Shaya, Objectivism and Kindness

[studiodekadent]

As you said, and I mentioned in the opening post, this story is really sappy. It is probably an email that was polished over time while going from one person to another. Now let us suppose that it is false and actually is a parable-like tale. How would you rate it according to the following value?

"Art is a selective recreation of reality according to an artist's metaphysical value judgments."

Michael

Well, even though I am not someone that agrees with much of Objectivist aesthetics, I do agree that art conveys values or disvalues (in the sense of "dark art" the authors disvalues (but more horrors, fears, strong hates etc.) are conveyed). In that story, I see the following traits are implied as values/virtues from some perspectives:

Shaya valued being in the group, just like other kids, etc. He valued normality. Whilst I dont agree with normality per se as a value, from Shaya's context normality means having no learning difficulties, so as such you could say that Shaya was valuing the right thing (a fully-functional mind).

His father valued his son's happiness. Thats the right thing to value from a benevolent-egoist perspective.

As for the team I cannot see what they valued for my aforementioned reasons.

Now, the question then is what are implications about the author's values? The obvious implication is the author considers benevolence a virtue. Whether or not he considers Altruism (meant here in the Comtean sense) good is not clear since as I said the players did not necessarily sacrifice. "Kindness to the weak" is not inherently altruistic since an act of kindness is not necessarily either 1) a sacrifice or 2) the valuing of the pathetic over the competent. One can perform an act of kindness to someone that they do not personally value and that is not necessarily a sacrifice at all (i.e. a comfortable person making a modest donation to a charity). In addition, some people can be rendered 'pathetic' through no fault of their own, so being nice to them is not intrinsically glorifying patheticness.

The ultimate question is why are people generally nice to eachother? (I mean, why do we not wish sufferring on everyone we meet, etc)... I think Hume's speculations may be correct here in that there is some sort of evolutionarily-wired empathy in people that was helpful during our past. Of course we are now out of the caves so a new reason for this 'generally being nice' had to be found, I think David Kelley was pretty much correct in Unrugged Individualism. We treat people nicely because we hope if misfortune befalls us they would do the same. Ultimately benevolence is like a social 'insurance policy.'

[Mike11]

Since I seem to be hell-bent on getting people pissed off by checking premises that are best left unchecked and the idea of art came up. let's check that premise, too.

As you said, and I mentioned in the opening post, this story is really sappy. It is probably an email that was polished over time while going from one person to another. Now let us suppose that it is false and actually is a parable-like tale. How would you rate it according to the following value?

"Art is a selective recreation of reality according to an artist's metaphysical value judgments."

Michael

The story originated from an article written in one of those "Chicken Soup" books by a Rabbi. Altruism is something I like within Judaism.

Sometimes I feel like making the paragraphs long English/Randian translations. Sometimes I just like speaking English.

MSK is right in that the nature of the activity changed from playing a competitive sport to wanting to give one of the kids a moment of excitement. This is important.

There is a trend in Objectivism being seen in this discussion, a mechanism that requires all situations to be easily converted to one general rule or be rejected. That is how this story can become "You would have us all on the level of RETARDS!?" Not that I don't love the insistence on such politically incorrect terms. It speaks to an inability to handle difference. Ego stroking may be good in some situations, like if I pay people smarter than me to make a new kind of steel, it may not be the most desired behavior in other situations. Rand had this idea that a life must be defined by some central rule, that is the mistake that leads to these zero sum one dimensional games.

Life is not simple. Things are not Black or White. Right choices are contextual and contradictory outside these contexts.

But then, I am here to rob you of your Reality, Reason and Rights!

Fear me, I'm very dangerous.

One of the early hypnotists, I think it was Braide, defined it as monoideasm, a fixation on only one thought and one interpretation of the world. Objectivists display this as much as the next faith community.

[Brant Gaede]

Joel: "Things are not Black or White," except, it seems, this statement.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Brant,

LOL...

You are right. I'm not sure if Joel meant that black and white don't exist or that many things very idealistic people call black and white are, in reality, shades of gray. I suspect he meant the latter, but I will let him speak for himself.

Like the saying goes, you can't be just a little pregnant. You either are or you are not. So some things are black or white.

I actually take the color metaphor one step further and say that not only are there shades of gray, there is an entire rainbow of colors that needs to be seen in identifying and judging things.

Michael

[Alfonso Jones]

Reflecting on this thread...

