Are All Good Deeds Inherently Selfish?

[Ahlevah]

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.

I don't think so. In the first place, for an act to be considered "good" in the truest sense it must be performed by the giver unconditionally of his own free will without any expected benefit, even if the benefit is simply a feeling of self-satisfaction. In his Second Treatise of An Inquiry into the Original of Our Ideas of Beauty and Virtue, Francis Hutcheson made the following argument:

(I)f it can be made appear, that none of these Affections which we call virtuous, spring from Self-love, or Desire of private Interest; since all Virtue is either some such Affections, or Actions consequent upon them; it must necessarily follow, “That Virtue is not pursued from the Interest or Self-love of the Pursuer, or any Motives of his own Advantage."

In a short post like this I can't reproduce the entire argument that "affections" such as love and hate do not spring forth from "self-love" or "desire of private interest," but here's the general idea:

Propose to a Man all the Rewards in the World, or threaten all the Punishments, to engage him to love with Esteem, and Complacence, a third Person entirely unknown, or if known, apprehended to be cruel, treacherous, ungrateful; you may procure external Obsequiousness, or good Offices, or Dissimulation of Love; but real Love of Esteem no Price can purchase. And the same is obvious as to Hatred of Contempt, which no Motive of Advantage can prevent. On the contrary, represent a Character as generous, kind, faithful, humane, tho in the most distant Parts of the World, and we cannot avoid loving it with Es-teem, and Complacence. A Bribe may possibly make us attempt to ruin such a Man, or some strong Motive of Advantage may excite us to oppose his Interest; but it can never make us hate him, while we apprehend him as morally excellent. Nay, when we consult our own Hearts, we shall find, that we can scarce ever persuade our selves to attempt any Mischief against such Persons, from any Motive of Advantage, nor execute it, without the strongest Reluctance, and Remorse, until we have blinded our selves into a bad Opinion of the Person in a moral Sense.

Thus, if an act is motivated solely from love, and neither self-love nor any other personal interest is the source of the affection, then a person can act in a truly benevolent or altruistic manner. If you don't believe me, then read his book.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Do you feel the same about people who sacrifice their lives? All they get in exchange is their death.

The get a positive feeling prior to their death of knowing that they are sacrificing their life for something or someone. The transaction is still in place.

 

[Wiseone]

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?

I honestly can't think of a specific example and I may be argueing semantics here if our definitions of selfless are different. But I believe an act which is performed without any intent to gain something for oneself is a selfless act. So if one performs an act without any thought as to how it many positively affect them or if it may positively affect them, even if it ends up doing just that, is still a selfless act because there was no intent.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

I honestly can't think of a specific example and I may be argueing semantics here if our definitions of selfless are different. But I believe an act which is performed without any intent to gain something for oneself is a selfless act. So if one performs an act without any thought as to how it many positively affect them or if it may positively affect them, even if it ends up doing just that, is still a selfless act because there was no intent.

if there was no intent, what was the motivation to do the act?

 

[Wiseone]

if there was no intent, what was the motivation to do the act?

To help you're fellow human being. So it would be in a situation where only one's intent to help exists because for whatever reason there was no conscious thought process about how or what one might gain something by performing this good act.

I know I'm being vague, because I frankly have to be to make my argument, but perhaps I'm just an optimist.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

To help you're fellow human being.

Why would you want to do that?

So it would be in a situation where only one's intent to help exists because for whatever reason there was no conscious thought process about how or what one might gain something by performing this good act.

Intent and "no conscious thought process" are not compatible concepts. If you have intent, there is a conscious thought process.

I know I'm being vague, because I frankly have to be to make my argument, but perhaps I'm just an optimist.

The problem that I am seeing in this entire argument is the word "selfish". This word is generally considered a negative, but it is also considered an absolute. In what we are taking about, I prefer the phrase, "partially self-focused". All acts have a component of self-focusing, however, the degree of self-focusing is on a continuum.

 

[rivrrat]

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?

You prevent yourself from feeling 'bad' if you didn't do it. I would give my life for many people if I knew it could save others. Doing so would prevent me from being "unable to live with myself" for the rest of my life if I had not done so. Not to mention that one would feel "good" right as they did it, knowing that they were saving the lives of others.

 

[Slartibartfast]

I still disagree. I think many people who view all acts as selfish are overlooking the role of intent as a piece of the motivator for doing something.

If the primary focus is on one's self, than yes, any act is selfish, even if it benefits others
If the primary focus is on others, than the act is not selfish, even if it ultimately is to the detriment of others.

