standards of virtue at bare minimum must be met — Garrett Travers

All the standards in this familial relationship have been met, up until this point. But then it goes back to what you were saying about implicit social contracts. I get it.

I tell you this out of love, my friend. — Garrett Travers

I don't take any of your comments any other way. I appreciate a hard truth. In fact, I require it.

My voluntary participation, contractual agreement, payment of my service, a promise, or having to do with child rearing. — Garrett Travers

Wouldn’t this also mean that there is such a thing as justifiable evil? You did refer to it as evil and that is the only reason I’m asking this question.

I understand what you mean and feel. I had the same experience some years ago. The so called "reciprocity"
If you think it deeply. You weren't sharing your money with that person really free. You were expecting something afterwards. But the fact here is that there is not an agreement or a bond to be connected to. This happens because you thought this law tools were not necessary in the relationship/friendship.
Now, he increased his wealth and now you are asking for reciprocity silently. Here we have an ethical dilemma:

1. Probably you not have the right to ask for because supposedly you gave that money for free.
2. But you expect from your friend being more ethical and then the principle of reciprocity despite you are not connected to him with an agreement.

Liar! Or you're a school of fish! Gratitude is a common knowledge. — L'éléphant

He who goes round in circles becomes a wheel, my friend.

That's what I get, too, from his post. — L'éléphant

To say that you have gotten what you haven't been given, is an indication that you are giving what you have received to yourself.

Hey guys! When you sound bitter, but you're not aware in your tone of voice that you sound bitter, then that means your natural emotion is showing. Often we don't smell our own fear. But others can. — L'éléphant

The reason you feel this way, is because you couldn't hear my tone of voice when I mentioned these things, because I didn't speak them, which would have calmed you. Thus, you interpolated the tone of voice that is within your own mind into my words. Certain people learn to sniff things out with just a little bit more acuity than others.

We show gratitude to our parents for raising us. — L'éléphant

Raising us? They chose that duty. Why would they get gratitude from us? We weren't consulted about being born. They should be seeking our gratitude, wouldn't you say?

Have you actually asked them for money? — Possibility

No, I haven't. I've always believed that if I did that they would give. But now I'm starting to question that supposition.

because of the power differential it established between you. That differential has switched, and that’s what bothers you. — Possibility

Good point, but no. I've been damn careful, from the beginning, not to allow this to happen. I've seen too many times that someone will do a favor for someone else and then use that favor to shamefully manipulate the person or the lendee shows too much deference to the lender. I want neither scenario. I hold this person in a higher regard even than myself, so in my mind the power has always been in their favor.

and just accept that you’re now both in a position where you don’t require financial assistance. Be happy for that. — Possibility

I think that's where I'm going to land on this situation. Thank you.

You were asked and you gave. Blessings on you.

Given his recent good fortune, it would not be unreasonable to expect at least a gesture of reciprocity. Sadly, he may not know how to reciprocate. He may not know how to express gratitude. Of course, I know nothing abut him, but some people don't feel urgency on any number of normal responses in social situations.

I think it perfectly normal for you to be troubled by his lack of reciprocity. It's obvious that reciprocity of some sort would be the appropriate thing to do. Alas, it isn't happening, and maybe there is nothing either one of you can do about it (for quite different reasons, of course).

If he had no skill at managing money (making it, keeping it, spending it wisely, etc) maybe he doesn't know the meaning of the substantial amount of money he received (maybe from you and from others. He might not have this windfall for long, if he doesn't know how to hold on to money. Perhaps somewhere down the line he will be broke, again, and will want help. Should that happen, you might want to carefully weigh whether to give him more money.

It would be good if he could at least express gratitude for past help received. A lack of gratitude may be more grating than the lack of reciprocity.

In any case, you are in the better position. You are not at fault.

