We have thousands of human-written stories, discussions, interviews and reviews from today through the past 20+ years. Find them here:

Violinist’s guilt explored

July 20, 2008 at 7:51 AM

Buri’s recent blog attracted 73 very interesting responses, but I still feel it unsatisfying without a bit further discussion. One particular interesting issue raised during the discussion is about doing less harm. That is, a nagging uneasy feeling occurs when we enjoy our luxuries while knowing the money could have been given to someone else for greater goods, such as save a life or school a child. Being violinists, we naturally feel lucky or privileged in many ways and we also tend to be the kind of sensitive and caring sort, it is a particular tough issue to face. However, some of the counter-examples against the principle of do no/less harm, such as preferential treatment of our loved ones or immediate family, the impact of our choice/action/inaction, etc, are particularly interesting.

For instance, whether to give money to the homeless is not a hard one for me. If you know that the chances are someone will use the money to harm himself, you have obligation not to do anything that will facilitate such harmful action. We’ve got tons of homeless people right outside of our office building, inside of which we have experts dedicated to problems of mental health and addictions. Most homeless people I know here have serious addiction problems, and as any sober users would tell you, giving them money is the last thing you should be doing if you really want to help. What you could do is give them food and some care kit, to donate to or volunteer at organizations that provide services to help these people. Or you can lobby the government to change the law and policy to deal with the root of these social problems.

I would also argue that love and treat one’s family preferentially is far from being selfish, but it is something we are morally obligated to do. There is a promise and trust among our loved ones and is explicitly or implicitly in most cultures that you will always put the interests of your spouse and children above and beyond others, especially when there is a competition for resources. To do otherwise is a breach of trust and might even be selfish. An example came in mind is giving money away to make oneself feel or look generous while one’s children are starving.

As to what is not happening as a result of one’s action or inaction. It is a legitimate concern that everything we choose is associated with a potential opportunity loss – something else we could have chosen and might even be better to have chosen that instead of this one. Since we can’t choose them all at the same time because they are mutually exclusive, we choose what we feel comfortable or care the most or what we believe to be the most appropriate. But what we could have chosen didn’t happen -- these are counter-factual events take place in our head. One problem with dwelling too much on this type of thinking is that it’ll get you nowhere. The possibilities are infinite yet nothing can be concrete enough to negate the choice you’ve made if it is a rational one to start with.

In the end, it is a matter of balance we all have to deal with, and that is not an easy one to find a satisfying general answer for. Maybe general answers are there, such as do no/less harm, be kind to your neighbour, or the Golden Rule. But should these principles be treated literally, analytically, or holistically? Should they be seen as our personal mandatory rules or discretionary guidence? Should we let the principle guide uncritically and guilt-free if we can’t be consistent? That is worth exploring.

Yixi, that is cool that you have decided to start a blog! You always have such interesting things to say about philosophy. I look forward to hearing more.

After thinking more about the comments in Buri's blog, I've been trying out the idea in my mind that selfishness isn't, in and of itself, good or bad. Like entropy, evolution, genetics, or human nature itself, it just is. The context is everything in that view. Selfishness can lead to terrible evil or can be harnessed for good.

While I'm sure there are problems with a neutral (or "amoral") view of selfishness, it does seem to me to get around a number of other problems. In particular, if selfishness is viewed as neutral rather than inherently sinful, then people might be able to take a more clear-eyed view of the consequences of their actions. Something undertaken for self-benefitting reasons that also benefitted others wouldn't be viewed as morally questionable.

And if people were less skittish about the good kind of selfishness, they wouldn't as easily get caught in bad cycles of self-abnegation and co-dependence, which I think can be a real problem in interpersonal relationships. People who are so "unselfish" that they always subvert their own needs to those of others, or pretend they don't have any needs of their own are often unhappy and don't actually serve the people they love most.

Yixi - your thoughtful blog entry has me thinking. When I contemplate the issues you raise, being Jewish, I think of the words of the great sage Hillel. When challenged to summarize the teachings of the Torah (the first five books of the Old Testament) while standing on one foot, he stated something to the effect of "Do not do to others what is hurtful to you. The rest is commentary." I try to start there, and, if I get that right, go on from there.
Individual charity motivated from one's heart and using one's own resources is very good. Using the government to extort money from one group for the benefit of another is always bad. We need much more of the first. We could get more if there was much less of the coercive kind of "charity" using other people's money.
Hi Yixi!

