Need Help to Move On
I'm having trouble coming up with a way to look at a situation in a way to be able to genuinely accept it and stop analyzing the situation. I'm having trouble closing it out and it's bothering me.
The issue is that I've been financially helping someone over the years. Not all the time but occasionally once or twice a year this person would ask me for help and I would. I know for a fact that whenever I was asked, that person's need was genuine and I wasn't being used or anything like that. Not that I'm keeping track, but over the years it has added up to a significant amount.
I've given the money, not lent. There's never been an expectation or agreement of repayment. Nor has there been any weirdness. I've seen where people give/lend for less than noble reasons. Not saying that I'm noble, just that some people who give go on to manipulate the person. That's not the case in my situation, I've always given and not asked/implied for anything and have never brought it up ever again. Just gave and that's that.
Here's my issue. This person came into a significant and unexpected windfall of cash and doesn't need my help anymore. I think that's great and I am genuinely happy for this person. However, this person has made no attempt to reciprocate my kindness. I'm not well off but I'm doing okay so it's not about the money. It really isn't. What I'm struggling with is trying to understand why someone wouldn't intuitively reciprocate. I know everybody is not the same but the first thing I would do would be to find a way to show my appreciation after years of receiving help. For the life of me I don't understand why someone wouldn't.
I've thought long and hard about this for months and months and months to find a way make some sense of this. What I keep coming back to is that I know I have helped someone in genuine need and I should feel good about that and end it there. I gave willingly without expectation so why am I having trouble with this? I feel bad about having some slight resentment towards this person but do think it's not unreasonably justified. I'm trying to deal with this internally so I haven't said a word to the person. I feel that if I bring it up, it will needlessly create tension and a rift with this person that I care about so I'm going to keep my big bazoo shut.
I haven't made much headway with this so your thoughts are appreciated.
Thanks.
The issue is that I've been financially helping someone over the years. Not all the time but occasionally once or twice a year this person would ask me for help and I would. I know for a fact that whenever I was asked, that person's need was genuine and I wasn't being used or anything like that. Not that I'm keeping track, but over the years it has added up to a significant amount.
I've given the money, not lent. There's never been an expectation or agreement of repayment. Nor has there been any weirdness. I've seen where people give/lend for less than noble reasons. Not saying that I'm noble, just that some people who give go on to manipulate the person. That's not the case in my situation, I've always given and not asked/implied for anything and have never brought it up ever again. Just gave and that's that.
Here's my issue. This person came into a significant and unexpected windfall of cash and doesn't need my help anymore. I think that's great and I am genuinely happy for this person. However, this person has made no attempt to reciprocate my kindness. I'm not well off but I'm doing okay so it's not about the money. It really isn't. What I'm struggling with is trying to understand why someone wouldn't intuitively reciprocate. I know everybody is not the same but the first thing I would do would be to find a way to show my appreciation after years of receiving help. For the life of me I don't understand why someone wouldn't.
I've thought long and hard about this for months and months and months to find a way make some sense of this. What I keep coming back to is that I know I have helped someone in genuine need and I should feel good about that and end it there. I gave willingly without expectation so why am I having trouble with this? I feel bad about having some slight resentment towards this person but do think it's not unreasonably justified. I'm trying to deal with this internally so I haven't said a word to the person. I feel that if I bring it up, it will needlessly create tension and a rift with this person that I care about so I'm going to keep my big bazoo shut.
I haven't made much headway with this so your thoughts are appreciated.
Thanks.
Comments (74)
Do you think that you made the right decision when you chose to help them or do you regret it?
Definitely don't regret it. Not in the least. It was absolutely the right decision, every time. It just seems to me, generally speaking, that it's human nature to want to return kindness with kindness and the fact that's not happening in my situation is blowing my mind.
But doesn't a good relationship also include reciprocity? That's where I'm having difficulty.
I guess I'm speaking of human nature very generally on a personal level. If we're at the bar and I buy you a beer, you buy me one a little later on. That kind of thing.
I was thinking of it in terms of your well-being. Stoic advice would be to act (bring up reciprocation with the subject of your generosity) or put it out of your mind because continuing to ruminate will only do you harm.