One of the things which was surely not Rand's explicit intention (based on what she wrote) but which seems quite common among Objectivists is what I would term a "fear of benevolence." That is, many Objectivists seem to express the need to explain or otherwise qualify their motivations for simple acts of benevolence toward other humans. (At least - I see the explaining and qualifying happening quite often here and elsewhere.)

Test question: You see an elderly person who needs help to safely cross the street. You do not know the person. Would you help them? It will take perhaps 2 minutes or less of your time.

I can imagine some possible responses:

1) What might I gain from doing so? How is it in my interest? I would only do so if . . .

2) Of course I would help them if it was reasonably possible. (If I were running to get to my 2 year old who was standing by the side of the street and fearful he/she might step into the street, I would not.) Etc...

(I'm not commenting pro or con on either #1 or #2 - just musing on the fact that such responses seem to be viewed as needed before discussing a simple act of kindness.)

(Who knows what response I would have gotten if I had mentioned a baby in the wilderness...)

If one needs positive examples in Rand's writing, they are not that hard to come by. Look at the Roark/Mallory relationship, for example. Or Roark/Mike. Or the gatherings in Galt's Gulch. Look at Rearden's evolving relationship with the "Wet Nurse."

There is no need to feel embarrassed about such things. (I'm going to have to reread Kelley's short piece on benevolence.) We can value having others around do well and prosper. I do. I'm not talking not having the right to live unless we take actions to support others doing well! I'm talking about wishing others well and engaging in acts of kindness and benevolence.

Now, for the record - I'm not imputing motives to ANYBODY on OL. I'm just marveling at the way we talk, so often.

Bill P (Alfonso)

[BaalChatzaf]

"

There is no need to feel embarrassed about such things. (I'm going to have to reread Kelley's short piece on benevolence.) We can value having others around do well and prosper. I do. I'm not talking not having the right to live unless we take actions to support others doing well! I'm talking about wishing others well and engaging in acts of kindness and benevolence.

Now, for the record - I'm not imputing motives to ANYBODY on OL. I'm just marveling at the way we talk, so often.

Bill P (Alfonso)

I think you are on point with this observation. I decided (for myself) not to regret or denigrate the occasional unsolicited decent impulse that overcomes me or to find a "good reason" (meaning a selfish or logical reason) for having it. Such impulses occur. They even happen to plus nine Aspberger people like myself. It is one thing to have a kind inclination and to rejoice in the well being of others (even strangers) and another thing to wreck one's life in subordinating one's good to that of others. What is even worse, some people beat themselves up for seeking their own good in the first place. This is just plain crazy. I have concluded, at last, it is possible to be a good neighbor without being an altruist.

I have a speculation, so take it for what it is worth. I think that many people who latch on to Ayn Rand try to suppress their innate goodness because they believe they are falling short of the ideals that Rand advocated. This is an unintended side effect of her advocacy. Even a smart cookie such as I am fell into a similar trap. For years I felt that to be a person of Reason, I had to come up with logical reasons for EVERYTHING I do or feel. That is too much to expect.

Sometimes we actually do the right thing for no good reason. Sometimes. That is our nature.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[georgedonnelly]

Did the boys playing baseball really give up a value by allowing Shaya to play (and let him feel "normal" for a few minutes)?

Perhaps those boys wanted to continue playing their best until the end of the game. Perhaps they wanted to contest the game till the last strike of the last inning. But when the boy and his father walked up, maybe they felt obligated to cooperate. Or perhaps they felt guilty about not suffering from a learning disablity. If this is the case, then yes, they did sacrifice.

The ultimate question is why are people generally nice to eachother? ... We treat people nicely because we hope if misfortune befalls us they would do the same. Ultimately benevolence is like a social 'insurance policy.'

A person has the potential to become more productive as his network of acquaintances grows. These aquaintances with whom one maintains relationships characterized by benevolence are potential business partners, customers, mentors and friends. Thought of this way, benevolence can be a value that follows inevitably once one accepts the idea of valuing oneself over others.

There is a trend in Objectivism being seen in this discussion, a mechanism that requires all situations to be easily converted to one general rule or be rejected.

Are you referring to the concept of reducing things to their essentials? That's an important thinking tool.

Rand had this idea that a life must be defined by some central rule, that is the mistake that leads to these zero sum one dimensional games.

Isn't your below statement a "central rule" that "defines life"?

