Altruism: what’s in it for me?
A while back commenter “steve” wrote:
…seems to me the question is what is behind Romney’s unusual generosity. Is it altruism or is it enlightened self-interest or is it also a bit of a compulsion?…Motivation matters.
Right there is fodder for several books on ethics, plus maybe anthropology. I’ve already thought about these questions in general (not specifically about Romney) long and hard. My answer is that no, it doesn’t matter. Good is good, and we are human beings whose motives are never pure.
So I don’t much care about your secret motives for doing good. I don’t much care if you want accolades for your good deeds and even if you receive them. I don’t care if you perform good works because you think it will get you into heaven, or that it will make your girlfriend like you better, or if you feel compelled to do good because you feel guilty if you don’t.
Yes, I suppose it’s on a higher moral plane if you do good simply because you love the good, and are completely uninterested in anything connected with yourself that might be considered a reward, even the reward of personal satisfaction. I suppose, but I’m not entirely sure. It seems to me that if altruism and enlightened self-interest happen to coincide, and if people have “a bit of a compulsion” to do good, so much the better.
We are all part of the whole, and if we help another, we are really helping ourselves, and that’s just fine with me. I’m with John Donne:
No man is an island,
Entire of itself.
Each is a piece of the continent,
A part of the main.
If a clod be washed away by the sea,
Europe is the less.
As well as if a promontory were.
As well as if a manor of thine own
Or of thine friend’s were.
Each man’s death diminishes me,
For I am involved in mankind.
Therefore, send not to know
For whom the bell tolls,
It tolls for thee.
Actually, I side with Robert Heinlen:
Never appeal to a man’s “better nature.” He may not have one. Invoking his self-interest gives you more leverage.
But sometimes altruism is in one’s own interest.
Reminds me of the AA principle of doing service work for the alcoholic who still suffers; AA emphasizes that giving (service) benefits the AA member who does so.
As for me, beyond childhood I have seldom desired a gift; I find the giving of gifts much more emotionally uplifting. My greatest gifts, my children, have come from God, and I loved my professional work because, in retrospect, it was service to others. I was needed. That I was paid to do it was quite secondary.
Sometimes the recognition-driven altruism establshes a pattern within communities and others are encouraged to contribute. It may not be a monetary contribution, but something like volunteering to distribute Meals on Wheels. The driver gets to know the recipients and becomes a kind of go-to person for them in a way that an office bureaucrat never could.
Good deeds multiply, so a little publicity is not bad.
There is a Yiddish story about a dying man who confesses that he lived a life of extreme selfishness. He managed to hide the truth about his foul nature, however, by always giving to charity, never turning away a beggar, looking after the sick, etc. So that no one would ever know how bad he really was.
“But sometimes altruism is in one’s own interest.”
My wife & I give $200 each month to the local food pantry. We don’t do it because we are good and pure. We don’t do it to make others think of us as generous, wonderful people. We do it because there are people in our community who are in need of food and it makes our community a better place to live.
Is it just me or is it that people who attribute “secret” motivations to Romney’s altruism are folks who don’t regularly attend a Church?
Jean, I think what you’re getting at is the *intrinsic* value of the charitable act.
I have a similar view of military service. Soldiers volunteer for many, often selfish, reasons other than duty, honor, country. Heck, there are Medal of Honor recipients, unimpeachable American heroes, who were drafted against their will. Military service is instrinsically and fundamentally patriotic. What we do during our time in uniform is no less patriotic for why we chose to wear the uniform in the 1st place.
Similarly, why Romney did his charity doesn’t diminish the value of the charity that he did.
Those who are always looking for a selfish explanation for altruistic acts strike me as having bought into the Marxian notion that everything has an economic basis — what a limiting lens through which to view this complicated and contradictory world!
I also recall a Jewish idea which may be from the Talmud or perhaps it was a saying of Rabbi Nachman from Bratslav (or any other well-known sage): Those who do acts of kindness for the wrong reason will eventually merit to do them for the right reason.
Let us call human moral an instinct inherent to our species – it clarifies lots of things. As is the case with all other instincts, this includes internal rewards like satisfaction we get when we do right things, and internal punishments when we don’t. And there are also additional motivations and reinforcements in reactions of other members of our herd. But, hey, all these can be observed also in apes, monkeys and any herd animals.
“But sometimes altruism is in one’s own interest.”
Perhaps it is more often than we think. To hear it from liberals altruism is the topmost of all virtues. Self-honesty should be. Otherwise, how are you going to know the difference.
Im not quite with Ayn Rand on this one but I think she’s on to something.
I have no idea of the overall role of charity in the Mormon religion, but as a devout Catholic I will say that it’s Biblical to me.
What must be done in order to be saved? What are the greatest commandments? Jesus said to love God and to love our neighbor. Sounds easy until you try to figure out what that means in practical terms. We have the Beatitudes and centuries of Catholic thought to tell us what that means. The late Chuck Colson, an Evangelical very sympathetic to Catholics, wrote a lot about it specifically.
Charity is love in action. Does it matter the motives? Perhaps it matters to God, but it matters not to me.
I believe that the air I breathe is God’s, and by His Grace I access it. The money/wealth I have is His, and I am but a temporary steward of it. While I am not required to give all to the poor under pain of sin, my actions and thoughts will be reviewed on Judgment Day. I am allowed temporal enjoyment to the extent that I don’t break the 1st Commandment.
Are devout Mormoms all that different?
Just Mitt’s misfortune that “greedy capitalist” doesn’t convey “altruism” with the same emphasis as “community organizer”.
Mitt doesn’t go around bragging about his good deeds, we have learned about them mostly from others. All who know him personally have said he is a genuinely kind and caring person. Even those who disagree with him politically have said that.
His faith demands it but I think it goes beyond that as well. Mitt has done things like paid for a friends daughter to go to med school. He didn’t really benefit from that as most people still don’t know about it. He is a good guy.
Barack Obama doesn’t even help his own brother who is destitute. Yet, somehow the American public believes he truly cares. The world is upside down.
There is a reason why Mormons liked Mitt better than Jon Huntsman, Jr. or any other Mormon politician, and that reason is money. Mitt’s charity has been building up his base, because he’s wanted this his whole life.
FiddleDD: I see that you have the window into Romney’s heart and soul, and can read his mind at well. With those mad skills, I would think you’d have a promising career on the ESP circuit.
And of course, every single act of Romney’s (including having five kids, marrying Ann, being part of Bain and the rest of his work career—most of which was in the private sector—his ministry as a young man and throughout his life, and all the many long hours he spent counseling Mormons in need of help) was merely an insincere and cynical ploy to enhance his political career, which has been shorter than that of most people nominated for the presidency (even shorter, actually, than Barack Obama’s, and taking up a far smaller percentage of his life)—although you offer absolutely no evidence to back up such an idea.
There’s lots of other ways to get political attention and kudos, too; isn’t it odd that Romney would choose good deeds? I don’t see a lot of other politicians going that particular route. Don’t you find that rather odd?
You also somehow have failed to understand the point of my post, which is that even if you were correct about Romney’s self-serving motivations (or anyone else’s self-serving motivations) for doing good, it’s irrelevant. They are still doing good.