link to original reddit post by /u/ihaphleas
This is a continuation of a post (What we owe each other) a few days ago. That is, it's some ramblings about ethics --- mostly ignoring the physical and focusing on sentiments.
Let's suppose that a man is (actively) good so far as he brings good into the world --- from our point of view at the moment, this simply means good sentiments to those he interacts with. (We're putting aside the possibility of of being "passively" good by simply "wanting" to bring good into the world.)
In each interaction, then, there are two persons. The man and the other. And they each have different sentiments regarding the interaction, which, at least for now, we have no way of comparing. That is, both can have positive sentiments, one positive and the other negative or vice versa, or both negative.
For our man, we might say an interaction is "self-good" when it produces a positive sentiment for the man. Similarly, the interaction is "other-good" if it produces a positive sentiment for the other. We can define "self-bad" and "other-bad" similarly.
We can say that an interaction is "all good" if it produces positive sentiments for both the man and the other --- that is, it is both "self-good" and "other-good."
We can say that an interaction is "all bad" if it is both "self-bad" and "other-bad."
Notice now, we said that a man is good so far as he brings good into the world. But he is himself half of every interaction he has. Without providing some way of comparing the positive and negative sentiments (which would have to be subjective anyway), we can only be sure that our man is producing good (being good) when his interactions are "all good," that is, both "self-good" and "other-good" or producing positive sentiments for both him and the other.
Let's take a look at the people that others "call" "good." In the current world, we generally call a person "good" if they have done a lot of good for other people. This makes sense, because we cannot really see their inner states. But, with this terminology, we should call them "other-good" ... or just "good to others." However, again, they are half of every interaction they have --- and if those interactions are causing negative sentiments in them, they are not "all good," they are not being good to themselves.
Meanwhile, there are those that we might call "selfish." A person may call another "selfish" when an interaction has hurt them --- but they have no access to the other's internal state, the interaction (especially with the addition of "selfish") may have been negative for them too. However, let's go a bit deeper. It may be that person A wants a particular type of interaction, while person B doesn't. After this interaction, person A apparently has positive sentiments, while person B has negative sentiments. From person B's point of view, this seems like a "selfish" interaction for person A (i.e. A-good, B-bad). Person A, if they are aware of this, may be selfish. However, suppose person B rejects this interaction with person A in the future and person A seeks a similar interaction elsewhere, perhaps from person C.
Though, depending on cultural expectations and promises between A and B, A should inform B of this, B has no cause to call A "selfish." But this often occurs.
The point of the last example being that people will often call you "selfish" when you move on to have the interactions you want ... or to get away from negative interactions you are having with them.
This isn't selfish. Selfishness (at least in the "bad" sense) would be to continue to seek interactions which are self-good but other-bad.
Seeking interactions which are both good for the self and good for the other is simply good.
Notice how closely related this is to the "double thank you" of capitalism?
Comments, corrections, questions? Again, these are ramblings, please help me clean and refine them if you can.