control over such subjective 
states as Elohim. Generally, it requires long-term conditioning to rewire a 
human's basic motivations.

There is still a contradiction, however, if one thinks of "deserving of 
reward" as "entitled to seek it." If I deserve something, I have a right to 
gain it, and so it cannot be morally impermissible for me to do so. Yet, if 
selflessness is defined as "acting without thought for a reward" (granted 
that, as others have pointed out, this is only one particular type of 
selflessness, and would apply in only certain situations) then seeking 
something to which one is both permitted and entitled would immediately 
render one unentitled.

This is what I was referring to in Dominic's speech: that the logic of 
selflessness transcends that of mere justice; it doesn't make sense in terms 
of the discourse of rights and entitlements.

Now, a few others have said that (some) good actions may not be deserving of 
reward at all, which is a different case entirely. This is the type of 
selflessness which requires a total abandonment of self-interest, at least 
in some cases.

- Claribel