Hello, Dalai! |
Xerxes in his latest column claims he heard the Dalai Lama, through an interpreter, praise “selfish altruism.” Which Xerxes defines as “working so that the world will be better for you.”
By definition, altruism cannot be selfish; selfishness cannot be altruistic. M-W: “unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others.” Britannica: “feelings and behavior that show a desire to help other people and a lack of selfishness.”
What the Dalai Lama was speaking of, whatever word the interpreter used, seems to have been virtue. Which is a different kettle of worms.
There are traditionally seven capital virtues in the Christian tradition: faith, hope, charity, prudence, justice, temperance, and fortitude. Altruism relates directly only to charity.
Are the other virtues, those other than charity, “selfish”? They do tend to make the world better, and your own life in it better. They build character. Properly, however, it seems to me the term “selfish” should be limited to actions that seek a benefit to ourselves by harming others.
Selfishness does not map directly to vice either. There are seven vices: pride, anger, lust, gluttony, sloth, avarice, envy. None of them necessarily harms another; although actions inspired by them may. As an addiction to any one of them can take away your freedom of choice and destroy your life, it is not selfish to indulge them: it is suicidal.
For what it's worth, "selfishness" and "altruism" can have no meaning in a Buddhist context, either. The fundamental principle of Buddhism is anatman, anatta: "there is no self."
No comments:
Post a Comment