Ethics, Religion, Hypnosis

[Simple Guy]

I recently attended a service (funeral) where the pastor, in asking
people to accept his message, used a sophisticated hypnosis based
process (I did not train him) to direct people to a decision of faith.
Also, happened to notice similar use on a television evanglist's
program (even more sophisticated with binaural beat music added).
In both cases, the process was clearly deliberate to me but
seamless enough to be undetectable to others.

Theology aside, what about ethics?

[Don]

I'm sorry, I don't understand the question. There are some people in religions who believe that they can do anything in order to get people to come to their religion. They are following this belief. What does this have to do with ethics?

[Simple Guy]

Don,

Fair enough question. The folks in the church and the viewers of the
television program didn't give permission for, nor were they aware that these
covert means of persuasion were being used. Therein, I believe,
lies the ethics issue. But, this might be the very point of your asking the
question. They may feel that the end justifies the means, but it doesn't
look to me that the means are being ethically used.

[Terry (existing)]

Hypnosis is communication with others. To be covert, it must be understood to be something other than natural don't you think? My training in hypnosis probably changed my way of thinking, so I might well find myself using techniques which I learned, without considering that I was being covert, and in fact was not, since it came naturally to me from part of my life's experiences....I have held conversations with people and later found that they had been changed in some way by our conversation, yet I had not intentionally used hypnosis....Did I covertly convert them? Some training for public speaking uses hypnotic techniques, but isn't hypnosis. Church music can be hypnotic, yet not written with the understanding that that is what it is.....Our art is a natural one, used in many ways, and for many purposes, but only becomes "hypnosis" when we use it intentionally as such. At least, that is my view, so in order to reply responsibly to that question, I would need to know the mind of the Pastor, or the fellow on the TV, and know it they were using these techniques in the full knowledge that they were hypnotic.......

[Don]

I would just say that your ethics are different than theirs.

In today's world, the two religions which have branches that support and encourage conversion by any means are Christianity and Islam. It sounds like your ethics do not agree with this policy.

[Unregistered]

To consider whether use of hypnotic technique is ethical in a particular situation, as Terry states, it would depend on the intent of the user. Pastors, like salesman, like other professionals, use what they believe to be good "salesmanship" without knowledge that anything they are doing may be "hypnosis", or particularly against the will of the listener.

On the other hand, if the intent is to convince someone of something, like how much they need a new auto, or, how they may benefit from a particular religion, then perhaps it is unethical, regardless of whether hypnosis is used, or a gun.

But, seems that our society thrives on unethical practices, as in T.V. commercials etc......

Nope, Pastors are no more unethical than any other individual with something to sell...

EC

[EC]

Yep,

That was me that posted that above. Seems that the computer decided I didn't want to logged in....

EC

[Charlie]

http://forum.hypnosis.com/images/icons/icon3.gif

Terry & EC seem to be on the right track.

Hypnosis is just everywhere!

And NLP has deconstructed so much of this persuasion stuff, it is quite extraordinary.

I'd 'suggest' that the more one learns about NLP the more one is protected from the un-ethically persuasive.

(Perhaps we need to ethically persuade more people to learn NLP.........?)

It's a funny old suggestible world, isn't it.

http://forum.hypnosis.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[Don]

I think you make a good point, Charlie.

Many people think they are above being taken advantage of through suggestive techniques because they are too smart, too strong-willed, to educated (in other areas), etc. These are people who are often the most suggestible.

The answer is teaching people about the specific techniques of suggestion. I was fortunate enough to have actually taken a class in 8th grade which disected advertising methods and revealed how they worked. Later, before the birth of NLP, while I was working doing telephone sales, the phone company(!) came in and gave a course on how to sell better on the phone, including the use of "magic" words and sales techniques which are analyzed more deeply in NLP theory today.

I don't know if persuading people to learn NLP is necessary, but certainly making people aware of how persuasiveness can be encouraged using communication techniques would be a good idea to include in the high school (or perhaps earlier) curriculum.

