1. Altruism is the good. Generosity is evil :: Flávio Gikovate:: I think increasingly the importance of precise definitions. Words used with double meanings, expressions that are not very well explained, it can provide huge disservice by contributing to the confusion that naturally exists when dealing with complex issues and having to do with ourselves. Not to mention those who, in bad faith, like the words that have more than one sense, because they lend themselves very well to deceive the interlocutors. I am often asked: when a person acts selfishly in domestic relations, but it is very generous with friends and colleagues, how should it be seen? As essentially selfish or generous? I always reply that what counts is conduct intimate indoors. The generous is more tolerant, more loving and devoted marriage relationships with parents and children, as people who live or work with him. It is not always so dedicated to outsiders and, as a rule, have few friends. The egoist is aggressive, demanding and collecting in their intimate relationships, especially those married character; expects to receive more than giving and revolted when it is matched to your needs. In social situations, likes to behave generously: it is dedicated to friends (usually many, with which the treatment is somewhat superficial) and usually very helpful when someone is sick and in need of help (perhaps in those circumstances may their role as generous so admires, and does not suffer from envy him who is in need of much help). When, for decades, said the generosity and not because she is at the service of vanity, dominance and victory on the power play typical of intimate relationships, was always great opposition and revolt. The outrage was great, because we grew up dominated by the belief that it is of great moral quality, signal strength and selflessness. I think it just got to be better understood when dealing with intimate relationships, I show that the generosity and selfishness are a double that one is not better than the other unless because of the generous be to give more. If selfishness is evil, then so is generosity. Yes, because one feeds and reinforces the other, can not exist without the selfish generous willing to provide it. If generosity was over, would immediately selfishness! At the same time, the generous selfish needs, because otherwise there will be about who exert their superiority. Can not think of a reason (that would be generous) could feed an addiction (selfishness). Thus, we can only think that both are part of the same category, the evil. At this point in my argument, I hear the comment accurate: but every action dedicated to the other is evil? There are really unselfish attitudes, which have nothing to do with the desire to dominate, reducing their food insecurity and vanity? There is. I essentially said that they must immediately be distinguished from the
generosity
of social selfish, because they take advantage of any condition of superiority to exercise their vanity, winning fans and making unwarranted hype themselves. A genuine act of devotion to a third party, in my view, be known by another name than the one we use for the sincere dedication and doubtful of the generous to their loved ones. I think the best here is to call this action, genuinely good, altruism, which would be defined as the selfless dedication really the people, groups or institutions. Altruism implies, as a rule, activities carried out anonymously, targeted at people who do not know (or who do not have regular social contact and no ulterior motives) and will receive our collaboration in a way that humiliates those and that is certainly of great value to their daily lives. Altruism is the name that defines our participation in social activities of all kinds. May be exercised by donating a portion of our income, may be through volunteer work in hospitals, so poor communities. Can be exercised through political action and disinterested really stripped of vanity (how rare!). Generosity, often the intention is good, but the effects are bad: when the father, hoping to please his son, devoted too much to him, protects him beyond the essential, may cause great damage, weakening it and making it unprepared to face the adversities of life. The truth is that we must abandon forever the idea that intentions are worth something. What really matters is the effect they will have on the
beneficiaries
of a given action. When we think of altruism, the intention is good and the effects are always positive, since there is no risk of weakening determine the benefit of those who receive (excluding, of course, the case of alms given at random and that as a rule, are is the same service to placate the feelings of guilt of the giver). In altruism, the person receiving benefits and the positive use of what we receive can help you recover health, to learn more or to recover a life worthy of work. That can help you experience a great pleasure for giving something of yourself, because it was really helpful. Can thus properly experience the genuine pleasure of giving, since there is no risk of harm that it receives. In this case, and only this, it is the maximum Franciscan that
it is in giving that we receive.