Are All Good Deeds Inherently Selfish?

[imagep]

Let me give you two scenarios, and you tell me if there's a difference:

A young boy, who is an habitual liar and thief, is walking along the street with his mother. A panhandler approaches the pair, and the boy reaches into his pocket and hands the panhandler a quarter solely because he wants to curry favor with his mother and demonstrate to her what a good boy he is.

Another boy, who, while not perfect, doesn't demonstrate the antisocial tendencies of the first child, is also walking down the street and sees the same panhandler. He reaches into his pocket and hands the man a quarter solely because he thinks he needs it more and that it will do him some good.

Do you see a difference?

I for one can see the difference. the "good" boy did something to make himself feel better, the "bad" boy did something to trick his mother. In rivrrat's world, they were both selfish. In my world, the bad boy was more selfish than the good boy.

I know that this is beside your point, but the mother of both of those boys should beat the crap out of them for encouraging a good for nothing panhandler.

 

[Ahlevah]

I for one can see the difference. the "good" boy did something to make himself feel better, the "bad" boy did something to trick his mother.

No, actually, the "good" boy is not looking for anything, even a good feeling, in return. He just wants to help the guy.

 

[rivrrat]

Let me give you two scenarios, and you tell me if there's a difference:

A young boy, who is an habitual liar and thief, is walking along the street with his mother. A panhandler approaches the pair, and the boy reaches into his pocket and hands the panhandler a quarter solely because he wants to curry favor with his mother and demonstrate to her what a good boy he is.

Another boy, who, while not perfect, doesn't demonstrate the antisocial tendencies of the first child, is also walking down the street and sees the same panhandler. He reaches into his pocket and hands the man a quarter solely because he thinks he needs it more and that it will do him some good.

Do you see a difference?

You are attempting to place a moral judgement on the motivations of the respective boys. I am making no moral judgement at all. My entire argument is independent of any moral judgement. In BOTH cases, the boys did what they did because it gave them some kind of payoff to do so. In both cases, the panhandler now has an extra coin. Now, we can sit and argue the moral judgement of the specific motivations and the specific payoffs each of the boys got, but that is independent of (and irrelevant to) the fact that BOTH of them got some kind of payoff for their actions.

No, actually, the "good" boy is not looking for anything, even a good feeling, in return. He just wants to help the guy.

Key words here.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Honestly Rivr, I don't think its possible to separate the concepts of selfishness from the concept of morality since most forms of morality are based on social activity.

 

[Ahlevah]

You are attempting to place a moral judgement on the motivations of the respective boys. I am making no moral judgement at all. My entire argument is independent of any moral judgement. In BOTH cases, the boys did what they did because it gave them some kind of payoff to do so. In both cases, the panhandler now has an extra coin. Now, we can sit and argue the moral judgement of the specific motivations and the specific payoffs each of the boys got, but that is independent of (and irrelevant to) the fact that BOTH of them got some kind of payoff for their actions.

Yeah, I'm making a moral judgment. I think the first kid is attempting to deceive his mother. The second kid doesn't expect anything in return. He's just short a quarter. His mother already considers him to be a good boy, and he didn't do it because he needed a "positive feeling" or to avoid a "negative feeling." He just chose to help the guy because he was down on his luck and he thought he could help him.

Key words here.

The key words are what follows the word "want": "He wanted (or chose) to help him because.... " Our motivations for our "wants" (or choices ) are significant.

 

[rivrrat]

Yeah, I'm making a moral judgment.

And I am not. There is no need for a moral judgement. Both actions gave the respective actors a payoff. The payoff that THEY desired.

I think the first kid is attempting to deceive his mother. The second kid doesn't expect anything in return. He's just short a quarter. His mother already considers him to be a good boy, and he didn't do it because he needed a "positive feeling" or to avoid a "negative feeling." He just chose to help the guy because he was down on his luck and he thought he could help him.

He did it because he wanted to. When we do what we want, that IS the payoff. That elicits a "good feeling".

The key words are what follows the word "want": "He wanted (or chose) to help him because.... " Our motivations for our "wants" (or choices ) are significant.

He was motivated by his desire to do it. He WANTED. Now, his desire to do it could stem from any number of things. But that's irrelevant unless you're trying to make a moral judgement, which I am not. Since the payoff exists independent of any subjective moral qualification.

 

[MaggieD]

Of COURSE there are good deeds. Where did you see anyone stating the contrary?

Again, you are equating selfish with 'bad'. And that's not the case. If I believed that "selfish = bad" then you might have a point. But as I've said repeatedly and even explicity argued, selfish does not equate to "bad".