Wouldn’t this also mean that there is such a thing as justifiable evil? You did refer to it as evil and that is the only reason I’m asking this question. — Average

No, that which is justifiable are actions that without proper provocation would not be justifiable. For example, if you have consensual sex with a woman, and I bust in start attacking you, there's no justifiable reason for that. However, if you are having unconsensual sex, I'm fully justified in stopping you if you're within my purview of influence. It's called symmetry. Assault is evil, meaning unjustifiable. If you commit the unjustifiable act of assaulting me, me responding in assualt is now a form of justified evil. But, it's just semantic really, it isn't actually evil, it's stopping evil.

All the standards in this familial relationship have been met, up until this point. But then it goes back to what you were saying about implicit social contracts. I g — Tex

I mean, I'm not just saying it, either. The only societies that I know of that have ever been peaceful, harmonious, co-operative, capitalistic, and virtue pursuing were literally found on this predicate, among many others. They existed for 500 years and were numbered in the hundreds of thousands. No cops either, or governments.

I don't take any of your comments any other way. I appreciate a hard truth. In fact, I require it. — Tex

I hope that one day you'll see such advice as from people not as hard truth, but the opposite. But, I don't like people feeling bad about this kind of stuff, indicates to me that you're good dude. Good dudes get trampeled on by evil people. It's time we stop that, been time. But, one at a time I guess. You know, it's a bit like any skill you pick up. Interacting with people is just like, say, playing guitar. You have to tune the thing, but you gotta pick the right strings, wouldn't want cheap ones that bust right after you put em on, and the type of guitar corresponds to the right type of strings. You have to practice so that the strings work with you, instead of against you and make aweful noise, just like people. Then you have to learn how to play full songs, tempo, beat, melody, or you just sit around and pluck strings anytime you pick it up. It's a bit like that, man, for real. And intuitively one can tell such a thing because, well when is that last time that you did anything that was even remotely important that didn't require standards for proper interaction? Never. Interpersonal interaction is no different. But, the feds and their bootlickers don't want you to learn or believe that. That want you to think we're all in this together, we're not. Just food for thought. I got all kinds of shit like this up in my head, man.

Your story should be adapted into an Agatha Christie murder mystery featuring the Belgian detective Hercule Poirot. As far as I can tell, it has all the right ingredients for a psychological thriller, something Poirot delights in - a little problem for his gray cells to feed on! :grin:

Assault is evil, meaning unjustifiable. If you commit the unjustifiable act of assaulting me, me responding in assualt is now a form of justified evil. But, it's just semantic really, it isn't actually evil, it's stopping evil. — Garrett Travers

I’m not sure what you mean by “semantic” in this context. First you say that assault is unjustifiable but then you claim that there are circumstances which would make it justifiable. That seems like a blatant contradiction. Would you mind providing some kind of clarification because I’m a little bit confused as to what you are trying to communicate.

You weren't sharing your money with that person really free. You were expecting something afterwards. — javi2541997

Well no. I say that because the windfall was unexpected. I was giving the money long before this never expecting to be repaid. Maybe I wasn't clear about that.

1. Probably you not have the right to ask for because supposedly you gave that money for free.
2. But you expect from your friend being more ethical and then the principle of reciprocity despite you are not connected to him with an agreement. — javi2541997

Strictly ethically speaking, I agree with your two points 100%.

that which is justifiable are actions that without proper provocation would not be justifiable. — Garrett Travers

Would you mind telling me what criterion you use to determine what is and what is not “proper provocation”?

Well no. I say that because the windfall was unexpected. I was giving the money long before this never expecting to be repaid. Maybe I wasn't clear about that. — Tex

Yes I see your point. Despite the fact you were expecting from your friend a help to repair the windmill, I think he was not obliged to because (supposedly) you helped him for free.
But the big issue here is that your friend is not acting as you would like to act. There are clearly discrepancies in terms of ethical reciprocity.

Would you mind telling me what criterion you use to determine what is and what is not “proper provocation”? — Average

No problem. So, to actually have a standard that works, one must first understand where standards come from. That would be the human mind. We create standards for interaction, therefore all standards for interaction are predicated on whatever standards are generated by the individual human in question, as long as his standards do not include the dismissal of your standards, or any other. No other standard can possibly be posited that will withstand scrutiny, logic, or reason that can come before this standard, but can be made logical through compatibility with this standard. Meaning, any violation of my standards by another is provocation that justifies defense of oneself.

it would not be unreasonable to expect at least a gesture of reciprocity — Bitter Crank

It's obvious that reciprocity of some sort would be the appropriate thing to do. — Bitter Crank

I think it perfectly normal for you to be troubled by his lack of reciprocity. — Bitter Crank

Thank you for the kind words. You provided a really good description of how I feel.

