Doing good "out of kindness"

[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.

 

[quatona]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Leap]

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.

You are confusing love and lust (as many people do).

Those who lust after something seek to consume it and are driven by the sating of their appetite (by the act of consumption).

Those who love something cherish, protect and serve it, putting its need before them and sacrifcing for its benefit. They feel good in doing so, but they do not do it because it makes them feel good (they are not "consuming" anything) but rather out of love for something they recognise as more important than themselves.

Therein is found the difference you speak of.

 

[variant]

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.

Personally I do good because I believe it is good.

Any emotional satisfaction should come from doing the right thing and not living in a world where how one believes one should act and what principles one stands for are contradicted by ones actions.

My motivation for doing good for others is based upon what I would like to believe about myself.

I can't see anything wrong with being selfish by working towards my ideals.

I am not being "kind" I am being me.

 

[WonderBeat]

Kindness (and morality...) comes from knowing (secretly if not openly...) that we are not separate from God nor ever were...

 

[Eudaimonist]

Kindness (and morality...) comes from knowing (secretly if not openly...) that we are not separate from God nor ever were...

Perhaps for some theists, but for everyone else there can be other explanations, such as noticing what makes for functional societies.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[WonderBeat]

Perhaps for some theists, but for everyone else there can be other explanations

Not really.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Not really.

Yes, really.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Gracchus]

Kindness (and morality...) comes from knowing (secretly if not openly...) that we are not separate from God nor ever were...

Perhaps for some theists, but for everyone else there can be other explanations, such as noticing what makes for functional societies.

Not really.

Yes, really.

Sorry, WonderBeat, what he said: Really!

In fact, moral (socially useful) behaviour has been observed in other species than Homo sapiens, and in fact is common in social mammals, including apes, monkeys, canids and cetaceans. And before you say anything, so has immoral (anti-social) behavior.

It is not on record that any of these species believe in god, or have religions.

 

[Gadarene]

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.

I don't actually disagree with this. I think there isn't really any such thing as a truly altruistic action. The biggest challenge to this statement that I've come across is self-sacrifice to the point of losing one's life, but even then, I don't think that quite refutes it. Self-sacrifice covers a multitude of prior sins, one may want to seek in order to attain a better reputation posthumously.

It's also not a bad thing either, if "selfishness" of this kind results in a better outcome for more people.

 

[WonderBeat]

Sorry, WonderBeat, what he said: Really!

In fact, moral (socially useful) behaviour has been observed in other species than Homo sapiens, and in fact is common in social mammals, including apes, monkeys, canids and cetaceans. And before you say anything, so has immoral (anti-social) behavior.

It is not on record that any of these species believe in god, or have religions.

The fallacy here is: you have to believe in God to know God.

 

[Eudaimonist]

The fallacy here is: you have to believe in God to know God.

How can we possibly know if non-human animals "know God"? And what reason would we have to think that they are acting on knowledge of God?

As far as human beings are concerned, I don't see how one can demonstrate that it is specifically some sort of knowledge of God that is the basis for kind or moral action.

I'm an atheist, and my kindness and morality is based on knowledge of other human beings, and of human well-being. God doesn't enter into it.


eudaimonia,

Mark