[Cassandra 8]

I think you make a good point, Charlie.

Many people think they are above being taken advantage of through suggestive techniques because they are too smart, too strong-willed, to educated (in other areas), etc. These are people who are often the most suggestible.This is why an undertsanding of the meta model is vitally important, isn't it Don.

[Neurotic1]

Interesting discussion about ethics. Ethicality is quite a strange concept because it tends to be applied verbally to some peoples actions and not others. For example, if a hypnotherapist gives someone advice on how to manage a medical issue, that may be seen to be 'unethical' (and unlawful in the USA). Whereas people would generally not apply the same term 'unethical' to a friend of that person who gave the same advice and to whom the person may pay more attention to. It seems to have a lot to do with positions of responsibility but then there in itself is another can of worms. I often find the term 'ethics' confusingly meaningless. I have my own beliefs about what is right or wrong. Who truly knows what is ethical or not?

[Charlie]

http://forum.hypnosis.com/images/icons/icon3.gif

Don, your comments make a lot of sense.

Also, since reading this thread, I can't help wondering WHY are we such a suggestible species? What are the origins of our suggestibility? What is the advantage of it?

( But perhaps such questions are for a different thread........ )

[Charlie]

if a hypnotherapist gives someone advice on how to manage a medical issue, that may be seen to be 'unethical' (and unlawful in the USA). Whereas people would generally not apply the same term 'unethical' to a friend of that person who gave the same advice and to whom the person may pay more attention to.

Ain't that the truth.

I've recently become slightly interested in vitamin supplements, and how they can be used to facilitate exercise ( e.g. endurance/recovery ).

And I've been amazed at the number of friends already asking me for advice on what supplement is best for this, and what supplement for that, and etc etc.

I have to remind people that a few days of researching vitamin supplements on the Internet does NOT make me a professional nutritional consultant!

[Cassandra 8]

Also, since reading this thread, I can't help wondering WHY are we such a suggestible species? What are the origins of our suggestibility? What is the advantage of it?We each live in our craniums -- a sort of prison cell where five unreliable witnesses come and shout things about the outside world through the bars. We process this information symbolically, entirely within our cell, without the ability to actually experience directly what's going on. This can lead to misunderstandings as we try to interpret incoming information, and this "feature" of cognition can be exploited. As to the evolutionary advantage of suggestability, well, if you're "on message" as a group you can do great (or terrible) things you never could alone. Stone Henge, the Saturn V, the Holocaust, etc.

[Terry (existing)]

Ain't that the truth.

I've recently become slightly interested in vitamin supplements, and how they can be used to facilitate exercise ( e.g. endurance/recovery ).

And I've been amazed at the number of friends already asking me for advice on what supplement is best for this, and what supplement for that, and etc etc.

I have to remind people that a few days of researching vitamin supplements on the Internet does NOT make me a professional nutritional consultant!
Yes Charlie, but it is so much easier to ask someone close by, instead of doing an investigation of your own isn't it? You see, we are all born with that strong desire for instant gratification, the difference between people is that some, once the intial gratification is satisfied, go on to investigate for themselves, while others just gather bits and pieces of information, some right, some wrong, and consider themselves well rounded in knowledge.....

[Charlie]

We each live in our craniums -- a sort of prison cell where five unreliable witnesses come and shout things about the outside world through the bars. We process this information symbolically, entirely within our cell, without the ability to actually experience directly what's going on. This can lead to misunderstandings as we try to interpret incoming information, and this "feature" of cognition can be exploited.

Well, yes, this concurs with the NLP perpsective re generalise/delete/distort etc.

As to the evolutionary advantage of suggestability, well, if you're "on message" as a group you can do great (or terrible) things you never could alone. Stone Henge, the Saturn V, the Holocaust, etc.

So you are suggesting that suggestibility has tribal origins?

Well, I guess that could be part of it, maybe even a big part of it, as language developed.