The definition of "selfish" is: 1 : concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself : seeking or concentrating on one's own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others; 2 : arising from concern with one's own welfare or advantage in disregard of others <a selfish act>.Selfish - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Uhh... no, not one person here is making any moral equivocation at all. Well, except for maybe those of you who continually suggest that "selfish = bad".

The definition of "selfish" is: 1 : concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself : seeking or concentrating on one's own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others; 2 : arising from concern with one's own welfare or advantage in disregard of others <a selfish act>.Selfish - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

 

[MaggieD]

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.

Captain Courtesy said it best. He, in fact, goes out of his way to describe such actions as not being selfish.

 

[rivrrat]

The definition of "selfish" is: 1 : concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself : seeking or concentrating on one's own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others; 2 : arising from concern with one's own welfare or advantage in disregard of others <a selfish act>.Selfish - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary



The definition of "selfish" is: 1 : concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself : seeking or concentrating on one's own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others; 2 : arising from concern with one's own welfare or advantage in disregard of others <a selfish act>.Selfish - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

And it ALSO means, "relating to or characterized by self-interest ". Our self ALWAYS comes first. Always. Without question. Our wants, our desires. If we did not act in our own self interest 100% of the time, we would die. And sometimes we die even when we do act in our own self-interest. But regardless, our desire is what drives our actions. All of them. Every single action taken boils down to an "I want... ". That IS "characterized by self-interest".

If we DO choose to take others into consideration when we choose what action we will take, we only do so because it will benefit us in some way.

 

[rivrrat]

Captain Courtesy said it best. He, in fact, goes out of his way to describe such actions as not being selfish.

Well, I'd have to say that on this topic I agree with the Capn 100% minus those 5 words.

 

[MaggieD]

Well, I'd have to say that on this topic I agree with the Capn 100% minus those 5 words.

Now this is what I don't understand. Why do you stubbornly hang on to your "very own" definition of the word selfish when it clearly has a negative connotation?

 

[rivrrat]

Now this is what I don't understand. Why do you stubbornly hang on to your "very own" definition of the word selfish when it clearly has a negative connotation?

It's not my "very own" definition. "Relating to or characterized by self-interest" is not "my very own" definition.

And yes, one of the definitions of "selfish" says "without regard for others". But, even if we DO choose to regard others, we do it because it benefits us to do so. It's always about US. It's always about a personal payoff. The only difference is what payoff each of us desires, but it's a personal payoff nontheless. It is always about the self.

 

[Slartibartfast]

It's not my "very own" definition. "Relating to or characterized by self-interest" is not "my very own" definition.

And yes, one of the definitions of "selfish" says "without regard for others". But, even if we DO choose to regard others, we do it because it benefits us to do so. It's always about US. It's always about a personal payoff. The only difference is what payoff each of us desires, but it's a personal payoff nontheless. It is always about the self.

I disagree that the existence of a payoff means we do it for the payoff. As I posted before, its all about the focus of the activity. If it is internally focused, than sure, we do it for the payoff. If it is externally focused (which I guess is something we disagree on being possible, I think it is) than we do not. It is as simple as that. Again, I think this ultimately about emotional maturity and I agree with VanceMack that Maslow has it right. Once you get your basic needs met, you are more able to focus on others and not worry about payoff for yourself.

 

[rivrrat]

I disagree that the existence of a payoff means we do it for the payoff. As I posted before, its all about the focus of the activity. If it is internally focused, than sure, we do it for the payoff. If it is externally focused (which I guess is something we disagree on being possible, I think it is) than we do not. It is as simple as that. Again, I think this ultimately about emotional maturity and I agree with VanceMack that Maslow has it right. Once you get your basic needs met, you are more able to focus on others and not worry about payoff for yourself.

And I still maintain that every single action we take is motivated by a personal payoff.. Every single one of them. You may not be conscioiusly thinking, "I'm going to get xyz for doing this", but it's a payoff nontheless. Every action. Everything boils down to:

I WANT...

 

[Slartibartfast]

And I still maintain that every single action we take is motivated by a personal payoff.. Every single one of them. You may not be conscioiusly thinking, "I'm going to get xyz for doing this", but it's a payoff nontheless. Every action. Everything boils down to:

I WANT...

The existence of want is not enough. It is the expectation of a payoff that is required for selfishness I have trouble believing that all actions are in the expectation of a payoff because it runs contrary to my experiences in life. If it were true, I would have experienced it every single time I did something.

