putative theory of optimal interactions

when interacting with another human being, i think a useful guiding principle is: "do that which maximizes the expected connection between oneself and the other." i do not mean here immediate connection, but rather long term. if one analogizes with dynamics or kinetics equations, we are interested in maximizing the expected value of the steady-state of the system. in game-theoretic terms, this may be akin to the pareto optimal solution (but i don't understand that stuff well enough just yet). in buddhist thought, this may be related to the idea of searching to unify oneself with the other, to the point that one does not even consider oneself different from another (again, i'm not sure i get this stuff yet). bob marley may have referred to this idea as "one love. one heart. let's get together and feel alright," again referring to breaking down the barriers between us and just coming together. so, clearly, this is not a novel or unique idea. nonetheless, it does not seem to be central to many contemporary moral or ethical systems (at least western ones). i came to this thought because i used to act according to a very similar principle: "do that which maximizes the immediate connection between oneself and the other." sadly, this often leads to suffering, as immediate gains often come at the cost of long term suffering.

i find that i am able to act according to this new principle in a way that is not at all paternalistic. this is somewhat in contrast to: "do unto others that which you would like done unto you." i think the appropriate way to understand this thought lies in considering *psychological impact*, not actions. if i like eating cake, but you don't, then i shouldn't get you cake. if i only consider actions, then i would want cake, so i should get cake for others. instead, the important point is i would want things that *i* like, so when getting presents for others i should get them things that they like. however, acting according to this principle, even upon the interpretation that i prefer (a psychological impact emphasis rather then the "act" itself emphasis), leads me to paternalistic behavior or controversy. for instance, a woman wants to sleep with me. she says she'll like it and feels good about the decision. assuming i want to as well, i could go with it, and hope everything would be cool. or i could not go with it, the rationale being that i don't believe it is what she really wants deep down, or i think it would be better for her not to in the long run. either one of those rationales is somewhat dissatisfactory. however, if i consider our long term connection, i would concur only if i believed that it was beneficial for our relationship. this thought process somehow side steps the issue of considering her, or myself, of being paternalistic or selfish. the point is our interaction (which is really the thing at stake).

so, i'm pretty happy with this approach so far. if anybody has some qualms about it, i'd love to hear it. of course, it is not a complete theory of ethical behavior (eg, how might i consider interactions with people i've never met, such as sudanese refugees), nor does it solve all interpersonal relationship problems, but i think its a pretty good place to start.