Sorry, I meant to reply to your second comment as well. I agree with you completely. It's not good for my well-being to dwell on it. It's just my nature to try to understand, or make some sense of, behavior that, in my mind, should be intrinsic in otherwise "normal" people but which isn't. Therein lies the vagaries of human nature I suppose. I chock a lot of thing up to "human nature" but I guess because it personal this time that I'm having difficulty.
Thanks for the new perspective.
Couldn't agree more. Reality fascinates me. Objective vs. subjective. We can never peer into someone's mind to see what their reality is. Even in an objective situation, reality is unique to the individual and can vary greatly. In nature vs. nurture, I believe nurture is the stronger force. Fascinating topic.
Forgive me for asking but why do you feel bad about having some resentment towards this person?
Herein lies the problem. If you must give, give wisely. Ask questions. I don't know what's your relationship with this person, but if they're family members, then there's your answer -- lack of reciprocity bias because either they feel entitled to your money, or to their mind you just have too much money.
Let's assume though that this person is not a family member:
If you had been doing this for years to the same person, you made it clear to that person that it never hurt you to help him, so his reciprocity bias had become neutral -- he never developed the need to reciprocate. Nor did he try to think, he couldn't possibly repay you so he must stop asking.
No matter how genuine his needs were, you were the enabler of such behavior.
Ethics wise -- nothing to be said. But etiquette, yes he violated this cultural norm.
Just tell yourself -- that money you gave him was made based purely on your own volition. You were not forced to part ways with the money. The windfall he got, that's never your money, so there was never a loss there either.
Do this. Stop seeing or talking to that person. It could be years or never that he might want to contact you. That would be fun times.
As someone who has been helping another person myself -- I'll tell you that that person is an asshole, yet I do not feel anything when parting with my money and sending over electronically, and paying the wire fee. I get a text, and I just do it. When I'm not in good mood, and I get a text for money help, I ignore it. Then the next time I get a text, I just send it. I really feel numbed about this person. I don't tell this to anyone in my family as this is as stupid as it gets. My ex broke up with me citing stupidity on my part as one reason for the break-up. Like a violent feeling of "You're fucking stupid!!" God yes, now that I think about it, that's why I don't date anymore. Because they might find out about this stupid thing I do. I don't even talk to this person. Okay, there's one dark reason -- which I'm going to divulge here. This person almost died by suicide. But this person is still an asshole!
Another stoicism is that we can’t control other people, or anything really, outside of ourselves, so we’re bound to be disappointed from time to time by people and things beyond our control, and it’s pointless to ruminate over things that are out of our control. We can learn whatever there is to learn and move on.
That's a great question. Probably because that's a negative emotion that I don't want to feel for that person, or any other person for that matter. I try to keep my emotions on an even keel which is probably why I over-analyze emotional situations. I have great respect for this person and I suppose the thought that they could do something that would tarnish that makes me feel I've misjudged the person which calls into question my ability to evaluate. Perhaps.
But what I think you're saying is that's it is okay to feel some amount of resentment for somebody that has "wronged" me. It occurs to me that it is completely natural to have that feeling. I just want to process it in a way that brings closure where I don't think about it anymore. I think it's better for my well-being to give this person grace, mercy, and forgiveness.
Because your society doesn't value it. You do, but perhaps too much. Why should reciprocation be expected, is he your property or something? You really want to know the answer to this question, ask yourself why you care about it. If the answer isn't refined enough to lay out the exact perameters surrounding why you regard reciprocity is something good, in your mind and clearly from the moment you think about it, then you need to assume he's in the same boat, cognitively.
Quoting Tex
There's nothing good about this statement. How is "helping" someone good? Did you guys talk about why he was in his pecuniary straits and encourage better virtues out of him that would induce greater wealth? Did you give to him without telling him you expected money in return if the time came that he had more? If you didn't have expectation, you wouldn't feeling expectation now. You should feel good that you have learned reciprocity is in fact a standard of value chosen by the individual. Meaning, now you'll not be forced to make the mistake of randomized charity to people under the pretenses that just giving your money away is good somehow. For reference, nobody gets my money unless they are clearly good people, in trouble with something completely out of their control that my help will clearly help them overcome, who will go on to be triumphant in life afterwards. Reciprocity is only virtuous between virtuous people.
