Service to self, or to others?

Many authors today exhort that we should forego ‘service to self,’ in favour of ‘service to others.’ Why? What benefit is to be gained? Alternatively, what sacrifice is necessary? It is far too easy to accept this plea and not challenge its fundamental premises. The word ‘service,’ in this context, means the action of helping or doing work for someone. Therefore, ‘service to self’ means to do work for one’s self, or to help oneself; to be concerned with one’s own interests. Primary actions of this kind such as eating, sleeping, and exercising, are fundamental to life. We cannot exist without them. Service to self is both necessary and moral.


Many years ago the word ‘selfish’ meant ‘concern with one’s own interests.’  That was its original dictionary definition. Today it does not mean that.

‘The meaning ascribed in popular usage to the word “selfishness” is not merely wrong: it represents a devastating intellectual “package-deal,” which is responsible, more than any other single factor, for the arrested moral development of mankind. In popular usage, the word “selfishness” is a synonym of evil; the image it conjures is of a murderous brute who tramples over piles of corpses to achieve his own ends, who cares for no living being and pursues nothing but the gratification of the mindless whims of any immediate moment.’ —Ayn Rand

It seems this notion of ‘service to self’ is what we are urged to give up in favour of ‘service to others.’ However, the concept of ‘service to self,’ meaning to be selfish, did not first include a moral evaluation. It is for the science of ethics to answer such questions. Its role is to inform what amongst one’s own interests is good or evil; what advances Man’s actual interests, versus what forfeits or denies them.

Right to life

To this end the base line reference is life, the life of every individual man, woman and child. Unalienable right to life belongs to each. It follows that right to one’s life goes hand in glove with ethical respect for all other’s right to life. One who truly honours and respects their life, will uphold all other’s unalienable right to life. Differently said, one who serves themselves honourably and respectfully, will choose to serve others the exact same respect. They will refuse to act as murderous brutes trampling over piles of corpses for their own goals.

Respect for others is not a duty, or obligation to others. It is a self oriented morality that allows freedom for all others. Only by granting their freedom is our own guaranteed. Freedom is moral ‘service to self,’ within the equal rights of all others. To argue that ‘service to self’ must be forsaken for ‘service to others,’ without these distinctions, is to preach an inverted morality.

Service is a choice

True morality does not preclude helping or doing work for someone. That is a choice, not a moral duty, or obligation to them. Observably, therefore, self service as the cornerstone of morality, is self initiated and sustained, or it is negligent, or void. It follows that our highest service to others will protect their choices, their freedom, and autonomy to self initiate and sustain their own lives.

Our assurance of their autonomy, their unalienable right to life, is the only guarantee of our own. Accordingly, what first seems to be a moral obligation to others, turns out to be the flip side of honouring one’s own life, i.e., service to self. Without internal respect, no external respect is possible.

Law of One – or One Law

All too often switching service from self, to others, is predicated on the idea ‘we are all one,’ described in my last post. This notion of singularity is called Universal law, the ‘Law of One,’ or ‘Universal Truth.’

Quote: ‘The Law of One is the Universal Truth that All Is One.’ –Deus

It is said that one who practices understanding of the ‘Law of One,’ chooses their actions premised upon his or her awareness that every action has a self consequence, and ramifications for others. Readers of ‘Law from Within,’ will recognise this as the ‘Natural Law of Just Consequence.’ They will also understand that actions are self authored, whereby the choice to assist others is to morally honour one’s own life. This is the foundation of collaboration and cooperation found inherent in a convivial, symbiotic society.

Service to Self

To call this a ‘Law of One’ is nonsensical. We are not one homogeneous or conglomerate entity, thereby fit for rule or one world government. We are individuated beings, each complete in themselves, each beholden to natural laws that exist within each of us. Service to Self will respect these natural laws. If the phrase ‘Law of One’ is to have any value, then laws pertinent to each individual ‘one,’ should properly be the moral foundations of society.

Time for reappraisal

Individuality seems to be foreign to the concept of ‘universal law’ based on unity consciousness.

‘We are all direct expressions of the One Source God Source. The Law of One is an energetic reality as well as a creational covenant with the Founder Races.The Law of One is practiced by the Advanced Races that promote self responsibility and accountability in our Universal Time Matrix through the comprehension of the interconnection between all living ’ —Ascension Glossary

Do you sense gross ambiguity? To promote self responsibility and accountability is worthy indeed, but its moral authorship is singular within each, not singular as denoted by the idea ‘we are all one’. If indeed we are concerned with our brothers and sisters, then prime concern is oneself.

A (pilot) friend recently pointed out that the ‘service to others’ concept is a trap of the grouped mentality.

‘In a commercial aircraft, in case of loss of pressure in the cabin you are told to put the oxygen mask on yourself first and then on any children. If you go with the ‘service to others’ concept and pass out because you didn’t take care of yourself first you are useless to others.’

Worse I submit, a burden. Isn’t it time to reappraise many prevalent notions based on unity consciousness? Much spoken of today is relevant, but is deceptively ambiguous. Perhaps additionally, it is time that Advanced Founder races took lessons in the complementary aspects of human free will and moral accountability. ‘Law from Within’ is highly recommended. Lawful order is within us all, and that is the path to freedom.

Back to Blog Index