Doing good "out of kindness"

NaCl · #1 22nd July 2012, 06:57 PM

Just to be clear, this thread is directed towards both atheists and theists.

So I hear some people say that they are generous out of the "good inside of them", not to get some sort of reward. However, I see a problem in their idea.

Imagine giving a beggar some money. One would expect some sort of emotional reaction from doing so- a sort of "I'm a good person" feeling. Basically, the satisfaction of "doing good" is the reward.

On the other hand, if no one received any sense of satisfaction from generosity, people would most likely not bother with being generous.

But would someone being generous with no emotional or physical reward- as opposed to one who is satisfied by their generosity- be the one doing it selflessly? Or would they just be considered insane? In addition, is every kind person behaving in a kind way simply for some sort of reward?

Sorry if my wording was a little confusing.

quatona · #2 22nd July 2012, 07:07 PM

Originally Posted by NaCl

Just to be clear, this thread is directed towards both atheists and theists.

So I hear some people say that they are generous out of the "good inside of them", not to get some sort of reward. However, I see a problem in their idea.

Imagine giving a beggar some money. One would expect some sort of emotional reaction from doing so- a sort of "I'm a good person" feeling. Basically, the satisfaction of "doing good" is the reward.

It seems to me that the meaning of "reward" has changed on its way from the first to the third paragraph. When reading the statement paraphrased in the first paragraph I get the impression that the person speaking is talking about a reward intentionally (promised and) given to you by a third party.

Stoneghost · #3 22nd July 2012, 10:17 PM

The apparent paradox in selflessness has been debated since at least the Greeks, likely long before.

I think there is a difference in pleasure from helping people, and enjoying that pleasure, versus helping someone just to obtain that pleasure or some other form of emotional gratification. I really hate it when people help others so they can tell you how good they are and how much they are helping other people. They don't care about if their help is effective and they they don't care if their help lasts. It isn't about the other person at all, the other person is simply a vehicle to their gratification. That's the kind of selflessness we can all do with that. But if they do care about the result and they get personal gratification out of that, that's just human nature. I think their attention to the long term consequence of their action is the test of whether or not the act should be considered "good" or not.

I think a lot of this modern volunteerism fad that is sweeping the US is unfortunately the later. A lot of time people and organizations really don't care about the end result and they don't work to create effective solutions. Instead they throw themselves at some social problem until they get bored and move on to their next social issue. They tell you all about how great they are and how you should be like them but they don't don't even understand their own cause. They will likely flip out when you point out that maybe there are complex socio-economic, psychological or political factors that render their efforts ineffective.

Gracchus · #4 23rd July 2012, 01:38 AM

If I do a "good" thing for another person for sefish reason, then I may not be deserving of honor, but the other person still receives the good. To do good only for selfless reasons is to serve only your own pride. I say that, for whatever reasons, one ought to do good.

quatona · #5 23rd July 2012, 04:45 AM

I have never been able to make much sense of the idealization of "selflessness" in the presented extreme version (i.e. that suffering or sacrifice must be involved for an action to be called "truly good").

When I compare these two situations:
1. A acts towards B in a way that is beneficial for B but in no way (not even emotionally) beneficial for A, and
2. A acts towards B in away that is beneficial for both (and be the benefit for person A "only" in his joy about the happiness of B),

I can´t help but seeing 2 as the preferable option.

If someone gives me a gift part of the joy about this fact is that my joy is positively feeding back on the person who has given to me. I can´t seem to manage to experience this positive feedback as diminishing the value of this process. Au contraire: It´s the best thing imaginable.

On another note: If you want to define a "good" deed as being free of having a positive effect on the doer, you are simply denying natural consequences. This effect is inevitable.

Gracchus · #6 23rd July 2012, 05:50 AM

Originally Posted by quatona

I have never been able to make much sense of the idealization of "selflessness" in the presented extreme version (i.e. that suffering or sacrifice must be involved for an action to be called "truly good").

When I compare these two situations:
1. A acts towards B in a way that is beneficial for B but in no way (not even emotionally) beneficial for A, and
2. A acts towards B in away that is beneficial for both (and be the benefit for person A "only" in his joy about the happiness of B),

I can´t help but seeing 2 as the preferable option.

If someone gives me a gift part of the joy about this fact is that my joy is positively feeding back on the person who has given to me. I can´t seem to manage to experience this positive feedback as diminishing the value of this process. Au contraire: It´s the best thing imaginable.

On another note: If you want to define a "good" deed as being free of having a positive effect on the doer, you are simply denying natural consequences. This effect is inevitable.