Quoting Tex
Again, why would you bring it up? Do you need it for something? Is there a purchase you want to make? Or, is it a principle that doesn't apply to human beings other than the person holding the principle? Or, do you just want to be shown appreciation? Because appreciation is funny. It's like, your value of yourself requires the recognition of appreciation from someone else in that case. Which, may be the root to this issue, especially if you can't clearly formulate your views on why such a thing is good.
Quoting L'éléphant
Explain this.... How so? Asshole? He asked for money, it was given to him. Do you think that purchased a part of him to be owned and an expectation to behave in a certain way towards the giver of the largesse?
In fact, it is a family member, which is I guess is why I'm having the difficulty. If it weren't family, I would also have said they're an asshole and cut them out. I've been in the situation with non-family members before and had no qualms about it. Interesting point about reciprocity bias and my enabling but I can't shake the feeling that, now that this person has the means, that reciprocity would at least enter the person's mind and then act on it. How could it not, is the question I ask myself.
Quoting L'éléphant
Agreed. But to me it is not about the money. I guess I have a misunderstanding about basic human nature, but then again money tends to change people not matter how exemplary their previous behavior.Quoting L'éléphant
If they weren't family I would. I don't want to be the cause of a rift or tension in the family. I don't want that in my life even if I found it justifiable.
Thanks for the reply, it gives me some things to chew on.
It sounds like you might be worried about whether or not you made the right decision when you decided to help them. I know you already said that you're comfortable with your choice but you don't seem very confident. If you actually did make the right move then there doesn't seem to be any need to dwell on this dilemma and even if you didn't make the right move you shouldn't worry about it as long as you learned your lesson.
I don't think there's much to say about why reciprocity is good. I do something good for you, then you do something good for me and we both benefit. It also builds trust, agreeableness and forms a bond that is mutually beneficial over the long term. This is, if both are playing by the same rules.
Quoting Garrett Travers
Maybe I'm naïve, but it seems to me that it would be a "normal" person's inclination to reciprocate. Keep in mind, I'm not talking about a stranger or random charity.
Quoting Garrett Travers
No, I just think it's not unusual to believe that someone you know would be nice to you after you've been nice to them.
And that goes back to my initial conclusion. Thank you for your thoughts.
It's a family member, so there's a whole different mindset. The reciprocity bias was never there to begin with. Gratitude is what one expects from a family member. Not reciprocity. That person didn't have gratitude. Very common occurrence. But, let's talk about you. Are you feeling this way because it is actually about the money but you're in denial? Let's say he never got the windfall, but he also never thanked you, and never showed up for your birthday, your most important occasion, or for your funeral. How do you feel now? Would you be as bitter?
Quoting Garrett Travers
No, the person was an asshole even before I started giving money, is what I meant. I also said I don't feel anything when helping that person. So, there's that lack of expectation on my part.
That is precisely right. When it comes to virtues, both MUST be playing the same rules, the very moment expectation of virtue is placed on someone, it becomes an emotional-homeostasis destablizer. Such principles have to be mutually understood and co-operatively employed as a matter of indivdual desire established by individual value. This is why societies are fucked, they fucked this up real bad. Social Contracts are a necessity of a peaceful society. But implicit social contracts pervert the concept entirely, as they place a claim of property on one's consciousness, and thereby their behavior, that was not agreed to by both parties. And such non-agreement will emerge in the uneven distribution of behaviors in the form of conflicting principles. But, don't worry, we'll all learn the hard way if we have to, friend.
Quoting Tex
Naive? That depends, did you legitimately trust that another human being would do something they hadn't agreed to? "Normal" people, isn't a thing, that's where a bit of naivety is slipping through. And, it doesn't matter if it is stranger, or random. If my own my mother came banging on my door for money, absolutely in desperate need of it, I would do the ethical thing, and tell her fuck right off. Why? Because I don't parlay with evil people. Now, I doubt your pal also directly contributed to the untimely death of one his kids, too, that's not what I'm saying. What I am saying is that my standards of virtue at bare minimum must be met before I even have you as a consistent friend in my life. And if issues of this kind are not discussed at length before hand, the ground rules must be met in discussion before the initiation of said behavior. I know this sounds a bit funny, I literally swear to you that you will cherish your friends with greater admiration and love if you standardize this with them, and they you; if they're actually friends, of course.
