One might have at sometime wondered what a reasonable individual personal goal is for daily living, regarding how we might treat ourselves, and how we should treat others. A goal one could reach for every hour of everyday is reasonably well and good living for the self. But what about others? A parallel goal, to form a package of two goals that act concurrently, that one could reach for every hour of everyday, is to allow others to each pursue his or her goal at reasonably enjoying every hour and everyday for well and good living for himself or herself, without our own unfair interference, if that might unjustly or accidentally overly hamper any other person from pursing his or her well and good living.
Overly hampering another person exceeds mere inconveniences and bantering exchange of pleasantries, but would be truly changing the course of another person’s life ahead for hours in a detrimental way, either by way of affecting activities or by way of emotional burdening, by way of one’s own social input to them, either by commission or omission. Overly hampering another person would be much less likely in the case for close friends or couples who spend significant daily time together, and thus have greater purview (daily view) of each other and thus more knowledge and more right than others to push a bit harder on peers so close to them, in situations when pushing that hard upon those not of familiarity enough for true purview together would be unfair and overstepping.
This would be a goal, which is something to aim for in life, rather than anything that is necessity or required. This relieves self-pressure, and this explains nominal, every hour, life’s ups and downs, plenty often able to come out short of goals, during any particular period of moments.
Making a goal of having proactive effect on others for those others to have improved enjoyment, wellness, health or benefit, might lead us to overstepping into others personal lives too much so. Beware this.
So the alternative is to abstain from the unfair interference, in guiding and behaving oneself with others. What is fair and reasonable depends on every detail and changes very quickly with dynamic conversation, so thinking with the words “fair” and “reasonable” does allow us to take issue with another person if that person has infringed on the self somewhat, rather than having to be nice at all times, and rather than having to be reclusive and noncommittal at all times.
A goal for oneself of going for good and well living with enjoyment and rewarding activity might not appeal to the altruist, who might instead consider oneself to dislike aiming to benefit the self for the good, well, enjoyable, and rewarding in life, and instead rather find self-pleasure in undermining the self’s desire for pleasure, in the name of (indulging oneself on) depriving oneself. There is irony here. Our United States societal and cultural comfort with self-service, self-respect, self-care, and self-determination can grow. Self bashing and self over-deprecation are all too common. It’s in the churches. It’s in the commercial entities advertisements. And it’s especially in the high-fidelity audio television news “Virtual Reality glasses the size of a living room” television reality news casts, which can take over our lives for over an hour, while watching/listening.
Also, an overly conservative inclination to minimize benefits and opportunities for the self, in a persons self-talk, speech and writing styles, is very detrimental. Such an inclination might aim for “decent” living and “decency.” That idea was attempted in the Soviet Union, via perfectionism (rather than communism, which can work fine for small-scale self-sufficient communes). Aiming a goal at merely “decent” living denigrates and defiles unfairly nearly all personal opportunity, gain, improvement, and non-predestination of possible courses ahead in years, in terms of what breathing room there is in a societies economy to allow for differing family sizes, differing vocational careers, differing communities, and more essentials that should be left free to differ. The Stalin 5-year plan tried to perfect just about everything, and were very geared toward forcing an impenetrable lower wall through which no one could deviate into homelessness, in an effort to promote decency for all, and social engineering the homes and jobs and communities to be perfect clones of each other. No man or woman could then differ in how many children would be in the family, if everyone had to reside in the same mid-model house and drive the same decently optimized car.
Aiming for decency or decent living, or decent behavior, is aiming for the minimum, which is foolish for any person to strive toward, but sadly our U.S. contemporary society will sometimes adhere to the status quo “wording” so strictly that terrible policy evils are made, merely to appear to the reader to come off as humble and from properly upstanding citizens. This is more of a danger in the 21 Century than many know.