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

Relative to what though?

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. — Garrett Travers

Do you believe that all “ethical systems” are created equal?

Relative to what though? — Average

Life-threatening, or potentially life-threatening homeostatic disruption, as is self-determined in relation to the nature of the elements and systems of which the human body is composed, and the nature of the same elementas and systems that comprise the domain of existence within which it is suspended.

Do you believe that all “ethical systems” are created equal? — Average

No. Are all musical theories created equal? All sugical practices? All methods of discovery? Or, do we develop them endlessly in accordance with our endeavors, and our objective results within those domains of inquiry?

I'd say that latter is the clear understanding. However, it is clear that all ethical systems, and all conceptual frameworks of all kinds all come from the same species. Meaning, violating the entity with concept generation as an intrinsic element of its being, used to achieve homeostasis, is itself a violation of the ethical concept generator at its very source. Meaning such action cannot be ethically justified.

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

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

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

Correct me if I’m wrong but it seems like survival is the criterion you use to determine whether or not actions are justifiable. Also couldn’t an individual independently act in a way that “threatens homeostasis”?

Correct me if I’m wrong but it seems like survival is the criterion you use to determine whether or not actions are justifiable. — Average

Almost, that's certainly an element. However, I'm actually highlighting what ethics is in function, and why we evolved in us. Why we evolved it, was for, not just survival, but to achieve and maximize homeostasis. What it is in function is concept generation through accrual of sensory data of the world, that is then formulated into abstract standards of behavior that allow for better navigation of the world and it's different domains, respectively. Ethics is itself a conceptual formulation, one that applies to all domains of activity, or inquiry. Thus, the source of ethics is consciousness itself. What determines whether or not an action is ethical or not, is at base function homeostatic achievement and maximization of the self contained human from whence consciousness arises. But, as our minds accrue data, the domains into which ethical standards can be extended are expanded to include concepts like virtue, utility, hedonism, subjective experience, justice, community, and so on. It's why we don't hold children to standards they do not, or cannot conceptualize. And those who do are violators.

Also couldn’t an individual independently act in a way that “threatens homeostasis”? — Average

Yes. In fact, that's a fundamental element in learing what ensures homeostasis, heavily reinforced by pleasure and pain functions of the brain. The brain actually uses the centers of the brain that compute pain to determine its own standards of pleasure. However, exploration leading to homeostatic threat is not a violation of human consciousness. A violation would imply the formulation of a concept that informs behavior predicated on threatening homeostasis, and committing to that action. Such concepts in action are inconsistent as regards private ethical action, and are unustifiable as regards interpersonal ethical interaction. And is fundamentally where all human problems come from that are not a result of non-concept generating aspects of nature: environmental stressors, animals, illness, etc.

So, then, you do not have the quality of friendship you expected right? — javi2541997

It would appear so.

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. — unenlightened

Good grief. Yeah, you nailed it, that's what I've been doing.

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

Never said I wouldn't.

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

Indeed.

Another possibility is shame. If the person feels ashamed of asking for help — baker

But then again, repaying (although not asked to do so) would assuage that feeling.

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

Could be, although I don't know where that sense of entitlement would come from. Seems illogical, but we're talking about people here.

Maybe someone on your side of the family did something wrong to someone on their side of the family — baker

Definitely, in some cases. In this case however, there is only one side of the family.

Thank you for your thoughts.

Question it based on what? — Possibility

I guess I'm making an inference. If the person's inclination is to not repay someone for their kindness, then it's possible they lack the kindness to otherwise give their resources.

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. — Possibility

Right, but fundamentally a favor was done. Regardless of how it was presented, I don't understand how someone couldn't see it as such.

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. — Possibility

Maybe so. Thank you for your thoughts.

or fear some health or other sort of calamity will deplete their assets — Joshs

I think that's definitely in play here.

I guess I'm making an inference. If the person's inclination is to not repay someone for their kindness, then it's possible they lack the kindness to otherwise give their resources. — Tex

Kindness is a gift, not a transaction - not an IOU. You can’t have it both ways - you can’t consider yourself to be generous and also expect to be repaid for it. That’s lending money, not giving it. You need to be honest about this.

Right, but fundamentally a favor was done. Regardless of how it was presented, I don't understand how someone couldn't see it as such. — Tex

No - if you want to give them money and present it as if you expect nothing in return, then it isn’t a favour, it’s a gift. If you want them to see it as a favour, then you need to stop pretending that you’re giving out of the goodness of your heart.

I don’t doubt that you’re heart is in the right place. You want to be kind and generous, but you also want to not be taken advantage of. You just need to understand the difference between a favour and a gift, and be honest with yourself about your intentions.

Another possibility is shame. If the person feels ashamed of asking for help
— baker

But then again, repaying (although not asked to do so) would assuage that feeling. — Tex

No. The psychological effect of debt and indebtedness can be overwhelming. It's not just about the money or particular favor per se. If one has received the money or the favor at a time when one was particularly vulnerable, then getting a sense of satisfaction by repaying it or returning the favor would only come if the other person would be in a similarly dire situation. Of course one doesn't wish that on them.

Could be, although I don't know where that sense of entitlement would come from. Seems illogical, but we're talking about people here.

It's quite common. Especially younger generations were raised with an enormous sense of entitlement.

This is a topic close to home for me as I have helped several people by giving them several thousand dollars spread out over varying lengths of time and I kid you not when I say that not 1 of them has paid me back or even tried

Now like you said I gave without any stipulations and I never asked for help myself and I didn't ask for the money back either
But when you see them after hot hearing from them for 6 months and they have a new car when just 6 months ago you were regularly giving them 500/600$ almost every month so that they could feed their families just to see them flaunting their new car like a baller, that kind of thing can rub you wrong

I've probably given 20k total to a handful of people in this past decade and not a single one of them has reciprocated in any way and that is something that just blows my mind about the human race.