Quoting Tex
Come on, man. That's baby talk. Nice can't be a standard for genuine friendship. Nice is nothing more than a neutrality, which is cool, but it isn't a metric by which you keep people in your life. We're talking about things that directly impact your happiness, as you now understand in this situation. It's little shit, too, that's gets you with people. Small lies, coming over uninvited, staying over too late, won't stop staring at your hot wife like she's a piece of ass, votes in elections, little shit. Your consistent happiness is worth that money you gave him, just to know that if the time comes, a motherfucker will reciprocate if, and as you value it. Because if you value it, and he doesn't, and the time comes, and your value gets violated by someone you thought was a friend, you will experience emotional-homeostatic disruption just like this, every time. You are designed to, no shit. I tell you this out of love, my friend.
What you may be expecting is a levelling out of the political landscape between you. The fact that you were in a position to give them money without expecting anything in return made you feel ‘good’ - not because you were doing something ‘good’, but because of the power differential it established between you. That differential has switched, and that’s what bothers you. Otherwise, you’d have no qualms asking them for money if you needed it. Most people don’t realise how much courage and humility it takes to ask someone else to just give you money with no strings attached.
So I don’t think it’s about reciprocity at all. First, forget about the past - the money you’ve given and the windfall they’ve since received - and just accept that you’re now both in a position where you don’t require financial assistance. Be happy for that. Then, trust that if you’re ever in a bind and had to actually ask for money, you can expect this reciprocity from them. Or don’t trust, and just ask them.
Why? I expect no such thing from anyone, least ways family members, as those are the most arbitrary relationships in one's entire life. I never did understand this.
Quoting L'éléphant
What on Earth could possibly motivate such action?
Quoting L'éléphant
No, I live rather modestly and have spent nearly my entire life in poverty. Even spent a year and eight months homeless with my wife. That kind of thing changes the way you see money. But, I do know you folks have been programmed to feel that way about standards of interactions with people. As if any human has a justified claim on my money, which is my labor, which is my behavior, which is my brain, which is me. I reject this kind of evil, as it goes by a name: slavery.
Quoting L'éléphant
Rational people don't get bitter friend, haven't you been reading my posts to the mystics on this channel, hehah? No, you see, my friends would never treat me like that. For a very simple reason, my friends value the primacy of human consciousness above all things, as that's where all values come from in the first place, just like I value it above all things. I know, because I vet them for such a principle. My friends know it means something when I give them pieces of my labor. It means I cherish their consciousness every bit as much I cherish my own, for being precisely the kind of person that cherishes consciousness above everything. I'm thanked before hand, I'm understood to be paid back, am paid back, and love he/she even more. That's friendship. As it happens, I have a brother that hasn't work in almost 15 or so years, who has been living high on the hog for over a decade now, living off the copious amount of money his unemployed Seminole Indian sperm receptacle gets from the Casino supported Commune in Florida for doing nothing other than breathing. He has never offered to help me even when I was homeless, I couldn't care less. I encourage the same attitude about stuff out of my potential friends. World's about to start crumbling, all the signs are there, better start being as resilient as possible and love your life and seek joy and pleasure, and dispense with the bullshit.
Like hell you don’t care. There’s a lot of anger and resentment in your choice of words here.
What would qualify as a justified claim in your view?
Thanks for the clarification. Makes a big difference. Not to beat a dead horse or parse words, but I think reciprocity would be included as a way to show gratitude. That's just the way I think I guess.
Quoting L'éléphant
No, I'm sure of it. Even if this person paid back every cent, it wouldn't make a difference overall. It would be nice to have the little extra but wouldn't change anything in my situation.
Quoting L'éléphant
I hope I haven't come across as bitter. I'm really not, just trying to understand what might be the reason, or thought process, of the person.Quoting L'éléphant
I've thought about this a lot. I've witnessed many occasions where people treat their friends way better than their own family. Things people do to their family that they would never do to their friends. It's like social acceptance is more important to them than familial bonds. Of course, there are things that happen with families behind closed doors that drive that behavior.
My voluntary participation, contractual agreement, payment of my service, a promise, or having to do with child rearing.
I think you misunderstand, I wasn't positing a question. It was a statement. Recognition of evil is not anger, or resentment. My choice of words is strategically placed to convey my calm, poised, yet absolutely firm rejection of the evil others take part in. This is simple to do when one understands the truth: the reason people are so unhappy, is because they are so unethical. I can't resent the misery of people who are evil, and never will again. However, my meeknes is not fucking weakness. I will in fact battle, ridicule, humiliate, and hold in contempt any spread of that evil that falls within my purview. So, again, no, I couldn't care less.