Certainly those in thrall to powerful leaders often seem to use words about their leader like 'mesmerising', 'charming', 'enticing', 'persuasive' etc. They can even be heard to say of such a leader that 'he/she has an almost hypnotic personality'.

At least so I've seen/heard on various TV documentaries about the psychology of leadership & mass control.

Aren't we lucky to have the benefit of psychology to look back in hindsight at human history? and maybe even wonder how might some of it have been different if more people had an awareness of psychology at that time, not least hypnotic processes.

I guess this also ties in with Don's earlier comments re: "certainly making people aware of how persuasiveness can be encouraged using communication techniques would be a good idea to include in the high school (or perhaps earlier) curriculum."

[Charlie]

Yes Charlie, but it is so much easier to ask someone close by, instead of doing an investigation of your own isn't it? You see, we are all born with that strong desire for instant gratification, the difference between people is that some, once the intial gratification is satisfied, go on to investigate for themselves, while others just gather bits and pieces of information, some right, some wrong, and consider themselves well rounded in knowledge.....

Well, yes, I guess it's true that we are all born with that strong desire for instant gratification. I guess it could also be argued that the consumer culture of western society also encourages the excessive continuation of instant gratification in the adult population, regretably.

I know I've often fallen prey to this myself ( - damn those credit cards! <g> )

[Cassandra 8]

Certainly those in thrall to powerful leaders often seem to use words about their leader like 'mesmerising', 'charming', 'enticing', 'persuasive' etc. They can even be heard to say of such a leader that 'he/she has an almost hypnotic personality'.

At least so I've seen/heard on various TV documentaries about the psychology of leadership & mass control.Indeed. Hitler, for instance, learned crowd manipulation "on the hoof" as it were, by doing it. His staff helped him learn what works and what doesn't, and in doing so founded propaganda theory. In one speech he basically just stood there looking cross for twenty minutes while everyone went fully into trance trying to figure out what came next before he talked them into a frenzy of hate. The evil, evil swine. Can you imagine weilding that power over people, but for good, without wanting anything for yourself?

To be technical for a moment, the underlying principles that allow suggestion to work its magic are the split between the conscious and unconscious, access to the cognitive styles we develop in childhood and what's become grouped and known as Gestalt Psychology (Upon which is NLP partly built). Others will know these by other names and groupings, so don't lets get on my case about terms. Learning to fully exploit the mechanisms these interlocked conceptual units embody is, I suppose, a little like learning to hack into a big, wet, floppy, non-deterministic computer -- a thinking machine if you will -- and making changes to the operating system in the absense of competent systems adninistration staff. On a sociological scale, you can move nations to war, peace, or even the purchase of a soft drink with mere words and semi-understood ones at that. Just as long as you remember never to invade Russia. It's far too big. :)

Sorry to be belicose, but I'm listening to Beethoven's 9th and it's magnificent!

[Neurotic1]

I have been considering ethics again. I am speculating that two of the main issues in ethics might be (1) Some people in a position of trust/authority/power/influence seek to deliberately satisfy their own desires/outcomes through other people without informing the other people (usually this could be defined as 'unethical') and (2) Some people in a position of trust/authority, etc seek to assist others and discuss the limitations of their knowledge, the suggested treatment/recommendation, etc, honestly with the people they are assisting (informed consent) but are limited by others who believe they know better, therefore feeling they have the monopoly on such advice/treatment and hence kick up a fuss about 'ethics'. If informed consent is performed at its best, then the person taking advice or treatment, etc would surely be fully aware of the issues and risks to them and hence maybe fully informed consent of all parties involved defines ethical practice? I fully agree with the promotion of good ethics (if such a thing can be defined) but I have concern that, in some circumstances, there are those who would seek to steer what is allowed as 'ethical practice' to suit their own agenda for other motives merely because they are able to exert control due to a position of power. Surely that would be unethical? Lol. It's all so confusing... Or is it.

