- Joined
- Jul 12, 2010
- Messages
- 3,715
- Reaction score
- 751
- Location
- Northern Virginia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Transaction Theory states that the concept of pure altruism does not exist, at least not in the sense that people will often use it. There is no such thing as a selfless act. Every action that we make is a "transaction". If, for example, I do something for you, I get something out of doing that thing... perhaps a feeling of self-worth, or a good feeling of helping another. This feeling is the "payoff" and may be obtained unconsciously or without the conscious motivation towards obtaining it.. Even choosing to die for someone is not a selfless act. In this case, the transaction would precede the behavior... the good feeling of sacrificing for another. Therefore, it is not possible to put anyone but yourself first. This does not denote selfishness, however, and as can be seen with Transaction Theory, obtaining ones "payoff" often benefits others, sometimes more qualitatively or quantitatively than oneself. Even in those situations, though, the behavior starts with the self.
I believe in the selfless act, although I believe its very hard to achieve. But in my experience I've met people who do good things for no other reason than because its a natural reaction to a situation, and at least it looks that way to me. And if someone can do something good purely out of instinct without regard to how it may affect them, whether it takes a lot of time or costs a lot of money or even it doesn't. Of course most good deeds I think have some selfish aspect, whether to feel good about themselves or because they feel obligated to a religion or self-image of themselves, or in the hopes of getting something in return.
Isn't it true that all the busybodies out there who believe in living a life of selflessness (in order words, living your life for the sake of serving others) only believe in such a misguided foundation because they, themselves, wish to feel better about themselves.
When politicians, activists, and/or ordinary individuals attempt to make life more enjoyable for those less fortunate around them, isn't it true that in most cases (if not all cases) the good deed is done to make the generous individual feel better about him/herself?
I guess that's the safest, most moderate way to put it. The logic denies an intense binary that leaves us with only two forms of expression, and leaves us open with the possibility that a good deed can be made in a selfless act. “Natural” preconditioned reactions to daily situations are not evidence to the contrary. Preconditioned behavior is no more "natural" than the spontaneous acts of selfishness. "Natural" and "instinct" are reputable terms in this debate. The point is that it is extremely hard to come up with an actual example of one person giving to another for the sole sake of the receiver's gain. As the other respondent noted, even the most romanticized image of selfless acts-sacrificing your life for the sake of another individual- is not inherently selfless. So, what examples are you left with?
Boy, according to your logic, we're damned if we do and damned if we don't.
When politicians, activists, and/or ordinary individuals attempt to make life more enjoyable for those less fortunate around them, isn't it true that in most cases (if not all cases) the good deed is done to make the generous individual feel better about him/herself? Under any normal circumstances, the kind soul who gives a dollar to a peddler on the street knows full well that the money will be wasted on toxic substances rather than spent on vital necessities. The act of giving a dollar to a beggar on the street is no more "good" for the beggar than it is "good" to reward others for the mistakes and/or harmful habits that they themselves create.
Under normal circumstances, individuals have the capability to rise out of poverty and to improve the lot of their own surroundings. Given that a person is not born with blindness or disability, or acquires a debilitating condition later on in life, the resources and opportunity is out there if their character is ambitious enough to reach for them. It is up to the individual to make the right decisions and to act responsibility. When they are at fault for their own bad habits, their own careless judgments and their own living conditions, you can't point the finger at CEOs, bankers, and corporations as if they were the masters over the enslaved poor. In some cases, the poor are poor because of horrible, unpredictable circumstances. For the most part, however, the poor are poor because they failed to make the right decisions and/or they failed to break their own bad habits.
Back to the subject of this post: Isn't it true that all the busybodies out there who believe in living a life of selflessness (in order words, living your life for the sake of serving others) only believe in such a misguided foundation because they, themselves, wish to feel better about themselves.
Everything we do is selfish because it is in accordance with our values. A man feeding the poor is being selfish because he is doing what he thinks is right. In this sense, it is worthless to call our acts selfish or selfless because we always act selfishly. What is more important, then, is how we label our values. There are selfish values and selfless values. So yes, it could theoretically be a selfish act on my part to hand out money recklessly. I would gain satisfaction, I would consider myself wealthier by doing that than by doing anything else (or at least I perceive that to be the case at the time I engage in the action).
I would think you to be correct that "All Good Deeds (are) Inherently Selfish", but I do disagree with the following statement:
Just because someone "does good" for the purpose of feeling better about themselves does not negate the value of their good deeds, nor does it mean that they are "misguided", and there is certainly nothing negative about being a "busybody".
Value and productivity can most certainly rise from acts of charity. I really don't think that it matters what the motivation is, all that matters is the result. People who who participate in charitable activities financially or physically have no more and no less merit than people who are equally as productive for any other reason (including greed).
My wife is the president of a 501C charity and both of us put a lot of time, effort, intellect, and money into that organization. I can't speak for her, but I do it because I get something emotionally out of it. Regardless of the fact that I am getting something out of it, the activity that we support is helpful to the lives that the charity touches and tends to lead to a higher level of lifetime productivity for those individuals.