Life is not simple. Things are not Black or White. Right choices are contextual and contradictory outside these contexts.

One of the early hypnotists, I think it was Braide, defined it as monoideasm, a fixation on only one thought and one interpretation of the world. Objectivists display this as much as the next faith community.

So you are insinuating that Objectivism is a religion? Is that your point?

Do you mean monoideism ("a state of prolonged absorption in a single idea, as in mental depression, trance, hypnosis")?

One of the things which was surely not Rand's explicit intention (based on what she wrote) but which seems quite common among Objectivists is what I would term a "fear of benevolence." That is, many Objectivists seem to express the need to explain or otherwise qualify their motivations for simple acts of benevolence toward other humans.

You see this in Atlas Shrugged, especially in negotiations between Dagny and Hank. In an altruistic environment it can be necessary to explain that your motivation is not altruistic, so people don't get the wrong idea. The only fear it is related to is a fear of being misunderstood.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

"

There is no need to feel embarrassed about such things. (I'm going to have to reread Kelley's short piece on benevolence.) We can value having others around do well and prosper. I do. I'm not talking not having the right to live unless we take actions to support others doing well! I'm talking about wishing others well and engaging in acts of kindness and benevolence.

Now, for the record - I'm not imputing motives to ANYBODY on OL. I'm just marveling at the way we talk, so often.

Bill P (Alfonso)

I think you are on point with this observation. I decided (for myself) not to regret or denigrate the occasional unsolicited decent impulse that overcomes me or to find a "good reason" (meaning a selfish or logical reason) for having it. Such impulses occur. They even happen to plus nine Aspberger people like myself. It is one thing to have a kind inclination and to rejoice in the well being of others (even strangers) and another thing to wreck one's life in subordinating one's good to that of others. What is even worse, some people beat themselves up for seeking their own good in the first place. This is just plain crazy. I have concluded, at last, it is possible to be a good neighbor without being an altruist.

I have a speculation, so take it for what it is worth. I think that many people who latch on to Ayn Rand try to suppress their innate goodness because they believe they are falling short of the ideals that Rand advocated. This is an unintended side effect of her advocacy. Even a smart cookie such as I am fell into a similar trap. For years I felt that to be a person of Reason, I had to come up with logical reasons for EVERYTHING I do or feel. That is too much to expect.

Sometimes we actually do the right thing for no good reason. Sometimes. That is our nature.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Bob,

Dammit, that did it.

After a post like that, I cannot in good conscious keep your participation on OL on moderation.

Besides, it's a pain to go around approving posts. I dislike that task enormously. It seems somehow undignified.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I'm talking about wishing others well and engaging in acts of kindness and benevolence.

Bill,

This is essentially a sense of life issue (or basic attitude, or temperament, or whatever you want to call it). I know that I like being around people like that and I hold high value in trying to be that way in my personal life.

I also notice that people who value this greatly, and those who preach the virtue of being that way, usually do very well in life. When you look at them, in addition to having abundance of all good things, they are generally happy and fulfilled people.

I have come to a personal decision with respect to Objectivism. It is possible to agree with Objectivism and also hold as a virtue "wishing others well and engaging in acts of kindness and benevolence."

That's the way I intend to practice it (and actually do). That's the way I intend to explain it to others. Call it my brand of Objectivism. (Or the brand of anyone who agrees with me.)

btw - This has no essential relationship with my inquiry although there is a connecting point. But I am curious qua curious as to why and how kindness increases serotonin levels and makes you feel good.

Michael

[studiodekadent]

Did the boys playing baseball really give up a value by allowing Shaya to play (and let him feel "normal" for a few minutes)?

Perhaps those boys wanted to continue playing their best until the end of the game. Perhaps they wanted to contest the game till the last strike of the last inning. But when the boy and his father walked up, maybe they felt obligated to cooperate. Or perhaps they felt guilty about not suffering from a learning disablity. If this is the case, then yes, they did sacrifice.

Im not denying the possibility of altruism, Im saying that the actions of these boys cannot be automatically assumed to be altruistic. Thats all.

[Newberry]

MSK: I have come to a personal decision with respect to Objectivism. It is possible to agree with Objectivism and also hold as a virtue "wishing others well and engaging in acts of kindness and benevolence."

That's the way I intend to practice it (and actually do). That's the way I intend to explain it to others. Call it my brand of Objectivism. (Or the brand of anyone who agrees with me.)

