Originally Posted by Vlerchan
: I can't think of any logical basis, i.e., a basis that doesn't appeal to emotion, to deliberately disadvantage oneself.
There's no such (objective) thing as the 'greater good' and thus acting in its name is illogical.
Again, I ask for a logical basis in which one would deliberately disadvantage oneself, gaining neither a return or a full-return on their actions. It seems to me that any such action would be necessarily influenced by emotion.
I just have to address this. Lets say you have X amount of money, and you want to spend it on a gaming console that, if bought, would provide you with many hours of joy and fun. But you instead decide to donate it to help feed starving children or something. When those children receive that food, they're likely to experience a plethora of positive emotions and have many of their negative emotions(hunger, in this case) cured. And I think you would agree that the amount of suffering that is alleviated when the children receive the food is greater than the amount alleviated when you buy a gaming console. It stands to reason then that giving away your money was a logical decision because it decreased the total amount of suffering in the world more than if you had kept it. Who's suffering it is that's decreased is irrelevant.