[Simple Guy]

Neurotic1,

Seems that you're combining ethical and turf issues. Sometimes, though,
turf issues (the who has the right to a field of activity) crosses over into
ethical considerations. Ethics can be a difficult subject to deal with.
That you are having a "confusing" time with it shows that you care
enough about it to grapple with it. Your conscientiousness is showing. :)

The informed consent issue is an ethics matter because we value our
freedom of choice and without informed consent we are not able to
exercise our full decision making abilities.

I tend to view ethics as those beliefs that reflect treating people by
the golden rule, i.e. treating others as you would want to be treated
if the roles in a situation were reversed. For professionals this means
maintaining professional standards, in most fields, presumably including
honesty and an acting within an established level of competency. (The
emphasis, though, for ethics committes is on honesty and competency
may be handled by others.) Questions of ethics (honesty and rightness
of action) can be difficult to answer, at times, and answers tend to
reflect the values, mores and biases of all of the participants in any
given situation.

[Charlie]

Just as long as you remember never to invade Russia. It's far too big. :)

Would it be OK to invade my fridge instead? ( There is a large tub of ice cream in there, that is deliberately mesmerising me........ )

http://forum.hypnosis.com/images/icons/icon3.gif

[Cassandra 8]

Would it be OK to invade my fridge instead? ( There is a large tub of ice cream in there, that is deliberately mesmerising me........ )

http://forum.hypnosis.com/images/icons/icon3.gifOf course. The ice cream has been bad and must be punished... :)

[Charlie]

The ice cream has been bad and must be punished... :)

I shall attack.

(with gusto)

http://forum.hypnosis.com/images/smilies/smile.gif http://forum.hypnosis.com/images/icons/icon12.gif http://forum.hypnosis.com/images/smilies/smile.gif

[Don]

What flavor is the ice cream? Sudetenland Saffron? Poland Pineapple? Aryan Apricot? Nazi Neopolitan?

[Charlie]

What flavor is the ice cream?

I think it may be Purple Phoenix flavour.

On the outside of the carton are instructions:

"Eat me. Go deep. Repeat."

Whatever can it mean.......

? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

[Unregistered]

maybe its Iraq indigo

[Terry (existing)]

[QUOTE

I tend to view ethics as those beliefs that reflect treating people by
the golden rule, i.e. treating others as you would want to be treated
if the roles in a situation were reversed. For professionals this means
maintaining professional standards, in most fields, presumably including
honesty and an acting within an established level of competency. (The
emphasis, though, for ethics committes is on honesty and competency
may be handled by others.) Questions of ethics (honesty and rightness
of action) can be difficult to answer, at times, and answers tend to
reflect the values, mores and biases of all of the participants in any
given situation.[/QUOTE]
Hence the differences among us.....One comment however that I feel worth pointing out. If a clergyman for instance believes he should be promoting the Gospel, which of course he should, then the use of persuasion is reasonable and to be expected, since that is his perceived role in life. His use of hypnotic techniques is not something to be perplexed about, it is normal for such to come into play during conversations, lectures, and discussions. Indeed trance being a natural state, it would be strange if it didn't intrude would it not? You call it hypnosis, I call it the ability to emote well. You call it a matter of ethics, I call it the normal function of a dedicated person. We are perhaps both right, depending on what is inside that person.... If love of others, I am right, if self agrandisement, you are right, but in either case, "hypnosis" is not a valid term unless he has received formal training and understands what he is doing. Oh yes, I wouldn't put him down even then since he is doing his perceived job in life.....

[Simple Guy]

Terry,

I don't know what motivates the television evangelist. You spoke of self-aggrandizement
as a possible motive. It may or may not be for him.

I can say that self-aggrandizement is not the motive for the pastor of the church (at least
not in the conventional sense, leaving aside aggrandizement in the spiritual sense). I know him personally. Let's say that his motives are pure, in that it is motivated by "love of others."
If the motives of both of these people are well-intentioned and they knowingly use covert methods of persuasion to increase the likelihood of "winning souls" to their faith -- it is still unethical, in my
opinion, because they have taken it upon themselves to manipulate a decision.

