Preface: This is a practical piece that quickly answers "What should I do in this situation?" rather than a theoretical text that describes what's always correct. It should be read accordingly.

Actually, I try to help people as much as I can. I enjoy this, but after a while I realized that I wasn't pleasing anyone, and just as I wasn't pleasing them, I couldn't find time for myself either. So I established certain criteria for helping, with the idea that everything needs to be filtered extensively. The goal is to help those who truly need help and filter out those who don't. My criterion is actually based on "benefit" rather than necessity. If something is beneficial, that thing can be done. This might seem morally questionable. Because it ultimately comes down to saying "I'll do it if it benefits me." But what I mean is "collective benefit." I find it appropriate to act in a way that maximizes the sum of benefits everyone gains.

Main principle: Is there any benefit for me in this?

If I'm going to do something and I won't gain even the slightest material or spiritual benefit from it, then doing that thing is both meaningless and I can't get motivated. Someone else can gain benefits according to themselves, and I won't have prevented the benefits they would gain. Thus, instead of doing a half-hearted job, I delegate it to someone who will do the job properly. Example: For instance, I might be asked to walk a dog. But I neither understand nor enjoy it. However, if such a task were given to someone who loves dogs, it would contribute much more to them.

Exception principle: Does this take too much of my time?

If they depend on me to get something done and this task won't consume too much of my time, I can do it. My loss won't be significant, but if the other person's gain is high relative to my loss, it becomes more beneficial in terms of collective benefit. Example: Let's say there's a psychology center and they're administering psychological tests to their patients clients. Since the staff there don't know programming, counting the test results is a burden in itself, something that takes hours. However, if it were given to me, I could create a test that can quickly calculate the results of hundreds of tests in one minute through an algorithm I'd set up in twenty minutes. Against my minor loss, their gain would be high. Collective benefit would be achieved.

First Rule: Is the other party's purpose right?

If I don't approve of the work being done, if I don't see the purpose as right, then the spiritual destruction of that work is already high. That's why I can't take on the job. This primarily harms me. Example: There's no need for an example really. Would you want to help a thief? The thief might benefit from this work, but the destruction it creates for you is very high.

Second rule: Does what's being done benefit the other party?

A person might very well ask you to do something that's harmful to themselves, which is already contrary to the "collective benefit" principle. Because you become directly or indirectly responsible for the harm you cause to the other party sooner or later. The other party has already been harmed, and you get harmed afterward. Example: Accepting that a person's most valuable asset is their life: Euthanasia. (Not "Ötanazi.") If we don't approve of suicide, we can never approve of euthanasia. Because in this case, not only the person themselves but also the person who performs the euthanasia becomes responsible for a death. If euthanasia is forced, this is an attack on the person who's forced to do it.

Final Rule: Is what's being done beneficial to society?

Maybe the help being done takes a lot of my time and is useless to me, it might also be useless to the person in front of me. But if the work being done will help general social welfare, then that work can be done, after all, this is something that will help collective benefit on a large scale. However, this has a certain limit; if this helping situation will constantly take your time and require sacrifice from you, avoiding it can be a choice. Example: This is also simple, it could be supporting a civil society organization or picking up a stone blocking the road and putting it somewhere else. This rule includes things that have an indirect effect even if the effect isn't direct.

Some Event Examples

Doing a student's homework

Frequently, computer engineering students come to someone like me who studied Psychology and have me do the algorithm or other types of homework their professors assigned. Since I'm interested in Ruby, 19 Mayıs University students often message me. I accepted some of them, but I shouldn't accept them. If we examine this:

• Main principle: This has absolutely no benefit for me.
• Exception principle: Doing this work isn't easy for me either, I'll rack my brain.
• First rule: The purpose isn't right, because the real aim is to skip class. Why should I participate in this?
• Second rule: It harms the other party, because it prevents the person from gaining the competency required by their own education.
• Final rule: Rather than benefiting society, it brings harm. Because I'll be giving a diploma that will "prove their competency" to someone who isn't competent.

Sorry, instead of hanging around in Atakum, go learn some Ruby, my dear friend.

Participating in long-term environmental work

This topic has bothered me a lot, and even when I compare it according to the above criteria, it's controversial. Because it's quite effective in terms of collective benefit, but it doesn't bring benefit to me or my immediate environment either. However, this is quite beneficial in terms of collective benefit.

• Main principle: No direct benefit to me.
• Exception principle: I'll spend time, effort, and my own labor.
• First rule: The purpose is right and beautiful.
• Second rule: This work might be beneficial to the group I'm in.
• Final rule: The aim is already directed toward society.

Rejecting this work is the right thing to do. Because no matter how much it fits the collective benefit principle, since it doesn't interest me, it conflicts with the main principle, and since the exception principle won't reverse this, I'll reject it.

Joining a mobilization

Let's say a war broke out in the country and they started collecting every man who can hold a weapon one by one. Get well soon. This must be the worst thing a person can experience. Now there's such a contradiction: should I join the war or find a way to escape?

• Main principle: Forget benefit, there's harm.
• Exception principle: If I don't participate, they'll shoot me; if I participate, at least I have a chance of survival.
• First rule: The interpretation of the purpose changes according to conditions, but I can't find it right to organize to annihilate another group.
• Second rule: Even if this work doesn't benefit me, it benefits those who call me to war, not the opposing side.
• Final rule: If war promises to implement strategy and end in the shortest time without bloodshed, this is beneficial for both sides. If war will drag on, it's negative for both sides.

We can't foresee collective benefit and we need more information for a real prediction. It would be right to ignore collective benefit; the only criterion we have can be individual benefit. In this case, not going to war is the right thing to do. Because it's clear that if I refuse, my relatives and I will suffer material or spiritual harm.