> Should we let the principle guide uncritically and guilt-free if we can’t be consistent? That is worth exploring.

Yeah, it sure is worth exploring.Thanks for continuing the thread!

Seems to me consistency demands that if you think that it's bad for children to be allowed to starve (for example) AND you want to be a good person then you should not use your money to buy violins, but save starving children instead. After all, there are real (not "counter factual"!) children who could be fed with that money. More to the point, any day of the week there are some in the group of starving children who could be found for whom that money would make the immediate difference between life and death. So isn't my choice to keep the violin on any given day a choice to allow that group to die rather than act to save them? Now, if I don't want to sell my violin but I DO want to be a good and unselfish person, what am I to do?

Looking at it from another angle, at what point are you released from the obligation to keep giving to those less fortunate? I think even Buri would agree that there IS an obligation to give, but my posts on his blog had to do with the difficulty in defining a particular point past which you've fulfilled your obligation and can go about your life with a free conscience. My fear is that most moral and religious figures would place that line much closer to abject poverty than we can accept. Those same figures would no doubt be shocked that, in the face of starving children, there was any argument at all about whether or not to sell the BMW or the strad!

Let me reassure my vast fan club (including Buri!) that I'm not contemplating selling my violin to feed the poor. But it would be nice to hear some from somebody how it can possibly be an unselfish and morally rightous decision to let people starve while I "fulfill my potential" playing the violin!

" it would be nice to hear some from somebody how it can possibly be an unselfish and morally rightous decision to let people starve while I "fulfill my potential" playing the violin! "

Some of my favorite people have been entrepreneurs or high level engineering managers. They drive extravagant cars, have extravagant houses and clothes. They deserve those things for creating the jobs of dozens or hundreds or thousands of people, people who'd be among those starving people we're talking about, otherwise. Feeding millions, perhaps. In other words, you don't have to give up everything. Artists are part of the social fabric in which that happens. The world is better off when everyone is doing whatever they do best, including playing violin, if you're speaking of professions. Violin as a relaxing diversion to a grittier existence is fine too. Or performing for those who have a grittier existence. It's essential, but it is entertainment, and entertainment is part of the whole framework, not something evil.

Speaking of engineering managers and music. Maybe it was the woman who was head of HP, maybe somebody else, I'm not sure. She released a commercial CD. I can't really remember, but I think it was about dieting. She wrote the words, I think, and somebody else did the music. She was going on about how great the music was but it was the most cheesy, corporate-sounding stuff I ever heard. And the words were dripping with business meeting and seminar seminar style, that stuff they put you through. It was so funny. That was her musical world. One CEO if a place I was working, we had some product in a big European museum. There was also one somewhere in Las Vegas. He said now that's the kind of museum we like. I thought what a redneck. That was the day I decided I was going to quit there :)

If you want religious guidance, I think it's 7% you give to the beneficiary of your choice. Somebody look it up.

I want to say the museum was the Louvre. I think it was. Part of their operations, not something on display. But something in Las Vegas is "our kind of museum." lol.
Maybe it's one of those instances where it's better to see the glass half-full than half-empty. If you help one child, that's better than helping no children. You made a difference for that one. Rather than thinking, if you help one child, that's not as good as helping them all.

If you did sell your violin could you feed *all* the starving children? Could you feed a handful, a dozen, and how long could you keep it up? Against the backdrop of the number of starving children that exist, is it a large percentage or a drop in the bucket? And then you're still left with the same problem you had before. You still didn't do enough and children are still starving.

Even if their individual actions don't make very much difference in the grand scheme of things, people who take vows of poverty are often admired as good examples of how to live. But aren't there different kinds of examples? Aren't violinists good examples too, of a different sort?

Once upon a time the US had a luxury tax. They decided to apply it to yachts made and sold in the US. It was clear that yachts were a luxury. So guess what? No more yachts made in the US. It was cheaper to buy and sail a yacht made somewhere else.

Who suffered? The rich? No way! The men and women who built yachts no longer had jobs.

People who earn extravagant salaries typically earn them because they are more productive (on average) than others. It is nice that they spend them on symphony tickets, good restaurants and nice cars and houses because that provides dignified employment for many. The next time you play a gig at a rich persons place count the number of people who are getting paid; musicians, caterers, waiters etc.