First you say that assault is unjustifiable but then you claim that there are circumstances which would make it justifiable. That seems like a blatant contradiction. Would you mind providing some kind clarification because I’m a little bit confused as to what you are trying to communicate. — Average

That's specifically why I said it was semantic, so let's clear it up. The only violations of the freedom individual human consciousness to express itself - however it sees fit, at anytime, and for whatever self generated purpose - that is permissible, are responses to exactly those violations of consciousness themselves. I am not free to strike you, I don't own your own consciousness, and you are an equal but opposite source of all possible ethical frameworks, meaning to violate you is an ethical violation in its source of origin. If I do violate your consciousness, you have an entitlement to violate mine to at least the point where the threat is no longer present.


I can't hit you. I hit you, you can hit me. Very simple.

This is, and always has been, the basic, interpersonal point of original contact, ethically. Any standard that violates this, is a crime against ethics, no way around it.

Interacting with people is just like, say, playing guitar. — Garrett Travers

Great analogy. I'm careful of how I interact with the people I care about. I'm not as flippant as I used to be. It's not always about me, me, me. I think how what I say might affect them before I say something. Sometimes things need to be said however, someone's got to be the pack leader and keep things in check. Other times, it's better to just not say a word. Knowing when to say something and not say something is key.

Except my coworkers. I'll say anything to those assholes. Lazy POSs.

Despite the fact you were expecting from your friend a help to repair the windmill, I think he was not obliged to because (supposedly) you helped him for free. — javi2541997

Certainly not obliged but wouldn't a friend do so anyway?

Your story should be adapted into an Agatha Christie murder mystery featuring the Belgian detective Hercule Poirot. As far as I can tell, it has all the right ingredients for a psychological thriller, something Poirot delights in - a little problem for his gray cells to feed on! — Agent Smith

Oh, and it gets better, or worse. There's more to this story. Just going to leave it here for now.

The only violations of the freedom individual human consciousness to express itself - however it sees fit, at anytime, and for whatever self generated purpose - that is permissible, are responses to exactly those violations of consciousness themselves. — Garrett Travers

Would you mind explaining to me why you think this is the case? I want to thank you for your patience because I know that I’m not entitled to your participation in this conversation. If my questions are a bit obnoxious I hope you’ll forgive me.

Oh, and it gets better, or worse. There's more to this story. Just going to leave it here for now — Tex

Mon ami! it is a pleasure you find yourself on this page. enjoy the show and watch my little grey cells do their thinking. — Hercule Poirot

Certainly not obliged but wouldn't a friend do so anyway? — Tex

Yes, I am agree with you. A good friend would do it anyways. So, then, you do not have the quality of friendship you expected right?

Would you mind explaining to me why you think this is the case? I want to thank you for your patience because I know that I’m not entitled to your participation in this conversation. If my questions are a bit obnoxious I hope you’ll forgive me. — Average

Patience? I'm an ethical philosopher, this is what I live for, dude. Of course I'll tell you, and I welcome any challengers, and as many that want to contend with this ethical standard.

That being said, I won't hit you with the a full-throated epistemology. I'll give the basics, then see if you can find any way to consistently disagree with me that renders the principle negated, or not valid, or what have you.

The brain is the source of consciousness
Consciousness is the source of all concepts
All concepts are generated to inform behaviors
Concept informed behaviors are required for homeostasis
The human brain produces consciousness for the generation of concepts to achieve homeostasis

Given that one can accept this we can move to the good stuff.