Liar! Or you're a school of fish! Gratitude is a common knowledge. :smirk:
Quoting Possibility
That's what I get, too, from his post.
Time to say something about this:
Hey guys! When you sound bitter, but you're not aware in your tone of voice that you sound bitter, then that means your natural emotion is showing. Often we don't smell our own fear. But others can.
Quoting Tex
You're mistaking necessity for sufficiency in reasoning. Reciprocity is sufficient to show gratitude, but showing gratitude does not necessarily contain reciprocity. I'll give you an example: We show gratitude to our parents for raising us. But this gratitude is never a reciprocity in the sense that we do perform an act in exchange to make it a mutual benefit. A true reciprocity is between friends extending a favor and returning a favor. Another example is a business deal.
All the standards in this familial relationship have been met, up until this point. But then it goes back to what you were saying about implicit social contracts. I get it.
Quoting Garrett Travers
I don't take any of your comments any other way. I appreciate a hard truth. In fact, I require it.
Wouldn’t this also mean that there is such a thing as justifiable evil? You did refer to it as evil and that is the only reason I’m asking this question.
I understand what you mean and feel. I had the same experience some years ago. The so called "reciprocity"
If you think it deeply. You weren't sharing your money with that person really free. You were expecting something afterwards. But the fact here is that there is not an agreement or a bond to be connected to. This happens because you thought this law tools were not necessary in the relationship/friendship.
Now, he increased his wealth and now you are asking for reciprocity silently. Here we have an ethical dilemma:
1. Probably you not have the right to ask for because supposedly you gave that money for free.
2. But you expect from your friend being more ethical and then the principle of reciprocity despite you are not connected to him with an agreement.
He who goes round in circles becomes a wheel, my friend.
Quoting L'éléphant
To say that you have gotten what you haven't been given, is an indication that you are giving what you have received to yourself.
Quoting L'éléphant
The reason you feel this way, is because you couldn't hear my tone of voice when I mentioned these things, because I didn't speak them, which would have calmed you. Thus, you interpolated the tone of voice that is within your own mind into my words. Certain people learn to sniff things out with just a little bit more acuity than others.
Quoting L'éléphant
Raising us? They chose that duty. Why would they get gratitude from us? We weren't consulted about being born. They should be seeking our gratitude, wouldn't you say?
No, I haven't. I've always believed that if I did that they would give. But now I'm starting to question that supposition.
Quoting Possibility
Good point, but no. I've been damn careful, from the beginning, not to allow this to happen. I've seen too many times that someone will do a favor for someone else and then use that favor to shamefully manipulate the person or the lendee shows too much deference to the lender. I want neither scenario. I hold this person in a higher regard even than myself, so in my mind the power has always been in their favor.
Quoting Possibility
I think that's where I'm going to land on this situation. Thank you.
Given his recent good fortune, it would not be unreasonable to expect at least a gesture of reciprocity. Sadly, he may not know how to reciprocate. He may not know how to express gratitude. Of course, I know nothing abut him, but some people don't feel urgency on any number of normal responses in social situations.
I think it perfectly normal for you to be troubled by his lack of reciprocity. It's obvious that reciprocity of some sort would be the appropriate thing to do. Alas, it isn't happening, and maybe there is nothing either one of you can do about it (for quite different reasons, of course).
If he had no skill at managing money (making it, keeping it, spending it wisely, etc) maybe he doesn't know the meaning of the substantial amount of money he received (maybe from you and from others. He might not have this windfall for long, if he doesn't know how to hold on to money. Perhaps somewhere down the line he will be broke, again, and will want help. Should that happen, you might want to carefully weigh whether to give him more money.
It would be good if he could at least express gratitude for past help received. A lack of gratitude may be more grating than the lack of reciprocity.
In any case, you are in the better position. You are not at fault.
No, that which is justifiable are actions that without proper provocation would not be justifiable. For example, if you have consensual sex with a woman, and I bust in start attacking you, there's no justifiable reason for that. However, if you are having unconsensual sex, I'm fully justified in stopping you if you're within my purview of influence. It's called symmetry. Assault is evil, meaning unjustifiable. If you commit the unjustifiable act of assaulting me, me responding in assualt is now a form of justified evil. But, it's just semantic really, it isn't actually evil, it's stopping evil.