Granted, trance is a "natural state" as you appropriately point out. But the "ability to emote well" has a different quality when there is also a systematized covert process to set up and use trance. I will say that the pastor may not know that his method was textbook hypnosis/NLP. He may have been trained in "effective evangelism" where the method was taught without identifying it. I'm not putting him down, in light of believing that he probably intends well. I only don't like the way he went about carrying
out his work. People trust him. It is a violation of this trust, for him to lessen their critical capacity to decide for themselves.

[skip]

Simple,

How about this point of view?

Any and all persuasion is manipulative. Communication is persuasion. In other words if you do succeed in communicating, you manipulate, you cannot help but.

A fireman teaching school children to "Stop drop and roll" is persuading, manipulating, using their fear of fire to convince, to teach, them something that possibly could save their life someday. And we applaud the effort and sincerity of the attempt.

If the fireman went to NLP training, or used 'professional hypnotic technique' ( as opposed to unprofessional?) to improve his ability to persuade, would we condemn him?

Likely not.

That is because we believe the information to be correct and important.

A preacher is no different. In his world (belief system) he is trying to save your 'eternal life' something far more important to you, than your 'earthly life'. And further that he is up against a very powerful, skillful, deceptive, opponent. That he uses hypnotic or NLPish componnents (either learned deliberately or thru trial and error) to make his appeal more persuasive, isnt 'unfair' or any more manipulative than anyone else who tries to persuade.

Any great persuader, speaker, uses excellent NLP techniques. They may have learned them in an nlp class or they may have picked them up along the way. At any rate if they are really good, a good NLPer would model them, and learn the difference that makes the difference from them. Irregardless of their motive for being so skillful. Great speakers admire and study (model) other great speakers.

It is no more unethical for a preacher to try and persuade, or to learn persuasion techniques, than it is a fireman, or a salesman, or a teacher, or a mother. The unethical thing would be to prevent people from becomming more skilled, that would just make them easier prey for those unscrupulous people who do learn.

"I don't know what scruples are, but if you've got 'em, Ill bet they belong to someone else." Tatum O'Neal Paper Moon.


cheers,

skip

[Cassandra 8]

This thread is interesting.

When I first investigated NLP, I attended a seminar and afterwards spoke to the person running it. If NLP is so powerful as a convincing mechanism, asked ever-cynical me, why wasn't he Prime Minister or making cult members cough up all their money? His reply sticks with me because he said he simply didn't want anything from people other than to tell them that this was possible and to show them how. What they did with it was their business, not his. But is this an acceptable defence? Was he merely washing his hands of the matter? Was he even being truthful? Without access to an fMRI acanner, we'll never know for sure.

Similarly, I have a friend, a much older friend, who, when he found out that I enjoy studying influence (and had a rather convincing half cold reading/half body language trick played on him (at his request, I might add!)), took a long time to become convinced that I wasn't constantly manipulating everyone I meet. (AH! I've just remembered where my copy of Hypnotic Language is!) The only people who receive my full attention in this way are the army of cold callers shattering my peace all day.

Life's too short. I think ethics is a relative term. A pastor might learn NLP to use from the pulpit in the sure and certain belief that accepting Christ brings everlasting life. For him, the message is important not the delivery vector. Would we accept him screaming fire and brimstone instead? If someone is in church simply for a wedding or a funeral, spotting hypnotic language patterns there is a sinister thing, and I think it's partly because there's no tradition of it, whereas fire and brimstone assertions are a staple of some branches of Christian belief.

So, the question is: Does anyone have the right to deliberately influence you entirely for their benefit? Personally, I think that if more people are taught to recognise deliberate influence then it becomes a matter of informed consent rather than manipulation. This evens up the odds tremendously for the people to whom I've taught the principles underlying the Meta Model.

[Frog420]

So, the question is: Does anyone have the right to deliberately influence you entirely for their benefit?

any answer you get will be that persons belief right? so lets take answers at face value and not argue about them, i say this because...

