Is this an epistemic paradox?

jancanc September 06, 2017 at 15:26 2875 views 5 comments

Altruistic conduct can be helpful or harmful for an individual depending on whether an individual has the capacity to attain a Buddhist-type salvation (through renouncing the will to life). Personal suffering is a necessary requisite for salvation (for those who have the capacity to attain salvation).

Case 1: One has the capacity to attain salvation: In this case, altruistic conduct is not helpful since it removes suffering. It impedes the attainment of salvation (by removing suffering).
Case 2: One does not have the capacity to attain salvation: in this case, altruistic conduct is helpful (the removal of suffering will not hinder the individual since the individual will not reach salvation).

Does it then follow that this is an epistemic paradox?: how does an altruistic person know that the
person one “helps” via altruistic conduct action is not thereby being hindered with respect to their path to salvation?

Comments (5)

Mr Bee September 06, 2017 at 16:02 #102891 0 likes

Is altruistic action necessarily mutually exclusive with inflicting harm though? If the intent of causing suffering in others is so that they too can achieve salvation, then I don't see why that can't be considered selfless. It is only when the intent was selfish that we don't have altruism, but such intent need not be present in the above, at least as I conceive it.

szardosszemagad September 06, 2017 at 19:16 #102956 0 likes

Reply to jancanc Your description is not a paradox A paradox is a statetement that has a truth value of "true", but having a truth value of "true" immeditely turns it into a statement with a truth value of "false", which immediately turns it into a statement with a truth value of "true", and so on. A famous paradox is this:

"I am lying to you now."

The scenario you described with an altruistic figure and a sufferer who can / cannot attain salvation, however, can be turned into a paradox. Thus:

Suppose B can attain salvation. A is an altruistic person. So A tortures B to help him get salvation. B, while he is being tortured, is happy for it, for he feels he is getting closer to salvation. But he is not; because he is enjoying the imminence of salvation so much, that he is not suffering. But because he is not suffering, he is not getting closer to salvation; so A must torture B even more cruelly and painfully. ETC.

szardosszemagad September 06, 2017 at 19:21 #102960 0 likes

By-the-by, what does "epistemic" mean? Sounds delicious. "The Lord Bishop had an epistemic liver pate served up for us at high tea."

jancanc September 07, 2017 at 05:51 #103094 0 likes

Thanks for both answers! I agree, it is hard to see how that is exactly a paradox in the proper sense of the word. Epistemic just means related to knowledge. I guess this "paradox" of sorts hinges on we can't know ahead of time whether or not any particular person has the capacity to attain salvation.
Mr Bee you are correct: altruistic action is not necessarily mutually exclusive with inflicting harm.

It's like this whole issue of Buddhist ethics: they say be compassionate yet at the same time renounce life? How can we be compassionate and renounce life at the same time?? Thanks again!

szardosszemagad September 07, 2017 at 06:53 #103110 0 likes

Quoting jancanc

be compassionate yet at the same time renounce life? How can we be compassionate and renounce life at the same time??

Renouncing life can mean two things: 1. verbally declaring that life is not worth living or 2. Verbally and in actions declaring and following up that life is not worth living. Thus,

under 2 you may want to starve yourself to death or give up all your worldly possessions, and

under 1 you provide lip service for OTHERS to give up all worldly possession and to commit suicide, while you immerse yourself in hedonistic or intellectual pleasure and unprecedented wealth.

Under 2 it is impossible to renounce life and be compassionate.

But under 1 it is possible.