Motives of Charitable Acts

[yossarian22]

I don't think there is such a thing as a selfless act.

that's because the idea of a selfless act doesn't make any sense if you assume people have agency. I mentioned this in an earlier thread. If you perform an action it is because you wanted to, which goes against the idea of what a selfless act is.

 

[rojse]

that's because the idea of a selfless act doesn't make any sense if you assume people have agency. I mentioned this in an earlier thread. If you perform an action it is because you wanted to, which goes against the idea of what a selfless act is.

But the question is why you want to. I see a great deal of difference between doing a good deed because it is tax-deductible and you get good publicity and doing a good deed because you are sympathetic to the plight of the person in trouble and want to help them in some manner.

 

[PureX]

But the question is why you want to. I see a great deal of difference between doing a good deed because it is tax-deductible and you get good publicity and doing a good deed because you are sympathetic to the plight of the person in trouble and want to help them in some manner.

But who are you and I to stand in such judgment of the motives of others? If they did a good thing, they did a good thing. Why should you or I want to discredit a good deed by assigning it a bad motive? What does anyone gain by doing that?

 

[Magic Man]

But who are you and I to stand in such judgment of the motives of others? If they did a good thing, they did a good thing. Why should you or I want to discredit a good deed by assigning it a bad motive? What does anyone gain by doing that?

I'm curious what you think about bad things. If someone does a bad thing for a good motive, does it make a difference to you? For instance, if a guy knows his wife loves a certain chicken dish, and so he wants to make her happy by making it for her one day. She ends up getting sick from it. Do his motives make a difference there?

 

[PureX]

I'm curious what you think about bad things. If someone does a bad thing for a good motive, does it make a difference to you? For instance, if a guy knows his wife loves a certain chicken dish, and so he wants to make her happy by making it for her one day. She ends up getting sick from it. Do his motives make a difference there?

I see life as a kind of dance between Yin and Yang. What is good for you, may be bad for me at the same time. And what is good for me may well be bad for you. Yet in the end, it all balances out.

Many ancient cultures divided their experience of life and each other up in a similar way. The Eskimos imagined people as either fish people, or bird people. Oriented to the sky or to the water. Each with a different set of stories and characteristics and favored images. They couldn't tell which of these people they were, because it changed according to situation. For example, if you and I met, we might discover that you are a bird to my fish. But when you meet someone else, you might find that in that relationship, you are a fish and so are they. And the same happens between whole villages. It's just the Eskimo version of Yin and Yang.

I guess the point is that "good" is not an absolute. It's relative. "Good" to me is what's good FOR me. Good to you is what's good FOR you. And this makes good relative to the one who's assessing it. And even then it can change with time and wisdom. For example, I can think of instances in my life when something really "bad" happened to me, that later I realized to be a great blessing in disguise. So sometimes, even I don't know what's good or bad for me.

So the motives of others, and mine, too, just aren't that important, I don't think. I should try and be mindful of my own, but I don't think it's wise to put too much energy into guessing at the motives of others. "Good" is it's own value, regardless of how it comes to us.

If I'm a drunk and you buy me a drink, it's a good thing to me, even though it's not a good thing for me. And you may be doing a bad thing over-all even though I'm very grateful for it. These things get very tricky. There are no absolute or easy answers.

 

[blackout]

I really hate the idea of 'charity'.

just do a thing if you want to. or don't do it at all.

I personally don't want to be the recipient of anyone's "charity".
The help of a friend, however, i will graciously accept any day.

I personally wouldn't even have the time or resources to do anything "charitable".
I will go out of my way for people I LIKE who have a need I can fill.
But then, I call that friendship. Not charity.

EDIT: if friends truly, actually, and effectively pulled together...
there would most likely be no need for charity.
A friend to me, can also be someone you don't really know,
who feels like a kindred spirit.

 

[Magic Man]

I see life as a kind of dance between Yin and Yang. What is good for you, may be bad for me at the same time. And what is good for me may well be bad for you. Yet in the end, it all balances out.

Many ancient cultures divided their experience of life and each other up in a similar way. The Eskimos imagined people as either fish people, or bird people. Oriented to the sky or to the water. Each with a different set of stories and characteristics and favored images. They couldn't tell which of these people they were, because it changed according to situation. For example, if you and I met, we might discover that you are a bird to my fish. But when you meet someone else, you might find that in that relationship, you are a fish and so are they. And the same happens between whole villages. It's just the Eskimo version of Yin and Yang.

I guess the point is that "good" is not an absolute. It's relative. "Good" to me is what's good FOR me. Good to you is what's good FOR you. And this makes good relative to the one who's assessing it. And even then it can change with time and wisdom. For example, I can think of instances in my life when something really "bad" happened to me, that later I realized to be a great blessing in disguise. So sometimes, even I don't know what's good or bad for me.

So the motives of others, and mine, too, just aren't that important, I don't think. I should try and be mindful of my own, but I don't think it's wise to put too much energy into guessing at the motives of others. "Good" is it's own value, regardless of how it comes to us.

If I'm a drunk and you buy me a drink, it's a good thing to me, even though it's not a good thing for me. And you may be doing a bad thing over-all even though I'm very grateful for it. These things get very tricky. There are no absolute or easy answers.