...sure it's ok to influence someone to do something for you, whether it be, i've left my wallet at home and i really need to borrow some money because i'm broke

or smiling at a job interview

or using hypnotic language to secure a contract

or even using it to help with the ladies,

i've been ripped off before, i'm sure most of you have... in fact it happens so much its quite possibly a built in mechanism of the human mind... hell i rip people off at bar games all the time, like the old, we start on the same darts score (501), you can double every score you throw, you can go first and we have to finish on a double,, they don't normally realise they can't win till they get on a double, sure i mugged em off, they normally laugh it off

[Terry (existing)]

Steve, I think the above two replies say it all, and say it better than I might have done. If I can be of help to you, and withold that help because my ethics tell me that to help you would violate your right of free choice, I would suggest there is something wrong with my perception, not my ethics (G) Such as, the fireman who enters a burning building, observes you trapped under a heavy piece of timber, and stops to ask if you need help before acting, for fear that he might be violating you right to make a decission for yourself.... Good question though, it gave us all the opportunity to think about ethics as they are applied under differing circumstances. Thanks.

[Simple Guy]

Everyone,

A difficulty for those with outstanding persuasion skills, is in holding
back the usage of those abilities (in deference to others own
choice-making capacities) and in knowing when it is "right" to do
so.

To paraphrase Terry: "Good answers, it gave us all the opportunity to
think about ethics as they are applied under differing circumstances.
Thanks."

[Neurotic1]

Everyone,

A difficulty for those with outstanding persuasion skills, is in holding
back the usage of those abilities (in deference to others own
choice-making capacities) and in knowing when it is "right" to do
so.


Interesting point. One could say that the majority of interpersonal interactions involve attempts to persuade to a belief. If one is 'more' skilled in persuasion it might be difficult not to use those extra skills if one truly believed it would benefit someone else to make an apparently appropriate choice. In a counselling context, one is taught to withold opinion and direct suggestion to a degree. However, EVERYONE uses persuasion skills, so is it justifiable to suggest witholding more advanced skills just because you are aware you have them whereas others who may be persuasive but not consciously aware of their skills have a free reign and afforded a clear conscience? I don't necessarily disagree but see both sides of the coin. A deeply interesting discussion...

[Jack]

Nietzsche said, "It is the duty of the free man to live for his own sake, and not for others"(but then, he would). How do you all think this fits in with the concept of ethics, or even morality?

There's an old Greek proverb:

'First secure an independent income, then practice virtue'.

Jack

[Simple Guy]

Jack,

Having regard for others is part-in-parcel of being free. Living for one's
own sake, if at the expense of or disregard of others, isn't much living
in my opinion.

Re: the practice of virture, like many noble pursuits (or professions) it
is a practice and if someone waits to first secure an independent
income to do so, that person won't have the requisite practice
time in to be virtuous (in the truest sense).

[skip]

So Simple, would virtue then necessitate poverty?

I never thought of poverty as being a virtue, nor of wealth being a hinderence to virtue.

But then again I may not know what virtue is.

skip

[Jack]

SG,

I would not disagree with the first part of your post, but Nietzsche of course, would.

The second part of your post surely begs the question can virtue be acquired or is it inherent? If the first, then the proverb is fine, if amoral. If the second then some may have no opportunity to acquire virtue so cannot be blamed for unvirtuous actions by the virtuous. In the latter instance time and practice are meaningless.

Jack

[Simple Guy]

Skip,

No, there is no virtue in poverty. Having wealth and the
character trait of virtue, is a great combination. There is a
virtue in the honest acquisition of wealth. -- Among other things, it
provides others with a model of success and enables a person to better
assist those that are less fortunate.

[Don]

I respectfully disagree with SG's statement that "there is no virtue in poverty." I would suggest that different people need different things, and some may need the experience of poverty to help them move forward spiritually. I would suggest that it would be accurate to say that "there is no virtue to remaining in poverty," as once a person discovers what he or she needs to discover while in a state of poverty, it is time to move out of that state.

