Who needs friends, and how can one be sure they're sincere? One often-used strategy is to prioritize the needs of one's close friends and family, therefore subordinating one's own.
Only a true friendship will be possible until at least one of the buddies is a self-aware, intelligent person with a mental state. This need will be relevant whether it is one person's or a group of people.
The processes shouldn't rely on predefined results, as this may be seen as prompted by instinct. One must make a careful choice. As a final, surprising note, something is more "trustworthy" and "foreseeable" the less valuable it is. If someone constantly responds, in the same manner, to like circumstances without considering them, their behaviors would indeed be defined as "automated actions."
Reduced egotism, thoughtful and intelligent representatives, similar mental frameworks (which allow the friendship to be transmitted), and non-deterministic behavior—the outcome of continuous decision-making—must all be satisfied before a set of actions can be labeled as a "friendship."
These standards help one to analyze a connection both practically and generally. Testing a friendship is a difficult concept that requires many questions. Real friends would never doubt the dedication and devotion of their companions. One would find it difficult to see oneself as a friend of someone who purposefully tests one's closest buddy. However, for any member, for each "collective" of two or more people, events might challenge their relationship. Should he be in financial need, his friends would still assist even if he lacked the initiative or direct inquiry. Ultimately, the strength, depth, and tenacity of genuine relationships are determined by life rather than the companions themselves.
Talks about egoism vs selflessness often revolve around the intricacy between self-involvement and self-welfare. If persuaded to act in his self-interest, someone's long-term self-welfare might suffer. Although certain hobbies and behaviors could meet immediate needs—self-involvement—they might have negative consequences for the person's long-term health and happiness. Egoism should, therefore, be seen as the active search for one well-being rather than as the pursuit of one's self-interest. One must ensure that one's present (self-interest) and future (self-welfare) aspirations are balanced to be considered an egoist. Apart from that, if he puts his short-term benefit at the expense of others and the surroundings, he resembles an animal more than an egoist.
During our socializing process, we all come across messages regarding compassion. We absorb them (some to the extent that they become a natural part of our consciousness, our highest ego. We also absorb the fury of society for those who aren't "social" enough, won't conform, are "too" independent, are "also" quirky or eccentric, aren't conformist enough, are selfish or self-centered, etc. The complete absence of charity is "bad" and calls for a "penalty" for that reason. This is not a situation when one responds to allegations from an outside ethical authority by periodically applying reason as needed. All this—criticism and censure, humiliation and revenge—emerges from within. Whenever someone tells himself he hasn't been selfless "enough," he is anxious because of the forthcoming consequences. A person's engagement in unselfish acts results from his social training, which he applies to conquer or escape this worry. Implementing the Butler plan should, first and most importantly, help you to avoid cognitive dissonance and the pain it produces. Acting selflessly will help to accomplish tasks. The second-degree need is devoting one's time, money, and effort to let others satisfy their first-degree demand. Nobody volunteers with the impoverished because he wants them to be better off or with hunger relief; he doesn't want other people to be hungry.
People do these apparent acts of kindness to escape the terrible ideas racing through their minds and the paralyzing worry accompanying them. We call successful brainwashing benevolence. The degree of an individual's socializing, the rigor of their formal education, the depth of their childhood events, and the power of their superego determine inversely proportional their inclination to be selfless giving. Those who are self-reliant and content with themselves tend to exhibit fewer of these actions.
Here, we see the cultural self-involvement at work: helping others increases everyone's quality of life. It lowers public opinion, steadies people and society, and reorders resources more equally. Dynamic tax obligation systems are selfless and efficiently tackle market imperfections. The objective of society's self-involvement is to deter people from acting in their best interest. There are many schools of wisdom and theories. One might group them in many ways:
One school of view says that society will suffer the more individuals follow their own self-interest rather than the other way around. Though this simple, understandable idea needs no justification, "much better off" is an entirely different issue. Many moral absolutist theories and religious traditions support this perspective.
Those who think that the degree of satisfaction of the individual interests of its members will determine how fully a society will grow. People unintentionally join a great effort to better their civilization as they aim tirelessly to maximize their energy, pleasure, and returns (revenues). The market and price structure are the main instruments available for this aim.
One should carefully balance those who believe in public and exclusive self-involvement. Although many people will not be able to get complete satisfaction from their self-involvement, they may come near. Culture can only partially trample on civil liberties to self-fulfillment, wide-ranging acquisition, and the search for pleasure. It has no option but to embrace a degree of self-involvement below optimum.