This is very simple. There is no debate with anyone here about being kind or benevolent. The argument is that the the story was not a good example of it. The story is a typical altruistic morality tale. Fitting the whole story into Objectivist ethics is like fitting a oversize square block into a round hole.

BTW, you qualify it in the begging of the thread, but many of us chose to take the story in total, at face value.

Michael

Edited June 12, 2008 by Newberry

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

This is very simple. There is no debate with anyone here about being kind or benevolent. The argument is that the the story was not a good example of it. The story is a typical altruistic morality tale. Fitting the whole story into Objectivist ethics is like fitting a oversize square block into a round hole.

BTW, you qualify it in the begging of the thread, but many of us chose to take the story in total, at face value.

Michael,

That's strange, because it looked to me like you chose to ignore my qualification and the ideas I brought up for discussion (i.e., did not take my post "in total"). In fact, I was discussing precisely "being kind or benevolent." In further fact, I am flabbergasted that you can read my discussion of serotonin and kindness, even in the opening post, ignore it (blank it out?) and proclaim "There is no debate with anyone here about being kind or benevolent."

That only happens to be what I was talking about. I was very clear about it. You chose to ignore that.

Elevation of serotonin with kindness is on a reality level. As to the story itself, I was, and am, curious about why such a tale causes a strong emotional reaction—a benevolent one—in so many people. I am not so much interested in altruism, or why, maybe, that dangerous "altruistic morality tale" turns people into second-handed looters and needs to be ignored and belittled at all costs. I am not interested in that because I simply do not believe it.

There is much more operating than an oversimplification based on Objectivist jargon or oversimplification in general and, as an artist in my own right (or in my own write ), I am interested in why such a sappy tale is so powerful with so many people. I am curious about what is operating and how it operates.

At this time and on this issue, I am more interested in analyzing and learning than preaching and bashing. I guess it's a matter of choosing the selective reality I choose. I call it getting the cognitive part right in order to instruct my normative abstractions.

Do you have any thoughts on serotonin elevation with kindness? Or do you prefer to continue bashing altruism as your idea of contributing to the discussion?

If you do, here are my thoughts. I think altruism as a philosophical system is evil for a variety of reasons, but mainly because it does not encourage greatness in human striving and achievement. In fact, taken to an extreme, it trashes human greatness. Anything you want to add or teach me about altruism?

Michael

[Newberry]

Okay. I will roll you a nice, soft pitch. I feel sorry for the slow boy.

[Judith]

Dyer's tale makes sense to me. The boys can play baseball any day. Here, they suddenly found themselves in an extraordinary situation, an exciting situation that was building toward a climax. One thing led to another. They realized that they had an opportunity to provide this kid with an amazing experience, and, through him, they could experience it vicariously. It was enormously exciting. They went for it. How much more exciting it was than an ordinary baseball game! Bravos all around. Everybody is happy. Everybody wins. It's one of those moments everyone remembers for the rest of their lives.

I don't see any altruism or sacrifice anywhere. I can see serotonin flying freely.

Judith

[Brant Gaede]

Dyer's tale makes sense to me. The boys can play baseball any day. Here, they suddenly found themselves in an extraordinary situation, an exciting situation that was building toward a climax. One thing led to another. They realized that they had an opportunity to provide this kid with an amazing experience, and, through him, they could experience it vicariously. It was enormously exciting. They went for it. How much more exciting it was than an ordinary baseball game! Bravos all around. Everybody is happy. Everybody wins. It's one of those moments everyone remembers for the rest of their lives.

I don't see any altruism or sacrifice anywhere. I can see serotonin flying freely.

Thanks for being kind to Michael, Judith. I finally got a tear in my eye!

--Brant

[Mike11]

Dyer's tale makes sense to me. The boys can play baseball any day. Here, they suddenly found themselves in an extraordinary situation, an exciting situation that was building toward a climax. One thing led to another. They realized that they had an opportunity to provide this kid with an amazing experience, and, through him, they could experience it vicariously. It was enormously exciting. They went for it. How much more exciting it was than an ordinary baseball game! Bravos all around. Everybody is happy. Everybody wins. It's one of those moments everyone remembers for the rest of their lives.

I don't see any altruism or sacrifice anywhere. I can see serotonin flying freely.

Judith

I approve this post.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Judith,

Wow. That was unexpected.