I mean, I'm not just saying it, either. The only societies that I know of that have ever been peaceful, harmonious, co-operative, capitalistic, and virtue pursuing were literally found on this predicate, among many others. They existed for 500 years and were numbered in the hundreds of thousands. No cops either, or governments.
Quoting Tex
I hope that one day you'll see such advice as from people not as hard truth, but the opposite. But, I don't like people feeling bad about this kind of stuff, indicates to me that you're good dude. Good dudes get trampeled on by evil people. It's time we stop that, been time. But, one at a time I guess. You know, it's a bit like any skill you pick up. Interacting with people is just like, say, playing guitar. You have to tune the thing, but you gotta pick the right strings, wouldn't want cheap ones that bust right after you put em on, and the type of guitar corresponds to the right type of strings. You have to practice so that the strings work with you, instead of against you and make aweful noise, just like people. Then you have to learn how to play full songs, tempo, beat, melody, or you just sit around and pluck strings anytime you pick it up. It's a bit like that, man, for real. And intuitively one can tell such a thing because, well when is that last time that you did anything that was even remotely important that didn't require standards for proper interaction? Never. Interpersonal interaction is no different. But, the feds and their bootlickers don't want you to learn or believe that. That want you to think we're all in this together, we're not. Just food for thought. I got all kinds of shit like this up in my head, man.
I’m not sure what you mean by “semantic” in this context. First you say that assault is unjustifiable but then you claim that there are circumstances which would make it justifiable. That seems like a blatant contradiction. Would you mind providing some kind of clarification because I’m a little bit confused as to what you are trying to communicate.
Well no. I say that because the windfall was unexpected. I was giving the money long before this never expecting to be repaid. Maybe I wasn't clear about that.
Quoting javi2541997
Strictly ethically speaking, I agree with your two points 100%.
Would you mind telling me what criterion you use to determine what is and what is not “proper provocation”?
Yes I see your point. Despite the fact you were expecting from your friend a help to repair the windmill, I think he was not obliged to because (supposedly) you helped him for free.
But the big issue here is that your friend is not acting as you would like to act. There are clearly discrepancies in terms of ethical reciprocity.
No problem. So, to actually have a standard that works, one must first understand where standards come from. That would be the human mind. We create standards for interaction, therefore all standards for interaction are predicated on whatever standards are generated by the individual human in question, as long as his standards do not include the dismissal of your standards, or any other. No other standard can possibly be posited that will withstand scrutiny, logic, or reason that can come before this standard, but can be made logical through compatibility with this standard. Meaning, any violation of my standards by another is provocation that justifies defense of oneself.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Quoting Bitter Crank
Quoting Bitter Crank
Thank you for the kind words. You provided a really good description of how I feel.
That's specifically why I said it was semantic, so let's clear it up. The only violations of the freedom individual human consciousness to express itself - however it sees fit, at anytime, and for whatever self generated purpose - that is permissible, are responses to exactly those violations of consciousness themselves. I am not free to strike you, I don't own your own consciousness, and you are an equal but opposite source of all possible ethical frameworks, meaning to violate you is an ethical violation in its source of origin. If I do violate your consciousness, you have an entitlement to violate mine to at least the point where the threat is no longer present.
I can't hit you. I hit you, you can hit me. Very simple.
This is, and always has been, the basic, interpersonal point of original contact, ethically. Any standard that violates this, is a crime against ethics, no way around it.
Great analogy. I'm careful of how I interact with the people I care about. I'm not as flippant as I used to be. It's not always about me, me, me. I think how what I say might affect them before I say something. Sometimes things need to be said however, someone's got to be the pack leader and keep things in check. Other times, it's better to just not say a word. Knowing when to say something and not say something is key.
Except my coworkers. I'll say anything to those assholes. Lazy POSs.
Certainly not obliged but wouldn't a friend do so anyway?
Oh, and it gets better, or worse. There's more to this story. Just going to leave it here for now.
Would you mind explaining to me why you think this is the case? I want to thank you for your patience because I know that I’m not entitled to your participation in this conversation. If my questions are a bit obnoxious I hope you’ll forgive me.