The fact that there is an internal reward mechanism or transaction is irrelevant because it will happen anyway if one is acting along their values of right and wrong.

 

[imagep]

I still disagree. I think many people who view all acts as selfish are overlooking the role of intent as a piece of the motivator for doing something.

If the primary focus is on one's self, than yes, any act is selfish, even if it benefits others
If the primary focus is on others, than the act is not selfish, even if it ultimately is to the detriment of others.

The fact that there is an internal reward mechanism or transaction is irrelevant because it will happen anyway if one is acting along their values of right and wrong.

Exactly. The intent does not matter. All that matters is the end result.

 

[imagep]

This is straying from the topic a little but it is related and I just wanted to see what other people thought about it...

My wife is the president of a 501C charity that helps support a youth activity. About half the cost of the activity is paid for directly by the families, the charity pays for the other half. I just had a parent contact us claiming that she donates money to the United Way, and since the charity recieves some funding from the United Way, that we should count the donations that she makes to the United Way towards her childs fee.

I was a little taken back by that and don't really know how to respond. We already budget in the United Way money and it accounts for less than 1% of the total cost of the program. The government also kicks in a small percent (less than 10% of the total cost), if we credited her donation to the United Way towards her fee, then what would stop people for saying that they donate to the Government (taxes) and that we should also count that towards their fees? During our first meeting of the new fiscal year we asked every parent to volunteer for a minimum of three activities. We have many parents to volunteer for basically everything, some of the volunteering to work two 6 hr back to back shifts at our events. She only volunteered for one activity and just one shift.

It just infuriates me that this parent not only refuses to participate in her childs activity, but then she tries to get out of paying the fee.

Sorry for venting.

 

[rivrrat]

I still disagree. I think many people who view all acts as selfish are overlooking the role of intent as a piece of the motivator for doing something.

If the primary focus is on one's self, than yes, any act is selfish, even if it benefits others
If the primary focus is on others, than the act is not selfish, even if it ultimately is to the detriment of others.

The fact that there is an internal reward mechanism or transaction is irrelevant because it will happen anyway if one is acting along their values of right and wrong.

I think you're still operating under the idea that selfish = bad or wrong. As is most everyone else, for that matter. Otherwise, I don't think people would get so defensive about the notion. Selfish does not equal 'bad', necessarily. In fact, I would argue quite the opposite in many cases. Feeding that internal desire to help other people, getting that payoff is what drives many of us TO help other people. How can that be 'bad'? Where we differ - where we draw the line between 'bad' and 'good' is at the point where our payoffs differ. Some people will not help another person no matter what. Because it does not give them a payoff to do so. They have no motivation to do so. So it is actually that selfishness - that internal payoff for doing a good deed that actually motivates people do DO good deeds. That selfishness, that payoff, is REQUIRED. Therefore, how can it be bad?

The selfishness (or payoff) is the motivating factor to doing good deeds. That would have to be defined as good, right?

 

[rivrrat]

This is straying from the topic a little but it is related and I just wanted to see what other people thought about it...

My wife is the president of a 501C charity that helps support a youth activity. About half the cost of the activity is paid for directly by the families, the charity pays for the other half. I just had a parent contact us claiming that she donates money to the United Way, and since the charity recieves some funding from the United Way, that we should count the donations that she makes to the United Way towards her childs fee.

I was a little taken back by that and don't really know how to respond. We already budget in the United Way money and it accounts for less than 1% of the total cost of the program. The government also kicks in a small percent (less than 10% of the total cost), if we credited her donation to the United Way towards her fee, then what would stop people for saying that they donate to the Government (taxes) and that we should also count that towards their fees? During our first meeting of the new fiscal year we asked every parent to volunteer for a minimum of three activities. We have many parents to volunteer for basically everything, some of the volunteering to work two 6 hr back to back shifts at our events. She only volunteered for one activity and just one shift.

It just infuriates me that this parent not only refuses to participate in her childs activity, but then she tries to get out of paying the fee.

Sorry for venting.

It may be infuriating on the surface, but there could be many underlying reasons. Lack of time, medical reasons, financial reasons. Maybe before assuming something bad, you could talk to her about it first. It could be that she's just a tightwad who doesn't want to "waste her time" doing those activities, but it could be something else entirely.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Exactly. The intent does not matter. All that matters is the end result.

I think it depends on what is meant by intent. It all depends on what is motivating a person. If that motivation is the beneficial result of a transaction, than it is selfish. If the motivation is to help someone, than it is not selfish, even if you are getting something back emotionally or in some other way.