We think exactly alike on this. I am delighted someone else more inside Objectivism saw what I saw.

Okay. I will roll you a nice, soft pitch. I feel sorry for the slow boy.

Michael,

There is a misunderstanding here. You act like you think I am still playing a competitive sport (like put-downs or one-upmanship, for instance). I stopped playing a while back, roughly a couple of months before the old SoloHQ split.

But if you want to go with the competitive sport idea, you are playing the wrong game right now. I have not read anywhere about pity causing serotonin elevation. Kindness does that. The game (if you must play something) is kindness, not pity.

Michael

[georgedonnelly]

Thanks for being kind to Michael, Judith. I finally got a tear in my eye!

*speechless with laughter*

I crown you resident comedian at OL. Seriously, nicely played.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Brant rocks.

You can refine quality, but you can't teach it.

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

Repeating the whole post because of the length of the intervening queue:

Reflecting on this thread...

One of the things which was surely not Rand's explicit intention (based on what she wrote) but which seems quite common among Objectivists is what I would term a "fear of benevolence." That is, many Objectivists seem to express the need to explain or otherwise qualify their motivations for simple acts of benevolence toward other humans. (At least - I see the explaining and qualifying happening quite often here and elsewhere.)

Test question: You see an elderly person who needs help to safely cross the street. You do not know the person. Would you help them? It will take perhaps 2 minutes or less of your time.

I can imagine some possible responses:

1) What might I gain from doing so? How is it in my interest? I would only do so if . . .

2) Of course I would help them if it was reasonably possible. (If I were running to get to my 2 year old who was standing by the side of the street and fearful he/she might step into the street, I would not.) Etc...

(I'm not commenting pro or con on either #1 or #2 - just musing on the fact that such responses seem to be viewed as needed before discussing a simple act of kindness.)

(Who knows what response I would have gotten if I had mentioned a baby in the wilderness...)

If one needs positive examples in Rand's writing, they are not that hard to come by. Look at the Roark/Mallory relationship, for example. Or Roark/Mike. Or the gatherings in Galt's Gulch. Look at Rearden's evolving relationship with the "Wet Nurse."

There is no need to feel embarrassed about such things. (I'm going to have to reread Kelley's short piece on benevolence.) We can value having others around do well and prosper. I do. I'm not talking not having the right to live unless we take actions to support others doing well! I'm talking about wishing others well and engaging in acts of kindness and benevolence.

Now, for the record - I'm not imputing motives to ANYBODY on OL. I'm just marveling at the way we talk, so often.

Bill P (Alfonso)

Bill,

You're talking about something I've noticed for years and years. I describe it as Objectivists having the opposite problem from Christians. Christians have to justify to themselves doing something "just for themselves." Objectiists have to justify to themselves doing something "just for someone else."

It was exactly this issue which was the source of my entry into listland, back in late 1998. Joshua Zader wanted to have a structured discussion of David Kelley's Unrugged Individualism on the Cornell-L list, of which Joshua was co-moderater with Kirez Korgan, the list owner.

I'd previously commented to Joshua about finding the tit-for-(possible long-range)-tat approach David takes in Unrugged Individualism stretching for "justification." (Evolutionarily, I think there's something in this, but on a gene-complex level: the better chances of propagation in a gene pool of a certain percentage of "cooperator genes," speaking there very loosely, since the translation of genes into behavior is quite complex).

Joshua wanted to hear my opinions of what people said in his proposed structured discussion. The discussion soon evaporated. People had other issues they wanted to talk about. Meanwhile, I'd become intrigued by the list dynamics. And the rest is history.

Ellen

___

Edited June 13, 2008 by Ellen Stuttle

[Barbara Branden]

Judith and Bill, I was delighted to read your last posts. I agree with them totally.

If someone had asked the boys on the baseball teams why they were so craven as to sacrifice their own interests and their own pleasure to the interests of the retarded boy, they would not have known what the questioner was talking about. They would have known only that they had a wonderful and fulfilling day. And although they might not have had the words to name it, they would have been experiencing the emotional rewards of benevolence.

How could we bear to live in this world, a world so scarred with suffering and unhappiness, if we did not sometimes witness the happiness of others? It's emotional fuel, it is the experience of what is possible to us. We need to see it. And how can it be wrong to help create it in others? The cost of losing a baseball game is surely not a high price to pay.

Barbara

[Alfonso Jones]

Judith and Bill, I was delighted to read your last posts. I agree with them totally.