 

[rivrrat]

The existance of want is not high enough of a standard to convince me. It is the expectation of a payoff that is required for selfishness.

And I disagree. We wouldn't perform any action without the payoff.

 

[MaggieD]

And I still maintain that every single action we take is motivated by a personal payoff.. Every single one of them. You may not be conscioiusly thinking, "I'm going to get xyz for doing this", but it's a payoff nontheless. Every action. Everything boils down to:

I WANT...

I think you're saying that every action RivRat takes is motivated by a personal payoff. Just because there IS a personal payoff does not mean that payoff was the motivation. In your case, it obviously is.

 

[Slartibartfast]

And I disagree. We wouldn't perform any action without the payoff.

Perhaps you would not, but again, my experiences run contrary to that. Also, sorry for the post edit, I often do that to clarify my thoughts, looks like you got a rough draft.

 

[rivrrat]

I think you're saying that every action RivRat takes is motivated by a personal payoff. Just because there IS a personal payoff does not mean that payoff was the motivation. In your case, it obviously is.

LOL No, that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that every action that any person takes is motivated by a payoff of some kind. Every action, by every person, on the face of the planet, since we came into existence.

We don't do a goddamn thing unless there's something in it for us. Some motivation. Some desire. Some WANT.

Perhaps you would not, but again, my experiences run contrary to that. Also, sorry for the post edit, I often do that to clarify my thoughts, looks like you got a rough draft.

I defy you to give me any situation real or imagined where you think that the action was taken without some kind of personal payoff to the person taking the action.

 

[Slartibartfast]

I defy you to give me any situation real or imagined where you think that the action was taken without some kind of personal payoff to the person taking the action.

Ok. This morning, I held the door open for a coworker that I do not particularly like or dislike. I did not experience any sort of positive emotion for doing so and I would not have felt any negative emotion for not doing so as I am essentially neutral towards her. I felt like it because I was going to go through the door anyway and it took no extra effort on my part to give her right of way but with the same amount of effort, I could have let her hold the door for me or we each could have gotten the door for ourselves. I do not expect nor care if she holds the door open for me in the future or if she holds me in higher regard or any change in the relationship at all.

Essentially, I felt like doing it because I was there.

 

[MaggieD]

LOL No, that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that every action that any person takes is motivated by a payoff of some kind. Every action, by every person, on the face of the planet, since we came into existence.

We don't do a goddamn thing unless there's something in it for us. Some motivation. Some desire. Some WANT.

I defy you to give me any situation real or imagined where you think that the action was taken without some kind of personal payoff to the person taking the action.

Your whole premise is based on your contention that that's WHY we do good things. I don't agree. And this is one of those things that one could argue about in circles ad infinitum; so I'll just agree right here to disagree. ;-)

 

[rivrrat]

Your whole premise is based on your contention that that's WHY we do good things. I don't agree. And this is one of those things that one could argue about in circles ad infinitum; so I'll just agree right here to disagree. ;-)

Of course it's the WHY, even though many times it's not conscious. Every action breaks down into an "I want". That's the WHY.

You give money to the bum on the corner.
Why?
"Because he needed it."
So? Why did you give it to him?
"Because I wanted him to have it" (I WANT)

There is always a payoff.

 

[rivrrat]

Ok. This morning, I held the door open for a coworker that I do not particularly like or dislike. I did not experience any sort of positive emotion for doing so and I would not have felt any negative emotion for not doing so as I am essentially neutral towards her. I felt like it because I was going to go through the door anyway and it took no extra effort on my part to give her right of way but with the same amount of effort, I could have let her hold the door for me or we each could have gotten the door for ourselves. I do not expect nor care if she holds the door open for me in the future or if she holds me in higher regard or any change in the relationship at all.

Essentially, I felt like doing it because I was there.

You felt like doing it.

Why did you hold door? You wanted to. If you didn't want to, you wouldn't have done it. There's a reason you did it, and that's because you wanted to do it - or felt like doing it.

 

[Slartibartfast]

You felt like doing it.

Why did you hold door? You wanted to. If you didn't want to, you wouldn't have done it. There's a reason you did it, and that's because you wanted to do it - or felt like doing it.

I already addressed that

The existence of want is not enough. It is the expectation of a payoff that is required for selfishness I have trouble believing that all actions are in the expectation of a payoff because it runs contrary to my experiences in life. If it were true, I would have experienced it every single time I did something.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Rivrrat, tell me if this graphic is an accurate representation of what you believe to be going on when someone does something they want to do.