[quote=Hercule Poirot]Mon ami! it is a pleasure you find yourself on this page. enjoy the show and watch my little grey cells do their thinking.[/quote]
Yes, I am agree with you. A good friend would do it anyways. So, then, you do not have the quality of friendship you expected right?
Patience? I'm an ethical philosopher, this is what I live for, dude. Of course I'll tell you, and I welcome any challengers, and as many that want to contend with this ethical standard.
That being said, I won't hit you with the a full-throated epistemology. I'll give the basics, then see if you can find any way to consistently disagree with me that renders the principle negated, or not valid, or what have you.
The brain is the source of consciousness
Consciousness is the source of all concepts
All concepts are generated to inform behaviors
Concept informed behaviors are required for homeostasis
The human brain produces consciousness for the generation of concepts to achieve homeostasis
Given that one can accept this we can move to the good stuff.
If the Human Consciousness is the source of all concepts, and ethics is a concept
Then the Human Consciousness is the source of all ethical concepts
If the Human Consciousness is the source of all ethical concepts, and all concepts are generated to achieve homeostasis
Then all ethical concepts are generated to achieve homeostasis
If all ethical concepts are generated to achieve homeostasis, then all actions that threat homeostasis are a violation of ethical concepts
That's the just kind of the basic argument, we can totally argue it informally if you'd rather, this more loose formal. Keep in mind it's two for me, I am now hitting the sheets, and this could have flaws in it, I'll check when I get back, but tell me what you think just on this line of argumentation.
Like others have said, there is the sense of entitlement, as a cause for not reciprocating.
Another possibility is shame. If the person feels ashamed of asking for help, then they'll try to put the whole matter behind them as soon as possible. Showing gratitude, reciprocating, or just admitting to feeling ashamed of asking for help and receiving can be so overwhelming to a person's ego that they just won't do any of those things, because doing them would force them to face their dire situation and their helplessness.
Thirdly, if it's about a family member or another person with whom one has long-term ties, possibly over generations, then the matter is more complicated. Maybe someone on your side of the family did something wrong to someone on their side of the family, or their family helped yours in the past, but you don't know about any of this while the other person does. That can also explain such dynamics.
Question it based on what? Have they given any indication that they would say no? Or are you assuming this because they haven’t offered? They asked you for some money and you gave it. How exactly have they failed to meet this reciprocal expectation when you haven’t asked them for money?
Quoting Tex
Interesting. If the power was always in their favour, then it’s likely they got the impression you giving them money was serving some benefit to you, rather than being a favour to them. I don’t think you can really be upset that they didn’t see it as a favour to be reciprocated, when you worked so hard to avoid it being taken as such.
Either you gave the money freely or you did it as a favour. If it was a favour, then I think you need to be honest with yourself about that - and acknowledge that you gave them the wrong impression.
And now the boot is on the other foot and you will not humble yourself by asking for help.
Sorry, what was the question, again? Human nature?
First I would like to confess that I don’t really understand this notion of “homeostasis”. I would appreciate a definition. Second I must confess that I don’t see how B follows from A in this if A then B formulation.
the tendency toward a relatively stable equilibrium between interdependent elements, especially as maintained by physiological processes.
If consciousness' primary directive is to maintain homeostasis, and it does so by generating conceptual framework from sensory data integration, and all ethical systems are conceptual frameworks themselves, then any violation, or inflicted impairment of the homeostatic directive of the individual consciousness is by definition a violation of ethics at its emergent source, and of its emergent purpose.
People’s emotions and self- esteem are bound up with the meaning of money in powerful and very personal ways. It may be that your friend , after such a long time struggling financially, still feels financially vulnerable despite the windfall. Maybe they don’t trust their ability to hold onto the money, or fear some health or other sort of calamity will deplete their assets. You may simply be more confident about your relationship with money than they are.
Relative to what though?
Do you believe that all “ethical systems” are created equal?
Life-threatening, or potentially life-threatening homeostatic disruption, as is self-determined in relation to the nature of the elements and systems of which the human body is composed, and the nature of the same elementas and systems that comprise the domain of existence within which it is suspended.
No. Are all musical theories created equal? All sugical practices? All methods of discovery? Or, do we develop them endlessly in accordance with our endeavors, and our objective results within those domains of inquiry?