If someone had asked the boys on the baseball teams why they were so craven as to sacrifice their own interests and their own pleasure to the interests of the retarded boy, they would not have known what the questioner was talking about. They would have known only that they had a wonderful and fulfilling day. And although they might not have had the words to name it, they would have been experiencing the emotional rewards of benevolence.

How could we bear to live in this world, a world so scarred with suffering and unhappiness, if we did not sometimes witness the happiness of others? It's emotional fuel, it is the experience of what is possible to us. We need to see it. And how can it be wrong to help create it in others? The cost of losing a baseball game is surely not a high price to pay.

Barbara

Barbara -

Thanks. Continuing to imagine based on personal experience in my own (distant) youth, I imagine the boys, if so asked, would have said something like . . . "We did it because we wanted to." As you say - they would not have understand the attempted and false distinction by the hypothetical question-asker.

I can remember in my youth living in the north for a brief time, and getting my first personal experience with racism. I responded (as a 7th grader) with vigorous opposition to the notion. The assistant principal commended me, and mouthed a bunch of nonsense about motivations he attributed to me. My motivations which I voiced (as well as I can recall them, thinking back 40+ years!) were more like (but not in these words!) "This is wrong, to judge people by the color of their skin! And I'm not going to be silent about it if some idiot does it, even if some of the teachers are siding with the idiots!" The notion that I was engaged in some noble act of self-sacrifice was not something which had occurred to me, and I rejected it on the spot.

Why is it so hard for so many in O-land to simply say that they wish fellow humans well, and are willing to take modest steps, at least, to help them? Not that they OWE their fellow humans those step as a price of being in the human community, but that it is a very natural reaction to the humanity of the other - and that it is possible to derive happiness/joy from acting in such a way?

Bill P (Alfonso)

Edited June 13, 2008 by Bill P

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

My serotonin level is rising.

Michael

[Newberry]

I understood both Barbara's and Judith's posts. And I do have the opposite view for a couple of reasons: watch an excellent athlete practicing, especially when they are young and feel that they have to do everything to improve themselves. Out of that group of boys, there would have been at least one, if not several, that would have felt let down and used by the father and their selfless teammates. If I were playing I would have quit the team, and gone on to another sport in which I could complete my heart out and enjoy the that exhilarating feeling. I might help out a lesser player and I have, but on my own conditions...but I can tell you the feeling doesn't come with in 1% of how awesome it feels when you are competing at your full limit.

So both from experience in watching other athletes in practice and in full on competition; watching great athletes give lessons; and from having taught every type of tennis player, having volunteered time to help out others, and from competing on a high level, that story is full of bull shit, suggesting that it is the way for young athletes to behave is, likewise, bullshit, and that it would be the happiest day of their lives is pure nonsense to a real athlete. So in that story, what is left out is not the indifferent kid, but the one that really cares about the sport--which Barbara, Judith, and Michael don't comprehend.

Let me change it around for Judith and Barbara. I can't sing nor carry a tune. Lets say I was 12 and my dad took me to a Met rehearsal and interrupted for an hour so that his tone deaf son could learn to sing on the stage. No that isn't right, lets say a highschool chorus--I can't imagine a worse night mare than to listening to a tone deaf person for more than five seconds, but imagine taking an hour away from the 20 or so people in the choir--it ain't going to happen, it is not based on reality, it is not a prescript to how to do it right.

No offense intended.

I do wonder of those that relate to the story whether your childhood upbringing had religious or altruistic overtones? Mine didn't.

Michael

Edited June 13, 2008 by Newberry

[Ellen Stuttle]

I do wonder of those that relate to the story whether your childhood upbringing had religious or altruistic overtones? Mine didn't.

Michael

I agree, Michael N., with your assessment of the non-reality of the story. I expressed doubt in my first post on this thread that the story was true. I think it was a made-up story trying to teach a morality lesson.

I don't agree with the morality lesson, either.

Still, I felt a twinge of "warmth" upon reading the story -- and not because of my having a religious or altruistic-overtoned upbringing. I think that I was really lucky in some ways in my upbringing.

The respect in which I agree with MSK is in wondering if there's some deeper-than-any-philosophic-views response which is triggered in many people by a story like that, even despite their doubt (my hunch is that most people would have doubt) that the story is a true one.

Ellen

___

Edited June 13, 2008 by Ellen Stuttle