The argument in ethics relating to “egoism” and “altruism” is that selfishness and selflessness are incompatible, “either-or" possibilities. This clearly follows upon the traditional logic of “the law of contradiction” and “the excluded middle” -- individuals cannot be selfish while being selfless; if someone is not taking the position of egoism, they are taking the position altruism. However, according to the logic of Buddhism, it is actually not impossible for self-oriented and other-oriented actions to be compatible: 1. Certain actions are not beneficial to oneself, nor are they beneficial to others 2. Certain actions are beneficial to oneself, but not beneficial to others 3. Certain actions are not beneficial to others, but are beneficial to oneself 4. Certain actions are beneficial to oneself and beneficial to others Further, even though we can confirm the possibility of self-beneficial states of mind, it is difficult for us to move from that confirmation to say that everyone should develop a self-beneficial state of mind. That is, the descriptive scenario is not sufficient to justify a prescriptive order. On the other hand, prescriptivism sets a goal that often goes beyond what descriptivism can accomplish. “Self” and “other” just refer to the relatively stable condition of individual observers. If one is able to correctly observe things as they are, that is, as “dependently originated,” the apparent separation between self and other will be revealed to be illusory, unreal. One can then become a realized person who has awakened to “no-self.” Thus, “helping oneself” and “helping others” are not contradictory at a fundamental level, to the extent that the two can be mutually accomplished, and reconciled. The Buddha contemplated the actual state of things through dependent origination, and for the benefit of others created a bridge from selfishness to selflessness.