I think you're still operating under the idea that selfish = bad or wrong. As is most everyone else, for that matter. Otherwise, I don't think people would get so defensive about the notion. Selfish does not equal 'bad', necessarily. In fact, I would argue quite the opposite in many cases. Feeding that internal desire to help other people, getting that payoff is what drives many of us TO help other people. How can that be 'bad'? Where we differ - where we draw the line between 'bad' and 'good' is at the point where our payoffs differ. Some people will not help another person no matter what. Because it does not give them a payoff to do so. They have no motivation to do so. So it is actually that selfishness - that internal payoff for doing a good deed that actually motivates people do DO good deeds. That selfishness, that payoff, is REQUIRED. Therefore, how can it be bad?

The selfishness (or payoff) is the motivating factor to doing good deeds. That would have to be defined as good, right?

I think we might be using a different definition of selfishness. I would only count something as selfish if whatever action I take is good for me, but I know it to be harmful to another (assuming the harm is not an unintended consequence). Which is wrong, unless that harm serves a greater good (jailing a criminal). If you do something for yourself and you accidentally harm another, beneficial to another (but that is not why you did whatever it was), or your actions are neutral towards another, it is not selfish.

Also I disagree with the bold statement. The emotional payoff may happen as a result of doing what a person thinks is right, but if the person didn't do it in the first place and be focused on the other person instead of themselves, than that payoff would not happen. I guess we are having a chicken and egg problem here (which comes first?)

 

[rivrrat]

I think it depends on what is meant by intent. It all depends on what is motivating a person. If that motivation is the beneficial result of a transaction, than it is selfish. If the motivation is to help someone, than it is not selfish, even if you are getting something back emotionally or in some other way.



I think we might be using a different definition of selfishness. I would only count something as selfish if whatever action I take is good for me, but I know it to be harmful to another (assuming the harm is not an unintended consequence). Which is wrong, unless that harm serves a greater good (jailing a criminal). If you do something for yourself and you accidentally harm another, beneficial to another (but that is not why you did whatever it was), or your actions are neutral towards another, it is not selfish.

Also I disagree with the bold statement. The emotional payoff may happen as a result of doing what a person thinks is right, but if the person didn't do it in the first place and be focused on the other person instead of themselves, than that payoff would not happen. I guess we are having a chicken and egg problem here (which comes first?)

It's possible that we are having a chicken and egg thing. However, I don't think anyone would be motivated TO help anyone else if that internal reward wasn't already in place. I am motivated to help someone because I WANT to. That desire is indicative of the existance of the (selfish) desire to do what I WANT to do. The fact that I WANT to help others doesn't make that WANT, that desire, any less of an internal, selfish motivation. The motivation is the WANT, the desire, which stems from the knowledge that it will make us feel good. The good feeling may happen after the fact (or during), but it's the promise (for lack of a better word) of that good feeling that motivates the action that will instill it.

 

[imagep]

I think it depends on what is meant by intent. It all depends on what is motivating a person. If that motivation is the beneficial result of a transaction, than it is selfish. If the motivation is to help someone, than it is not selfish, even if you are getting something back emotionally or in some other way.

Some people would argue that anytime someone does something to help out someone else without significant compensation in return (aside from emotional gratification), that they have inconvenienced themself. Certainly if you inconvienience yourself to help out someone else, you are not selfish.

Seems to me that the selfish person would be the person recieving assistance without fairly compensating the assistor.

It is really irritating when someone tries to make the victim out of the criminal and tells the true victim that it is their fault that they got robbed/rapped/beat up. It almost seems like some posters here are trying to rationalize not being charitable by claiming it is being selfish.

 

[imagep]

Some people would argue that anytime someone does something to help out someone else without significant compensation in return (aside from emotional gratification), that they have inconvenienced themself. Certainly if you inconvienience yourself to help out someone else, you are not selfish.

Maybe it is the person recieving the help that is selfish for allowing someone else to inconvience themselves with no compensation (other than emotional) from the person being helped.

 

[Slartibartfast]

It's possible that we are having a chicken and egg thing. However, I don't think anyone would be motivated TO help anyone else if that internal reward wasn't already in place. I am motivated to help someone because I WANT to. That desire is indicative of the existance of the (selfish) desire to do what I WANT to do. The fact that I WANT to help others doesn't make that WANT, that desire, any less of an internal, selfish motivation. The motivation is the WANT, the desire, which stems from the knowledge that it will make us feel good. The good feeling may happen after the fact (or during), but it's the promise (for lack of a better word) of that good feeling that motivates the action that will instill it.