In doing good, there are actually three possible cases:

1. A does good to B and A benefits. -> This is the basis of bargaining.

It is very common. Most marriages are based on this, and fall apart if someone cheats.

2. A does good to B and A does not benefit. -> This is altruism.

Not so common. But not unheard of. You can throw scraps to the dogs under the table if it doesn't stain the carpet.

3. A does good to B and A is penalized. -> This is ... call it, for want of a less insulting term ... love.

Very rare indeed.

It was case three that was being considered, when it was observed, "No good deed goes unpunished." And case three is also epitomized in, "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends."

Paradoxum · #7 23rd July 2012, 06:13 AM

Originally Posted by NaCl

But would someone being generous with no emotional or physical reward- as opposed to one who is satisfied by their generosity- be the one doing it selflessly? Or would they just be considered insane?

Perhaps it is possible. Kant thought so. He ethical theory is based on acting purely on rational duty. That is the only way one can be good for Kant. My view is more than respect for objective rationality can perhaps lead people to acting morally. I would still think that having the emotional and the good feeling it better though.

In addition, is every kind person behaving in a kind way simply for some sort of reward?

Does it matter? If you are being moral just to look good to other people or so you can say you are an amazing person then perhaps you have the wrong motivation before even considering the good feeling. Shouldn't you be moral for the benefit of others? If you can be morally praised or not doesn't matter as much as whether the actual act is done or not.

Nevertheless it could be that there are different types of good. One good is for the benefit of others, another could be based on intention (acting just from duty or concern for that person), and the third could be good character. Good character would be what you need to be a good person.

quatona · #8 23rd July 2012, 06:50 AM

Originally Posted by Gracchus

In doing good, there are actually three possible cases:

1. A does good to B and A benefits. -> This is the basis of bargaining.

It is very common. Most marriages are based on this, and fall apart if someone cheats.

2. A does good to B and A does not benefit. -> This is altruism.

Not so common. But not unheard of. You can throw scraps to the dogs under the table if it doesn't stain the carpet.

3. A does good to B and A is penalized. -> This is ... call it, for want of a less insulting term ... love.

Very rare indeed.

It was case three that was being considered, when it was observed, "No good deed goes unpunished." And case three is also epitomized in, "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends."

This may be true if you only consider the physical, material results.
However, the OP included feelings that result from the actions into category "benefits" - and I think that changes everything thouroughly:

The whole thing isn´t (as a purely technical approach would suggest) a zero-sum game anymore.

Emotional benefits are created out of nothing (I give you happiness, which gives me happiness, which again gives you happiness). This is not bargaining - it is the common and mutual creation of benefits. That´s beautiful.

juvenissun · #9 23rd July 2012, 07:57 AM

Originally Posted by NaCl

Just to be clear, this thread is directed towards both atheists and theists.

So I hear some people say that they are generous out of the "good inside of them", not to get some sort of reward. However, I see a problem in their idea.

Imagine giving a beggar some money. One would expect some sort of emotional reaction from doing so- a sort of "I'm a good person" feeling. Basically, the satisfaction of "doing good" is the reward.

On the other hand, if no one received any sense of satisfaction from generosity, people would most likely not bother with being generous.

But would someone being generous with no emotional or physical reward- as opposed to one who is satisfied by their generosity- be the one doing it selflessly? Or would they just be considered insane? In addition, is every kind person behaving in a kind way simply for some sort of reward?

Sorry if my wording was a little confusing.

We do everything for the benefit of ourselves.

If I give selflessly, it is because it benefits me.

Eudaimonist · #10 23rd July 2012, 08:06 AM

Originally Posted by NaCl

But would someone being generous with no emotional or physical reward [...]

Yes, I would do so.

I am not generous in order to get warm-fuzzy feelings, but to support my values in the world. If I know someone who I regard as a good person, I am likely to be generous towards that person giving no thought whatsoever to whether or not I get those warm-fuzzies, because those feelings aren't my justification or my motivation.

[...] be the one doing it selflessly?

You'll have to explain to me just what you mean by "selflessly".

I am willing to help people that I love, or that I respect for having a good character, or in some rare cases where I suspect that a generous act might tip them over to a better path in life. Since I see my values in that other person, or at least the potential for those values, I am supporting those values in the world. I don't care about some subsequent emotional or tangible "reward" because that was never my motivation in the first place.

Incidentally, I am opposed to the doctrine of psychological egoism. People do not always do something because they think it will benefit them.

eudaimonia,

Mark