Concerning Nietzsche, I would point out that his position of Social Darwinism leads to the ultimate extension of libertarianism (no public schools, hospitals, streets, libraries, etc.) and much of Nietzsche philosophy--especially in regard to the "superman"--formed a philosophical basis for Naziism (see Hitler, the Occult Messiah by Gerald Suster).

[Simple Guy]

Don,

I don't entirely disagree with your suggestions. The state of poverty,
or wealth or anything in between, though, is not in and of itself
virtuous. It's what someone chooses to do while there or moving
out of it that may be said to be virtuous. There are, of course,
those that have made poverty the complex equivalence of a state
of virtue. I don't share that with them, but do recognize that it
may be the path that they feel they need to be on "to help them
move forward spiritually."

With regards to Nietzsche, I'm no fan of his. I haven't yet read the
book you referenced. The roots of Hitler's philosophy can also be
traced to centuries old, virulent strains of mainstream religious thought.

[Simple Guy]

Jack,

My view is that virtue (or its absence) like other character traits,
is for most people, the result of nature and nurture. Blame, is a really difficult
issue here, though. It's valuable as a public policy decision that
allows punishment of the wrongdoer. It's problematic when the blamer
is in a state of unhealthy anger. In cases where forgiveness is important
to the wellbeing of the victim, blame can impede the healing process.

Do you feel that most people are capable of developing virtue as part
of a process of personal transformation?

[Jack]

SG,

Virtue seems to be malleable. The Platonic idea of virtue is not necessarily what we think of as virtuous today. Nietzsche, for his faults and because of his adoption by a repulsive political ideology still makes a valid point:

"It is the duty of the free man to live for his own sake, and not for others"

It is all down to interpretation of course, but I don't think that this statement would absolve an adherent from the practice of virtue, even if that virtue were self serving. Put another way, I don't believe that N was saying it is the only duty of a free man, merely that it is a primary duty. To some extent the Greek proverb: 'First secure an independent income, then practice virtue' is a mirror of the Nietzsche statement: look after yourself first, then you may look after others. A poor man can do little for the poverty of his fellows. A rich man may choose. A man who can read may teach others; a man who cannot read, cannot. A man who has a moral standpoint may lead by example, etc.etc..All depend on the man primarily acquiring, knowledge, wealth or morality by living for his own sake, whether the sake of his mind, his pocket or his soul.

I would like to believe that anyone may acquire virtue at any time and under any circumstances, but I have no proof that that is so. Perhaps we all have moments of virtuous action followed by years of un-virtuous behaviour, or vice-versa, I really don't know.

Human altruism would seem at first sight to be an example of virtuous and non self-serving behaviour, but when a man saves the life of a comrade at the risk of his own is it altruistic? Or is it the result of a fantasy in which he believes he cannot die because the action is heroic? Or perhaps he has a desire to die and the opportunity for a memorable death presents? Or maybe it is true altruism and an indication of the sort of virtuous action to which we may all aspire. It would be nice to think the latter.

Jack

[Simple Guy]

Jack,

Our discussion here has reminded me of the words of Hillel, a Talmudic
sage (who lived from the end of the first century BCE to the beginning
of the first century CE). He said: "If I am not for myself, who will be
for me? If I am only for myself, what am I? And if not now, when?"

[Don]

SG, I believe that continues: "If not me, who?" The implication being that if I don't help those in need, nobody else will.

[Simple Guy]

SG, I believe that continues: "If not me, who?" The implication being that if I don't help those in need, nobody else will.

Don,

You may be right. I've heard those words connected to Hillel's passage.
I don't know for sure, though. I checked a copy of the passage in a
translation of Pirkei Avot (Ethics of the Fathers), where the quotation
appears. In this translation, the additional words don't appear. It may
be that the editors decided to condense the quotation. As
we both seem to recall the additional words, they have to be
either original or addons. Should you or anyone else be able to verify
the additional words as original to Hillel, please post. It would be nice to
know that this additional call to personal action was his.