Focus on Life™

It is assumed to be noble to live for others. This nobility can take many forms and some of them can be very difficult to identify. Still, in most of the cases the underlying motive is not benevolent even though the appearance tells a different story. Selfishness has many disguises.

No doubt serving and helping others is the highest cause there is, but not always. It is worthwhile to consider the motive for the help. In many cases the true motive is not pure and noble, on the contrary, it is an ego trip and boost without any limits. Hard to believe? Well, if it were really about the others there shouldn’t be any need for anybody else to know about the aid. Also the compassionate act should not direct any unnecessary attention to the helper. Any expectation of reciprocity is not an act of compassion. And this means anything, including the little word ‘thanks’ from the one you supported. Helping others can also be a way to reduce one’s guilt of something else in which case the issue has really nothing to do with helping others. It is just a means to deal with one’s own conscience.

What about the target of the help, is it far away and somehow exotic? People in the next block might as well need your help but is it somehow better if you focus on greater distance to give your aid? Often it would make more sense to help people close to you since you can make a larger impact—in addition of being a practical example for others.

Often taking care of one’s own business is quickly condemned as selfishness—having only a negative connotation nowadays. But this is a great fallacy as well. If everyone was supposed to pay attention only for others without caring for one’s own needs there wouldn’t be anyone feeling good and balanced anymore. The reality is exactly the opposite. In order to help others one needs to be in a solid position to give a helping hand. The only way to give a lot is to have plenty as well. This does not apply just to material things but basically every quality and virtue there is. If supporting others is an act of compassion then it should be carried out with the upmost care and the best possible way. Giving the best you have is not a light-hearted issue, is it? This is the test you most likely fail provided that you are not doing it solely for the compassion and love for others.

A society is decaying when it is interested in only of the effects and not in the causes. What happens when the ‘needs’ are of most importance and the ways to satisfy them are despised? A moral decline.

Who does not have any needs? We all do. Newspapers are full of ‘needs’ to be fulfilled. They are very urgent and thus must be satisfied at any cost. But whose needs are more important than anyone else’s?  Why should others fulfil someone else’s needs? In short, what is the justification for the underlying assumption that everybody else except the person itself should be responsible for satisfying one’s own needs? This is to say that it is fine and noble to receive without one’s own effort and let the others even work for it. To close the circle the ones who are working for the ‘needs’ of others are morally despised by the others because they are making an effort and thus at least are getting something done. They are called selfish and greedy. It is socially acceptable to receive benefits in due cause solely because one needs them but it is low and almost criminal to mind one’s own business and stand firmly on one’s own two feet. Their needs are of no importance since they are capable of taking care of themselves. Thus it is OK to discriminate against the ones with capabilities and virtue—“they have it all” as it is often said. It is the ones who do not have are more important exactly because they lack something. And because they have deficiencies their ‘needs’ have to be fulfilled. In another words, ability and hard work are less valued than ignorance and vices. Not doing and trying are achievement themselves whereas making an effort and working for one’s success are self-evident and of no importance whatsoever—they are sacrificial.

It is socially acceptable to care for others’ well-being, often even in general terms without being able to define the others specifically (i.e. ‘public good’, welfare of the state, general good or welfare), and to do something that is non-profit and thus ‘not selfish’. This means that everyone minds everyone else’s business but no one is allowed to mind one’s own. A socially acceptable and morally just society is one where no one is selfish and thus not focusing at all for one’s own needs and well being. In addition, it is socially acceptable to receive if one has needs but if everyone is just to receive from where is it all then coming from? And how can the others know exactly what are the most important needs for everybody else? Or is it so that there is a more general standard which defines what others are supposed to need and in what proportions? Or is it just called the welfare state and democracy by majority rule?