To expand on my earlier comment, sometimes it seems like we're getting too caught up in definitions. Some folks seem to view "selfish" and "immoral" as equivalent in definition, and to attribute all the evil in the world to selfishness. I don't think this definition works, either as an explanation for evil or as a way to live one's life. If "selfish" and "immoral" are equivalent, you end up having to find creative ways for selfish acts to be redefined as "really" unselfish (and therefore not immoral) and vice-versa. Whereas if selfish and immoral are not equivalent, it becomes a red herring to worry about whether loving and treating one's family preferentially is defined as selfish or not. You can instead consider its im/morality on its own merits.

People can and do commit terribly evil and immoral acts for reasons that are not selfish: in service of what they sincerely think is the greater good, in service of causes outside of and/or greater than themselves, and in service of other people. These people may be delusional, insane, evil, or simply mistaken, in their belief that they are serving the greater good, other people, or a grand ideal, but none of those is necessarily the same as selfish.

"The next time you play a gig at a rich persons place count the number of people who are getting paid; musicians, caterers, waiters etc."

When you expand that idea it makes musicians a part of the actual machinery, addressing Howard's question further.

When we begin to see the world through the eyes of God’s love (by living a life surrendered and in a deeply connected, unbroken, personal relationship with God) our view of the world, of life itself, is radically transformed. When we enter into this sort of existence the answers to all of the questions above become intrinsic, because it is not we who are equipped to answer them, but rather God alone who can provide the answers. We see the world in an imperfect sense, with imperfect understanding and to this we then apply our imperfect reasoning. In short, we know in part, whereas God knows in full. In our own mind, so cluttered with our own thoughts, life is often terribly confusing and the world a terribly confusing place, however when we surrender our very life (an on-going process of surrendering our mind and heart, really) over to God, all things are made new and an unspeakable beauty unfolds before us.

We often try to confuse the situation with our own reasoning, but it really is quite simple…live a life of love in service to others, i.e. “Love your neighbor AS yourself.” There is a reason for the “as” portion of the statement. We are to care for ourselves as well, and it is important that we do. We are also to care for our families, of course (they are a gift from God), and any others for whom we are led to do so…by God. It is far beyond our ability to do anything more than what we’re given. We are finite, God infinite, so take your cues from the one who created you, and in whose image you’ve been made.

Now that I have another moment, I wanted to mention that the above is the goal. We're all works in progress and we all have our own hangups (Lord knows I've got my share). But over time as we grow, more of the old self is shed as a new self takes form. This is what it means to be born again, which is to say born into reality.
I hope that everyone would see music as a means of alleviating poverty. The West has the lowest rates of poverty in the world. Might we not ascribe a part of this to the richness of our culture?

Poverty is eliminated from the inside out and music is a tool for the enriching of the soul.

Karen, your encouragement is powerful –the result is before us:) I agree, a lot to do with how we treat a term. Since the term selfish is loaded with negative senses, I prefer to use the more neutral term ‘self-interest’ to echo your point about accepting who we are as human being. It is neither selfish nor altruistic for me to post on this site, but it is in my own interest to do so, neither good nor bad in and of itself. If by doing so I am knowing hurting some innocent person, then I can be called being selfish. Worse, as you well-argued, well-meaning people can do a lot of harm to others if they don’t question their motive and interest. Incidentally, if my self-interested posting interferers with an interest X, and if I have a duty to protect that interest X, then I am clearly in a position of conflict of interests, although it is not necessarily selfish of me to refuse to withdraw from the situation.

Do not do to others what is hurtful to you. The rest is commentary.
Tom, I like this very much. It is similar to a Confucius saying: “Do not give other anything that you don’t wish to receive.” Being a person with strong views and quick to act, I said and did enough hurtful things, at the time seemed so justifiable and inevitable because something or someone just irked me. But like Buri said, if I decide to dislike someone, I am hurting me the most.

Howard, you are absolutely right: the fact that children starving in every part of the world is not counter factual events but the reality. I misspoke. What I meant to say was this. “I could have been doing something better such as feeding the starving children)” is a counter factual statement, and to dwell on the possibly choices that we didn’t make is unproductive. Thanks and I’ll go back to edit.

In terms of how to distribute one’s resource to maximizing the good to the world, such as selling MBW or the Strad to save starving children, my sense is that money is just one of many ways we can contribute to the world. Some people are very good at managing and giving away money for good causes, others are good at spending their time or utilizing their talent to help. Although I’m quite willing to pay taxes and donate for good causes on regular basis, simple formulary of income deduction seems to me just too one-dimensional to be effective or meaningful.

