Good deeds and personal gain

[Angst]

As an 'amateur' philosopher, I would like to have some ethical/philosophic discussions with other people in here for personal gain, and for the health and enjoyment of others too. And to the discussion:

_________________________________________

When a man says yes to help his neighbour repairing her roof, doing her laundry or whatever he might do, it is always depending on one thing: Wherever he wants to or not. The decisive thing here is: does he recieve any actual gain himself or does he not?

If he recieves gain from his deed, and determines it is for his own good in any way, he will do it. The profit he might have is always recieved when he does a good deed: If it is not physical (Money, food, love - well, payment in any form), he will ALWAYS have personal gain himself, becoming happy, or just declaring himself a good person.

You wouldn't do it for your hated enemy, the boy with the stick, beating you every day in school, the ex-girlfriend, who cheated on you, divorced you and got your house, or your boss, after he fired you (Except, of course, it will make you look better in their eyes, and you'd want yourself to look better in their eyes)

This is actually a interesting thing: If all deeds, also sharing and helpful things you've done, are for your own good, it somehow is, what I would call it, egoistic. My point is, all people are egoists, even me, and when all people are, there's nothing wrong with it.

It is just a human thing to think on yourself before others. It is our instinct that makes it so, and there's nothing to do with it.

Disagreements or else?

 

[frob2900]

It is just a human thing to think on yourself before others. It is our instinct that makes it so, and there's nothing to do with it.

I think many parents would sacrifice themselves for their children. And many people have someone they would sacrifice for. So your premise isn't entirely correct.

There are at least two kinds of 'personal gain' which have to be distinguished. The 'materialistic' kind of gain (money/status/pleasures) and the 'being able to look yourself in the mirror' kind.

 

[Mulholland]

I agree that the individual should take his own welfare into account first. When I help people I do generally expect a favour in return, and that person usually will remember and agree to help you later. For example, if I replace my neighbours brakes I might expect him to come over and sort out a minor electrical problem later. Good friendships are formed on mutual reciprocation, I think it's just the way humans are hard wired.
As for when I give with no intention of getting anything in return, I do it for the good feeling associated with it. The feeling that you have made a small difference in the world for the better.

 

[El_Machinae]

You sometimes do it to look good in your own eyes, too, though. So not just gain with regards to others, but to yourself.

And you also might do something because you know you won't like yourself afterwards if you didn't.

But, that said, there are few types of charity that don't have feedback benefits anyway.

 

[Tee Kay]

I help people because I'd feel guilty if I don't. If someone needs help and I am able to help them if I don't then I felt like I've let myself, them and the world down and I wouldn't forgive myself afterwards.

 

[Angst]

I think many parents would sacrifice themselves for their children. And many people have someone they would sacrifice for. So your premise isn't entirely correct.

There are at least two kinds of 'personal gain' which have to be distinguished. The 'materialistic' kind of gain (money/status/pleasures) and the 'being able to look yourself in the mirror' kind.

- I am sorry to be cynichal here, very sorry -

But the reason you sacrifice yourself for your children is also, that you don't feel good if they feel bad. It is like when you donate money to Africa - you feel good doing it.

 

[drachasor]

Oy, I hate these inane line of arguments.

People are hardwired to help others around them (some people are more hardwired than others). This comes from our evolution in groups of other people. Naturally this means we receive some sort of psychological reinforcement (that's how evolution works), but the POINT is that we are hard-wired to CARE about other people. That's not egoism.

If we were really egoists, we wouldn't care about this kind of thing. We'd just care about ourselves and what we could get for ourselves. From this perspective, there are much better ways to spend our resources than helping others.

One could make an argument that everything we do is for altruistic reasons. We help ourselves because we feel bettering ourselves will better enable us to help others. Some people become focused on wealth and money, because empowering the economy will help others too. The point is, this line of argument is stupid whether about selfish behavior or any other, for it fundamentally misses the critical issue at hand.

 

[Angst]

The end line is, as you say it, it's natural, but if everything you do is done for your own good in the end, won't it then be some kind of selfish?

 

[amadeus]

I don't know; I helped plan a party today, but I took a 12 pack of Sprite as "compensation."

 

[drachasor]

The end line is, as you say it, it's natural, but if everything you do is done for your own good in the end, won't it then be some kind of selfish?

It isn't done for your own good though. Just because there are some secondary psychological or other benefits does not mean the motivation comes from selfishness.

 

[rkade8583]

I'm generally a helpful person in general. I enjoy knowing that I helped someone and if I get compensation, all the better. I've learned not to expect it though so that it does happen, it's all the sweeter.

 

[Atlas14]

I do good deeds because I would much rather live in an environment/world where people are friendly, helpful, and caring. Feeling good as a result is an added benefit of peforming the good deed.

 

[LightFang]

Ugh, not this kind of argument again. There was a nice thing we had going on in Economics SL where we were trying to see if Mother Teresa was really acting in her own self-interest the whole time.

The point is that we're human and we don't always do those things that directly help others all the time. It is true that selfless acts of kindness bring joy to the doer and the recipient; however, the joy is the result of a magnanimous attitude, not the cause.

 

[warpus]

It depends on the person and how much of a 'heart' they have.

Personally, I will help people out, but it depends on who the other person is, and how much time I have. To me, it is first a question of what's involved, second, of how that would affect the rest of my day/week, and third, how nice i am feeling at the time.

 

[scy12]

If you feel good by helping others then you are not selfish.

 

[skadistic]

Every good deed is like a coin in the slot. Play long enough and you're bound to hit the jackpot.

 

[Atticus]

1. It's a little empty way to describe human action as motivated by agents will or wish for gain. It tells nothing about the motivation, because only involuntary action can't be explained that way. So if I ask you why you started this thread, you won't be giving much information with "I wanted to " or "to gain joy".

2. What would action have to be like to qualify as altrustic on your account? It would have to be reflexes, sleepwalking or something similar, something that the person himself doesn't decide to do, and then of course it wouldn't be his action anymore, and wouldn't be altruistic.

3. The words "altruistic" and "good deed" kind of mean exactly what you describe: action which gives mostly only joy of helping other people. (And it is btw fallacy to say that doing something isn't good because person who does it gets something out of it. If I phone a ambulance to the granny ran over by a car out of will to be a better person, it doesn't mean that the phoning itself wouldn't be a good thing).

4. What does it actually matter, why we do something good? Isn't it enough that something good is done?

 

[Atticus]

Every good deed is like a coin in the slot. Play long enough and you're bound to hit the jackpot.

Slot machine of course gives less back than it takes

 

[Angst]

@drachasor
The problem is, even though there is no primary reason for motivation, yet the secondary is the basic, but it is not reason why we would do a good deed - why can it then be, that if you are not willing to do a thing fo another human that will help him, then the lack of motivation causes you not to help.

@Atticus
The same as to drachasor, but no, as you say in point 4, it doesn't really matter. Philosophy doesn't either.

@LightFang
I don't say there's anything wrong with it. It's normal, as everyone says.

 

[Bill3000]

This thread is officially worthless until fifty posts here.