I don't see the bold part as a very important distinction honestly. Sure the motivation is the want (and it partially has to be or else you feel that you don't have control over your life), but that want may or may not stem from a desire to feel good. It may very well stem from the desire to help the person. I say this because many times, if I hold the door open for someone, it is because their arms are full or they are in a wheel chair, or whatever, not because I think it will make me feel good. I don't look at a situation and go "Oh, I can help that person and experience a high! Let me at them!" I look at it and go "that guy is struggling, he needs help, I am not doing anything important, so I guess it falls on me since I am no better than he is." (and going back through memory, thats pretty much the thought that seems to occur over and over, in some variation). Than later on, if I think about it, I might go "oh, I helped that guy, I am a good guy" or "oh I helped that guy, I am glad for him (or some variation of those two thoughts). Most of the time, I don't really think about it ever again and move on to the next thing that interests me.

However, I will go back to my point. Saying something is selfish because you want to do it misses the point of the distinction entirely. Ultimately, the distinction is only based on morality and the principal that people should at the very least not be harmful to each other in their pursuits and helpful where possible. I guess if you take the morality out of it, than your lack of distinction makes sense.

 

[Orion]

The get a positive feeling prior to their death of knowing that they are sacrificing their life for something or someone. The transaction is still in place.

I'm not sure I buy that, but ok.

 

[rivrrat]

I don't see the bold part as a very important distinction honestly. Sure the motivation is the want (and it partially has to be or else you feel that you don't have control over your life), but that want may or may not stem from a desire to feel good. It may very well stem from the desire to help the person. I say this because many times, if I hold the door open for someone, it is because their arms are full or they are in a wheel chair, or whatever, not because I think it will make me feel good. I don't look at a situation and go "Oh, I can help that person and experience a high! Let me at them!" I look at it and go "that guy is struggling, he needs help, I am not doing anything important, so I guess it falls on me since I am no better than he is." (and going back through memory, thats pretty much the thought that seems to occur over and over, in some variation). Than later on, if I think about it, I might go "oh, I helped that guy, I am a good guy" or "oh I helped that guy, I am glad for him (or some variation of those two thoughts). Most of the time, I don't really think about it ever again and move on to the next thing that interests me.

However, I will go back to my point. Saying something is selfish because you want to do it misses the point of the distinction entirely. Ultimately, the distinction is only based on morality and the principal that people should at the very least not be harmful to each other in their pursuits and helpful where possible. I guess if you take the morality out of it, than your lack of distinction makes sense.

I getcha, and I think we're hung up on the thought process involved (or lack thereof). Let's keep it simple for both of our sakes.

Every action that we do is because we WANT to do it. If you break down ANY action that any person does, it will eventually break down into an "I want... ". That doesn't mean that immediately prior to an action we have a full on conversation with ourselves and determine what it is we want and why we want it. That doesn't need to happen. The very fact that you WANTED to open the door means that internal conversation has already taken place. You already have that value system in place. You didn't need to think about it at that point in time.

 

[Ahlevah]

The get a positive feeling prior to their death of knowing that they are sacrificing their life for something or someone. The transaction is still in place.

This argument strikes me as suspect. If I'm on a battlefield and I throw myself on a hand grenade to save a fellow soldier and I do it solely because I love him, maybe because I know he's a good man and he has a wife and three kids back home and I have none, I imagine I would more likely receive a feeling of dread or foreboding that I'm about to die and not a "positive feeling" of having done a good deed. True love is given freely and unconditionally, with no requirement that I receive anything, including a "positive feeling," in return. If I did receive a "positive feeling," it would be completely incidental to the goodness of the act, since I performed it with no expectation of receiving a reward.

 

[rivrrat]

This argument strikes me as suspect. If I'm on a battlefield and I throw myself on a hand grenade to save a fellow soldier and I do it solely because I love him, maybe because I know he's a good man and he has a wife and three kids back home and I have none, I imagine I would more likely receive a feeling of dread or foreboding that I'm about to die and not a "positive feeling" of having done a good deed. True love is given freely and unconditionally, with no requirement that I receive anything, including a "positive feeling," in return. If I did receive a "positive feeling," it would be completely incidental to the goodness of the act, since I performed it with no expectation of receiving a reward.

