This question has followed me throughout my life in a way. As an ENFP, coherence and being true to myself is very important, but due to my very high Ti I feel the need to validate my "live and let live" way of looking at life through logic too...so that other people can recognize its merit in a completely impartial way.
To answer the topic question (and I didn't read other people's posts yet), yes, I think there is. If you take into consideration that humans are inherently social beings, meaning the need for harmony is there, it's only logic that they use the most harmonic paradigm available.
There can still be some subjectivity to "Live and let live" when applied to specific cases, but that's what happens with complex logical problems of any kind.
I disagree with this. Wouldn't a different word be better here? Altruism, maybe?
Well, there might be some acts that are Moral AND are alligned with self-incentive, but how do you know what was the driving force for said act? What I mean is that its only "safe" to think of acts that defy self-interest, defy common animal instincts as being acts that are " most certainly morality related". Since "what goes around, comes around", it makes anything done within the light of Altruism highly suspect.
basically, most everyone has hinted at the problem one way or another: How to seperate/distinguish moral acts from biologically-based "pro-social acts"? Certain acts, seemingly moral, can be thought of as "programmed" and thusly cannot count (example: a mother breast feeding her child is NOT a moral act). There can be no genuine morality if there is no freedom due to the overrestrictive, deterministic mechanisms of human nature, whether they be social or otherwise.....
With the soldier leaping onto the grenade scenario, if his death saves several lives (which is very likely, grenade shrapnel doesnít travel far when compressed/blanketed), does that not prove/show efficiency in some way? For whatever greater cause, if the cause itself was meant and expected to benefit everyone (in your group), so your chances of meeting ones own demise in this case being rationally chosen to benefit the greater good for the greatest number?
Society is messed up that way. You're seen as immoral if you hang out with
certain people or don't strive to be a pillar of the community, but there are
a lot of pillars of the community or wannabe pillars of the community that get
rumors started with people's personal stuff, steal each others friends or frie-
nds of people they don't even really hang out with just to keep them down
a peg or get away with the same murder they accuse everybody else of. You-
re pretty much damned if you do, damned if you don't because people repeat
trouble you DON'T get in just as much as trouble that people do to unfairly in-
timidate you out of getting in any. No wonder some fictional characters beco
me villians because they think it is what everyone thinks of them. Express
those feelings about people that are critical of you or others and you'll just be
told they're 'sweet/want to be your friend.' If the idea of friends is not trusting
I'd rather be alone.