Individual charity motivated from one's heart and using one's own resources is very good. Using the government to extort money from one group for the benefit of another is always bad. We need much more of the first. We could get more if there was much less of the coercive kind of "charity" using other people's money.

Corwin, we all know how easy and unpredictable the funding will be if it all comes from charity. One reason we make government responsible is that we can regulate and have a long term plan and mechanism to solve large social (not some groups) problems. We can monitor and track results and improve. All of such work can hardly be done by individual random donations.

So are you saying that extortion and coercion are okay?

Most government spending goes into administering government spending. Most private charities spend most of their money on the beneficiaries and they do it with conditions that help people move out of poverty. If taxes were cut no one would starve. Employment, investment, and charitable giving would go up. They always do when taxes are cut.

Yixi,

You’re right and I was just pulling your chain to an extent, however, counter factual statements are only counter factual after the fact- what “could have happened” or in the classic formulation, “x: x if y HADN’T happened”. Your analysis assumes that we are speaking of decisions already made, but in our scenario with the dying children, you are making the decision every day all over again to let them die and you are contemplating with glee making that same decision again tomorrow. Yes, it’s a different “them” each day, but the decision we are speaking of is still in the present or future, hence not subject to a “counterfactual” analysis nor to the problems that arise from such an analysis.

I agree with your idea about definitions- “self-interest” is a better term for what we’re discussing. I was chastising Buri though, because he seemed to think that you can exist without being selfish, or at least self-interested. It seems to me though, you can’t really even take a breath without almost infinite self-interest, and that was the core of my argument. So, loving, eating, playing violin, etc. all require a self-interested nexus to experience and create them. That Being necessarily takes up space, time, resources etc. despite the available choice NOT to do that and so is, by definition, selfish.

I think I have an answer for myself though. The situation I set up vis-à-vis starving children and selling violins, though deeply true, is also irrelevant. Civilization has always been willing to pay in blood for the things it deems most worthwhile. So, children for music is just business as usual. But we should recognize that we owe a debt to those who allow us to do this. We shouldn’t pretend that only being altruistic, taking the bullet as it were, to make the world a better place. We are playing because we want to play, out of the almost infinite self-interest we all possess by virtue of existing, and we can do it because society thinks that music is worth the price of a few dead children

The things that are considered justified by the "blood money" you mention are things that are for the greater good. That justifes airlines for example. That's why the guys buried in concrete in the Boulder Dam (although there aren't really any there) are folk heros instead of dupes. There's no selfishness there. Neither am I selfish - I'll even let you train my pooch....
Um, I believe that's what I just said, Jim! Go hit the refresh button on your brain, would you?
and that dog's STILL not trained?
You got me! I thought you were being serious. lol.
Ha! Nah...just having fun. I haven't been on v.com in awhile and I can feel the old addiction calling. It's ALMOST stronger than Facebook's call...
But I WAS serious about taking a hard look at some of the silly assumptions that people make and the poor reasoning that they do based on these silly assumptions.
Okay, you are looking for more arguments. My analysis was based on the decisions we’ve already made and I didn’t address the future decisions that yet to be made. But that’s not a silly assumption or analysis, only incomplete, and intentionally so to some extent so as to provide room for debate. Besides, what we are going to do in future still is counter-factual because the action I will take tomorrow hasn’t taken place yet. What we are doing or being now is the question that I’m interested in most, but feeling guilty or unfair self-criticism is certainly not among them.
Any I wonder why Jim won't let you train his dog?

Violinist.com is made possible by...

Shar Music

Pirastro Strings

Los Angeles Philharmonic

Violinist.com Shopping Guide

Larsen Strings

Peter Infeld Strings

JR Judd Violins

Dimitri Musafia, Master Maker of Violin and Viola Cases

Bobelock Cases

Violin Lab

Barenreiter

Bay Fine Strings Violin Shop

FiddlerShop

Fiddlerman.com

Johnson String Instrument/Carriage House Violins

Southwest Strings

Metzler Violin Shop

Los Angeles Violin Shop

Violin-strings.com

Nazareth Gevorkian Violins

Subscribe

Laurie's Books

Discover the best of Violinist.com in these collections of editor Laurie Niles' exclusive interviews.

Violinist.com Interviews Volume 1, with introduction by Hilary Hahn

Violinist.com Interviews Volume 2, with introduction by Rachel Barton Pine