If you did it, you did it because you wanted to. That, in and of itself, is indicative of the personal motivation, the personal (i.e., selfish) payoff. You WANTED to. That doesn't make the act any less "good".

As someone who has risked her life to help others, I can tell you that there wasn't much immediate thought process involved other than the mechanics of how to achieve my goal with the least risk to myself and the victim. I didn't WANT to die, but I DID want to save them. That internal value system was already in place. I didn't need to sit there and think about their family that might be saddened by their death, or any reward, or anything of the sort. But I already had a value system in place that motivated me to jump in and rescue people when it was necessary to do so. So while I didn't do it for any external reward, the fact that the value system was in place for me already was the motivating factor. I WANTED to help them. And while it didn't cross my mind in the seconds before I took action, I wouldn't have been able to live with myself if I had NOT taken action. Internally I knew that already, I didn't need to have that conscious thought at the time. That IS a personal payoff. That IS a selfish motivation. But that's not a BAD motivation. As I've already argued, if that selfish motivation wasn't there, the person wouldn't have been helped. So it only stands to reason that said motivation is a GOOD thing.

 

[VanceMack]

I think it all depends on our level of growth and progression...Im a big fan of Maslow...I think he was a genius. Essentially it boils down to successful psychosocial progression. Those that have developed positive and healthy self esteem can be 'for' other people not out of a sense of need or obligation but in recognition of service as a component of self. And I can see how that might be seen as selfish...but thats the difference...it goes from "I must be" to "I am". The rub is of course that like Ghandi has said the truly self actualized person realizes that you can never be truly self actualized.

I think a LOT of people...probably MOST people do good deeds out of a sense of guilt, shame, burden, lowered self esteem or ego. Its more epitomized by "Look what I did"...NOW love me...

I dont think EVERYONE does it out of a sense of feeling better about themselves. I think some do it BECAUSE they already feel good 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? 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.

 

[VanceMack]

Isnt there someplace for good healthy 'selfless' behavior? I think of the actions of parents that protect their own children or partners doing the same thing for their loved one, not out of a sense of obligation but purely out of love. I dont know...maybe that is selfish still...but in a good way? is that possible? Its a good question.

If you did it, you did it because you wanted to. That, in and of itself, is indicative of the personal motivation, the personal (i.e., selfish) payoff. You WANTED to. That doesn't make the act any less "good".

As someone who has risked her life to help others, I can tell you that there wasn't much immediate thought process involved other than the mechanics of how to achieve my goal with the least risk to myself and the victim. I didn't WANT to die, but I DID want to save them. That internal value system was already in place. I didn't need to sit there and think about their family that might be saddened by their death, or any reward, or anything of the sort. But I already had a value system in place that motivated me to jump in and rescue people when it was necessary to do so. So while I didn't do it for any external reward, the fact that the value system was in place for me already was the motivating factor. I WANTED to help them. And while it didn't cross my mind in the seconds before I took action, I wouldn't have been able to live with myself if I had NOT taken action. Internally I knew that already, I didn't need to have that conscious thought at the time. That IS a personal payoff. That IS a selfish motivation. But that's not a BAD motivation. As I've already argued, if that selfish motivation wasn't there, the person wouldn't have been helped. So it only stands to reason that said motivation is a GOOD thing.

 

[VanceMack]

I'm not sure I buy that, but ok.

I agree...I think the incident you are describing is not a logical or thought out moment...it is pure instinct. In that example you are by your actions, without thinking about things, analyzing things or weighing pros and cons simply BEING...this is who you are.

Mind you...I do think there are some that DO catalogue such things when time is given...its probably more likely the thing we see in movies ("go on...save yourself...tell my mom I love her"). Kinda the "Lt Dan" thing from Forrest Gump...he went over to Vietnam with the understanding that at some point to be an honorable man and to be a part of his family legacy he was 'supposed' to die for his troops...not be saved by one of them. Thats a guy LOOKINg to be selfless for all the wrong reasons.

 

[rivrrat]

Isnt there someplace for good healthy 'selfless' behavior? I think of the actions of parents that protect their own children or partners doing the same thing for their loved one, not out of a sense of obligation but purely out of love. I dont know...maybe that is selfish still...but in a good way? is that possible? Its a good question.

Of course it's in a good way. Everyone seems hung up on the notion that selfish = bad. That is NOT the case. As I've said previously, it is those selfish motivations that motivate what most would consider to be "good" actions. Doing something out of love is very selfish. Love is something that comes from within you. It is a VERY strong motivational factor, and a very selfish one too. That doesn't mean that it's "bad" though.