One of the other volunteers has told me before that he does it simply because he "wants to". That is reason enough.
Sure- things benefit the self. . . but are only selfish is they *only* benefit the self.
If you help, support, inspire or protect someone else in some way - even if your main goal is your 'self' then it's not 'selfish'
I have discussed this at length here at DP in presenting my "Transaction Theory" of human behavior. Each and every behavior we do is a transaction. We get something out of it, on some level. Here are the basics of "Transaction Theory" as I explained in another thread:
Boy, according to your logic, we're damned if we do and damned if we don't.
I always feel good when I do something special for someone else. Does that make me selfish? Does that make the act itself somehow "impure?" No. I give $$ to the people standing at the exit ramps of X-ways when I pass 'em and it's convenient. I smile to myself because I wonder if they're real or if they've found a pretty fair-to-middlin' part-time job. But it doesn't make any difference. I do it anyway. And I feel good about it, too. And there's nothing wrong with that.
MaggieD,
Again, my intentions were to diffuse the social myth that generous acts are, or can be, completely selfless. The value of the good deed is irrelevant. We can debate whether or not to give a dollar to a man begging at the end of the highway ramp, and that is a good debate to have. But the whole idea of being generous and committing acts that help those around us who really need it is commendable, in my opinion. This is despite the fact that all selfless deeds are inherently selfish. I don't believe living your life for the sake of serving others. That is essentially voluntary slavery. I swear by my life, and my love for it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for the sake of mine. Our lives are own, and we must enjoy them to the fullest that we can. Living in order to improve the lot of other lives is commendable, to a point. But there is a threshold that even the Dalai Lama won't cross. You give to a peddler in order to feel better about yourself, and you openly admit it. You certainly don't consider the steps you could take to actually improve his life over the long-term. For one, he has to be willing to improve his own life. Second, it would be far more effective to invite him into your home so that he has a place to stay. But I'm sure you won't go there, no matter how selfless you see yourself to be. How about sending him to college? Instead of taking that next vacation, you could give the man some vocational training, or send him to a couple semesters of community college. You could get your friends together and organize some sort of foundation that will be everlasting in its pursuit to effectively improve the lives of the misfortunate. Instead, you give up the dollar when it's convenient, but fail to see that "selfless" people like you are primarily responsible for keeping the poor man in his condition. Yes, you have employed the man to just stand at the end of the ramp and beg. How does that contribute to his productivity or to improving his life in the long-term? It doesn't. In 9 out of 10 cases, the dollar will be spent on the next bottle of malt liquor. The value of the deed, INMO, is minimal at best.
Wow. Quite an interesting post. I think I understand what you're saying. But I don't understand where you're going.
Unless you're really willing to do something extraordinary to help a stranger, don't bother. You're hurting instead of helping. In fact, more than that, you are partly responsible for his plight. AND you're doing it for selfish reasons. I don't buy it. I fail to see how stopping briefly and connecting with someone who may need some teeny-tiny evidence that he matters in the world could hurt him. There are social agencies that will do exactly the things you're saying I could do. The homeless man knows they're there and may or may not use them. For me to smile at him and offer him some small token surely can't be seen as selfish. It makes me feel good. But I don't think there's anything wrong with that. Maybe the answer is that I'd feel badly if I just walked on by...
Your analysis may hold water. Maybe I'm doing it more for myself than him. Maybe that's why everybody does things. On a subconscious level, maybe we're asking, "What's in it for me?" I'm rather glad the world works they way it works, though....that people do kind things for others even if the kindnesses are small. So if that's the real motivation behind those acts of kindness, well, so be it.
What about sacrificing your life to save another? Are you doing that to "feel good" as the hand grenade you dove on blows you into thousands of indistinguishable pieces?
What about sacrificing your life to save another? Are you doing that to "feel good" as the hand grenade you dove on blows you into thousands of indistinguishable pieces?
I was thinking of the counter-example of the soldier saving another soldier's life too. I think you have misinterpreted the motives though. Its not that the soldier has been trained or learned to sacrifice himself for others, its that he would rather see himself be sacrificed than having his buddy get harmed. Is that not as selfless an act as one could possibly be? And if you hear from WWII veterans, they will say they weren't fighting for country the most, they were fighting for the guy next to them and their buddies.Again, when the behavior is preconditioned through an intense learning process that values servitude for others over pursuing one's own rational self-interests, then what you're left with is a thousand comrades sacrificing their life for the good of the colony. It is selfish in terms of validating one's own ideological/religious convictions and pursuing a self-image of greatness that will be forever embodied in the commemoration of a thousand martyrs.
Again, when the behavior is preconditioned through an intense learning process that values servitude for others over pursuing one's own rational self-interests, then what you're left with is a thousand comrades sacrificing their life for the good of the colony. It is selfish in terms of validating one's own ideological/religious convictions and pursuing a self-image of greatness that will be forever embodied in the commemoration of a thousand martyrs.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?