Tuesday, October 30, 2012

Self-Preservation

Is there such a thing as a truly selfless act?  Now, I don't mean this to paint such an egotistical and narcissistic portrait of human nature as it will almost certainly sound, but I don't know that anything done by anyone anywhere is motivated ultimately by anything more than self-preservation.

But wait, you exclaim, what about soup-kitchens, charity, stopping to help a stranger change a flat?!?  Are those ultimately motivated by selfish logic?  Well, I'd thoughtfully reply, why did so-and-so volunteer at the kitchen?  Why did you donate those clothes to Goodwill?  Why did you pull over?  Well because it's the right thing to do, you'd say, wondering why this idiot even posed such a shallow question anyway.  But again, why?  The answers to that can certainly be far-ranging...

For one thing, it's in accordance to my religious beliefs.  Fair enough, but what happens next?  Once upon a time, I took the Anthropology of Death during my undergrad (back in my youth), we had a great discussion about why people have religion, if perhaps there was no death, there may very well be no religion, for, after all, much of religion consists of "doing the right thing" now, and then reaping the rewards in the afterlife.  If I pray, tithe, donate, spread the Word, off nonbelievers, and so on, I will be rewarded in the next life, whether with virgins, clouds and harps, or rebirth.  Isn't that the idea?  Now here I'd add an addendum: the use of religion to confront the fear and certainty of death is matched only by its use to justify a seemingly unjust world.  If I do good now, even without worldly gain, I will be immortalized later.  So, in effect, what you're saying is that you're helping people now not necessarily because it's the right thing to do, or even because you want to, but because you want to go to heaven?

Well, fine, you say, I help people because it makes me feel good.  After a slight and not-very-inconspicuous sigh, I'd look hard at them and have them figure this one out...  I mean really...you're going to try to justify an action as unselfish because it makes you feel good?  C'mon now.  You're better than that.

I help people because what goes around, comes around.  Again, inevitably attempting to benefit yourself. 

Even politics - we vote not to help the huddled masses, we vote in accordance with our beliefs.  If our candidate espouses our same beliefs, we guarantee that our values survive.  We vote one way or another because we worry about our taxes going up, the future of our employment and industry, the future of our kids (Darwinism...the natural desire to ensure the survival of our genes).

I realize I've barely skimmed the surface of the issue, but consider this food for thought.  So what's your point, you ask. My point is just to be aware of the phenomenon is all; should we stop all charitable acts because we realize that maybe we're a bit more selfish than first thought?  Not at all!  I mean, is a good done for the wrong reasons not still a good deed?  If I donated thousands of dollars to a after-school facility with the expectation that my name be front and center on their next leaflet, isn't that still several thousand more dollars than they had before?  So perhaps it doesn't matter why we help people out - I say it's still a better world wherein we do help those in need for self-preservation than one with self-preservation as an overt motivator.  So, please, go out and help someone.  Spare some change, support a cause, donate some time, effort, money...just because I'm doing it for me and you're doing it for you, that doesn't mean that the act itself is nullified.

So go lend a hand!

And remember, charitable donations are tax-deductible ;)

2 comments:

  1. “I mean, is a good done for the wrong reasons not still a good deed?”

    Yes, it is still a good deed. But the intent still matters. I’ll modify your example using Tony and Bruce. Tony donates 1,000,000 dollars to an after-school facility because he wants his name plastered all over the building. Bruce donates 1,000,000 dollars to an after-school facility because he wants the students have the same opportunities that he had growing up. The deeds are the same and they both result in good things for the facility, but the intentions behind the deeds were different. Both individuals donated the money to get something out of the deal. Tony got his name recognized and Bruce got the satisfaction of knowing that he helped the students in the facility. Religion, faith, values, ethics, etc. would generally suggest that Bruce’s intent was nobler. This conclusion is based on opinions and moral upbringing, but Bruce’s intent seems to be the inherently better option.

    My point is that the world would be even better if people’s primary motivations were to help others rather than seek personal gain. Bruce’s personal satisfaction is derived from the students having additional opportunities. He also gets his name on the building, but this is not his primary gain from the action.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And if their primary motivations are "to help people", from where does that motivation stem? Is it more noble to donate a million dollars to go to heaven or to be recognized? And either way, do the means alter the ends? Isn't their still donated money?

      Good point though. I like where your head's at!

      Delete