I'd say that latter is the clear understanding. However, it is clear that all ethical systems, and all conceptual frameworks of all kinds all come from the same species. Meaning, violating the entity with concept generation as an intrinsic element of its being, used to achieve homeostasis, is itself a violation of the ethical concept generator at its very source. Meaning such action cannot be ethically justified.
Quoting Garrett Travers
Quoting Garrett Travers
Correct me if I’m wrong but it seems like survival is the criterion you use to determine whether or not actions are justifiable. Also couldn’t an individual independently act in a way that “threatens homeostasis”?
Almost, that's certainly an element. However, I'm actually highlighting what ethics is in function, and why we evolved in us. Why we evolved it, was for, not just survival, but to achieve and maximize homeostasis. What it is in function is concept generation through accrual of sensory data of the world, that is then formulated into abstract standards of behavior that allow for better navigation of the world and it's different domains, respectively. Ethics is itself a conceptual formulation, one that applies to all domains of activity, or inquiry. Thus, the source of ethics is consciousness itself. What determines whether or not an action is ethical or not, is at base function homeostatic achievement and maximization of the self contained human from whence consciousness arises. But, as our minds accrue data, the domains into which ethical standards can be extended are expanded to include concepts like virtue, utility, hedonism, subjective experience, justice, community, and so on. It's why we don't hold children to standards they do not, or cannot conceptualize. And those who do are violators.
Quoting Average
Yes. In fact, that's a fundamental element in learing what ensures homeostasis, heavily reinforced by pleasure and pain functions of the brain. The brain actually uses the centers of the brain that compute pain to determine its own standards of pleasure. However, exploration leading to homeostatic threat is not a violation of human consciousness. A violation would imply the formulation of a concept that informs behavior predicated on threatening homeostasis, and committing to that action. Such concepts in action are inconsistent as regards private ethical action, and are unustifiable as regards interpersonal ethical interaction. And is fundamentally where all human problems come from that are not a result of non-concept generating aspects of nature: environmental stressors, animals, illness, etc.
It would appear so.
Good grief. Yeah, you nailed it, that's what I've been doing.
Quoting unenlightened
Never said I wouldn't.
Quoting unenlightened
Indeed.
But then again, repaying (although not asked to do so) would assuage that feeling.
Quoting baker
Could be, although I don't know where that sense of entitlement would come from. Seems illogical, but we're talking about people here.
Quoting baker
Definitely, in some cases. In this case however, there is only one side of the family.
Thank you for your thoughts.
I guess I'm making an inference. If the person's inclination is to not repay someone for their kindness, then it's possible they lack the kindness to otherwise give their resources.
Quoting Possibility
Right, but fundamentally a favor was done. Regardless of how it was presented, I don't understand how someone couldn't see it as such.
Quoting Possibility
Maybe so. Thank you for your thoughts.
I think that's definitely in play here.
Kindness is a gift, not a transaction - not an IOU. You can’t have it both ways - you can’t consider yourself to be generous and also expect to be repaid for it. That’s lending money, not giving it. You need to be honest about this.
Quoting Tex
No - if you want to give them money and present it as if you expect nothing in return, then it isn’t a favour, it’s a gift. If you want them to see it as a favour, then you need to stop pretending that you’re giving out of the goodness of your heart.
I don’t doubt that you’re heart is in the right place. You want to be kind and generous, but you also want to not be taken advantage of. You just need to understand the difference between a favour and a gift, and be honest with yourself about your intentions.
No. The psychological effect of debt and indebtedness can be overwhelming. It's not just about the money or particular favor per se. If one has received the money or the favor at a time when one was particularly vulnerable, then getting a sense of satisfaction by repaying it or returning the favor would only come if the other person would be in a similarly dire situation. Of course one doesn't wish that on them.
It's quite common. Especially younger generations were raised with an enormous sense of entitlement.
Now like you said I gave without any stipulations and I never asked for help myself and I didn't ask for the money back either
But when you see them after hot hearing from them for 6 months and they have a new car when just 6 months ago you were regularly giving them 500/600$ almost every month so that they could feed their families just to see them flaunting their new car like a baller, that kind of thing can rub you wrong
I've probably given 20k total to a handful of people in this past decade and not a single one of them has reciprocated in any way and that is something that just blows my mind about the human race.