If the Human Consciousness is the source of all concepts, and ethics is a concept
Then the Human Consciousness is the source of all ethical concepts

If the Human Consciousness is the source of all ethical concepts, and all concepts are generated to achieve homeostasis
Then all ethical concepts are generated to achieve homeostasis

If all ethical concepts are generated to achieve homeostasis, then all actions that threat homeostasis are a violation of ethical concepts

That's the just kind of the basic argument, we can totally argue it informally if you'd rather, this more loose formal. Keep in mind it's two for me, I am now hitting the sheets, and this could have flaws in it, I'll check when I get back, but tell me what you think just on this line of argumentation.

it’s past my bedtime too so I’m going to bed. I hope we can continue this conversation tomorrow.

What I'm struggling with is trying to understand why someone wouldn't intuitively reciprocate. I know everybody is not the same but the first thing I would do would be to find a way to show my appreciation after years of receiving help. For the life of me I don't understand why someone wouldn't. — Tex

Like others have said, there is the sense of entitlement, as a cause for not reciprocating.

Another possibility is shame. If the person feels ashamed of asking for help, then they'll try to put the whole matter behind them as soon as possible. Showing gratitude, reciprocating, or just admitting to feeling ashamed of asking for help and receiving can be so overwhelming to a person's ego that they just won't do any of those things, because doing them would force them to face their dire situation and their helplessness.

Thirdly, if it's about a family member or another person with whom one has long-term ties, possibly over generations, then the matter is more complicated. Maybe someone on your side of the family did something wrong to someone on their side of the family, or their family helped yours in the past, but you don't know about any of this while the other person does. That can also explain such dynamics.

Have you actually asked them for money?
— Possibility

No, I haven't. I've always believed that if I did that they would give. But now I'm starting to question that supposition. — Tex

Question it based on what? Have they given any indication that they would say no? Or are you assuming this because they haven’t offered? They asked you for some money and you gave it. How exactly have they failed to meet this reciprocal expectation when you haven’t asked them for money?

Good point, but no. I've been damn careful, from the beginning, not to allow this to happen. I've seen too many times that someone will do a favor for someone else and then use that favor to shamefully manipulate the person or the lendee shows too much deference to the lender. I want neither scenario. I hold this person in a higher regard even than myself, so in my mind the power has always been in their favor. — Tex

Interesting. If the power was always in their favour, then it’s likely they got the impression you giving them money was serving some benefit to you, rather than being a favour to them. I don’t think you can really be upset that they didn’t see it as a favour to be reciprocated, when you worked so hard to avoid it being taken as such.

Either you gave the money freely or you did it as a favour. If it was a favour, then I think you need to be honest with yourself about that - and acknowledge that you gave them the wrong impression.

So for years you have been humiliating this person by waiting for them to abase themselves by asking for your charity and then giving it as though it was nothing to you when it was vital to them.

And now the boot is on the other foot and you will not humble yourself by asking for help.

Sorry, what was the question, again? Human nature?

If all ethical concepts are generated to achieve homeostasis, then all actions that threat homeostasis are a violation of ethical concepts — Garrett Travers

First I would like to confess that I don’t really understand this notion of “homeostasis”. I would appreciate a definition. Second I must confess that I don’t see how B follows from A in this if A then B formulation.

First I would like to confess that I don’t really understand this notion of “homeostasis”. I would appreciate a definition. Second I must confess that I don’t see how B follows from A in this if A then B formulation. — Average

the tendency toward a relatively stable equilibrium between interdependent elements, especially as maintained by physiological processes.

If consciousness' primary directive is to maintain homeostasis, and it does so by generating conceptual framework from sensory data integration, and all ethical systems are conceptual frameworks themselves, then any violation, or inflicted impairment of the homeostatic directive of the individual consciousness is by definition a violation of ethics at its emergent source, and of its emergent purpose.

What I'm struggling with is trying to understand why someone wouldn't intuitively reciprocate — Tex

People’s emotions and self- esteem are bound up with the meaning of money in powerful and very personal ways. It may be that your friend , after such a long time struggling financially, still feels financially vulnerable despite the windfall. Maybe they don’t trust their ability to hold onto the money, or fear some health or other sort of calamity will deplete their assets. You may simply be more confident about your relationship with money than they are.