So, if doing something good is good regardless of the motives, is doing something bad bad regardless of the motives?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

But the question is why you want to. I see a great deal of difference between doing a good deed because it is tax-deductible and you get good publicity and doing a good deed because you are sympathetic to the plight of the person in trouble and want to help them in some manner.

Yes, but even when you do a good deed out of sympathy, you are still doing it because you also get something out it, such as maintaining the integrity of your self-image or generating positive emotions temporarily.

 

[Willamena]

Does the motive behind a compassionate or charitable act matter at all?

If the motive behind such an act does matter, who does it matter to, and why?

Ideally, compassion and charity is motive.

 

[Jackytar]

I once overheard a physician giving a homeless man money for a bus ticket in the Emergency room. He did not know I was on the other side of the curtain in that room. When I told others what I witnessed, and he found out, he was a little peeved. He truly did not want anybody to know.

Was this a selfless act? I would say yes.

To say "he got something out of it" - feeling good about himself - is being cynical to a fault. I've met many a person who feel good about themselves when they get one over on you. There has to something that motivates you to act, and if that something is maintaining the integrity of your self image, and nothing else, and that self image is of a kind, empathetic person, I know of no "higher" motive.

It also doesn't diminish the act by observing that, for the most part, we are benevolent reciprocators - meaning we help others with the underlying motive that we will be helped in return. This simply says to me that if we want to live in a caring world, we have to create that world as individuals.

Jackytar

 

[Smoke]

I don't think there is such a thing as a selfless act.

I don't, either, and it doesn't worry me at all. My students have adopted a family for Christmas. Each team of students is buying gifts for one family member, and I'm buying for the "extra" family member. The family gets more Christmas gifts than they otherwise would have, and perhaps the encouragement of knowing that they a little less alone in the world. My students get to feel good about doing something nice for somebody they don't know. I get to feel good about fostering an atmosphere of community service among my students. We all get to feel good about working together as a team.

I don't think there's anything at all wrong with the "selfish" motives and the emotional payoff involved. It's a good thing that we feel better when we help other people; it makes us more likely to help each other, and that benefits each of us and all of us.

 

[Willamena]

The true self-less act is the act of "no-self". We've all done it at some point in our lives.

 

[PureX]

So, if doing something good is good regardless of the motives, is doing something bad bad regardless of the motives?

I think so. Often, though, the motives shape the action in such a way as to make it appear good, but not really be. Such as with a "gift" that has strings attached to it.

 

[Magic Man]

I think so. Often, though, the motives shape the action in such a way as to make it appear good, but not really be. Such as with a "gift" that has strings attached to it.

So, you think making dinner for my wife and her getting violently sick from it is a bad action on my part?

 

[Katzpur]

Does the motive behind a compassionate or charitable act matter at all?

To me, if there is a self-serving motive behind such an act, it's neither compassionate nor charitable.

 

[yossarian22]

But the question is why you want to. I see a great deal of difference between doing a good deed because it is tax-deductible and you get good publicity and doing a good deed because you are sympathetic to the plight of the person in trouble and want to help them in some manner.

This is ignoring the point that I made. Assuming you have some irreducible sense of agency (free will), your reason will ALWAYS boil down to "I wanted to." I can question your reasons for wanting good publicity also. And eventually I will reduce you to circularity or "I wanted to."

 

[blackout]

I think that as soon as you call it "charity"
you have made it something "more"/"other"
than a simple human interaction.

By "naming" it, you have infused the action
with the idea that you have done something "charitable".
And that is not a clear interaction between equal "I"s.
It is not zen... it is not organic.
It puts labels on people,
as if one is the "charitable",
and the other the "needy".

Truly though we are all just an organic whole.
We give and take with every breath, thought, word and deed.

How about just touching one another gently.
Sometimes the one with less, actually has more to give.

Something to think about.

 

[rojse]

This is ignoring the point that I made. Assuming you have some irreducible sense of agency (free will), your reason will ALWAYS boil down to "I wanted to." I can question your reasons for wanting good publicity also. And eventually I will reduce you to circularity or "I wanted to."

I wanted to is the start of the reason, not the entirety of it.

"I wanted to because it is good publicity" versus, say, "I wanted to because I empathised with the individual's plight."

You might as well respond with "because".

 

[yossarian22]

I wanted to is the start of the reason, not the entirety of it.

"I wanted to because it is good publicity" versus, say, "I wanted to because I empathised with the individual's plight."

You might as well respond with "because".

But it seems to be the entirety of it.
Why did you want good publicity?
Why do you want money?
Why do you want that?
Why do you want to feel good?
Keep on going. Assuming we have free will, we can't tie an answer back to a physical entity. Eventually you are just left with "because" or I wanted to.

 

[blackout]

I rather feel we are all part of one living breathing organism.

Therefore it behoves us all, to uplift the world,
by lifting one another up.

Today you can climb my tree.
Tomorrow I'll borrow your ladder.

TRULY nothing belongs to anyone anyway.
(beyond the (illusory) reality of their own thoughts and perspectives)

You can't possibly lift anyone up
without raising the frequency of your own being as well.

The whole "selfless" thing is a silly and needless exercise in piety.