Is it selfish to be kind to others if feeling good about yourself is your motive?

i dont think that it is selfish because you are not recieving an ACTUAL reciprocation of what you are giving. If you help an old lady carry groceries and she pays you its not just a good deed, but if you arent getting anything tangiable (or a favor) in return then i think that it can be counted as just a good deed.
feeling good isnt realyl something that THEY give you, its just a nice side-effect :)

Its impossible to do something that doesn’t benefit you in some way.

This exact same discussion was featured on “Friends”.

See videos here and here.

Episode is “The one where Phoebe hates PBS”. Summaries here and here.

It makes you feel good because you are NOT selfish. I have noticed that selfish people get virtually nothing out of doing good.

You’re absolutely right. People don’t usually commit a truly unselfish act. One could argue that a person running into a burning building is guided by the instinct to save another human being, but we’re also genetically hardwired to live in a group, are we not? When part of our group is threatened, the entire group could meet it’s demise. It’s our human call of the wld from our distant ancestors whose survival literally depended upon every member of their group.

A mother lifting a crashed car off her child is an incredible feat, no doubt. But is it really love motivating her, or is it our genetic hardwiring that makes us fiercely protective of our offspring so that our genes won’t be snuffed out?

Here’s the thing. Aside from the purposes of being a fantastic debate complete with fireworks, it doesn’t matter one whit. We are programmed to respond in this manner. It does not make us selfish in the context of being a valuable member of society, nor are we responsible for this built-in “selfishness”. It is what it is. We respond like Pavlov’s dog to this genetically encoded dinner bell. We are no more responsible for this “selfishness” than we are for being born with two legs. It is a built-in, win-win for everybody so that we can survive as a species.

I so don’t agree, @philis. We are more than animals, and we are not just programmed. We are capable of love, and capable of unselfishness.

No. In the same way it’s not necessarily selfish to be a doctor and expect to get paid. Everyone has needs and there is nothing inherently wrong with expecting at the very least something small in return for your services.

nope.. i don’t think it’s selfish if your MAIN purpose is to help that person.. It’s natural to feel good after you help someone, because you know that you are being appreciated by that person.. And you said: ” it would be rare to do something kind without knowing it was going to make you feel good before hand.” – I think there’ll be many times when you just help someone because you feel that that person needs help without thinking the after effects, like what ‘fullOfuselessINFO’ said. It totally depends on your character.. When you see a pregnant lady getting on the bus, and all the seats are taken, won’t you give up your seat for her? I think you will automatically stand up from your seat without thinking that much.. :)

@eden2eve I agree! We very much are. Perhaps not quite as much as one might ordinarily think, though. For the purposes of Gutterpanda’s debate with his friends, I chose to address their sticking point directly.

Good can only be good in itself, Gandhi has a whole theory on it! it is not selfish to feel good about something good you did, but to do something good to only make yourself feel better is actually not good..doing good for another is suppose to be a selfless act that is when you reap the benefits of enlightenment. It does not sound like you are malicious, it is ok to be motivated by rewards just be sure to determine the real meaning behind the act. If your initial purpose is for the good it is ok to know you will feel good about your self after. I think your ok, otherwise you wouldnt be asking the question dont beat yourself up:)

Any action a person does is always for selfishness. For instance, saving someone from a burning building. Your motive is self-pleasure. You are concerned for his/her well being, therefore, you go and save him, but you are only concerned for his well being because it makes you feel good knowing he will be alive if you save him. Even though you did a good thing, it was self-pleasure. Causing self-inflicting pain to oneself is for pleasure. It’s painful but your motive is pleasure. That’s why you are doing it to yourself.

That’s very cynical, @exywho.

I maintain that finding pleasure because you help another person is unselfish. Selfishness is wanting something for your own personal pleasure. Unselfishness is enjoying watching another person have pleasure, without needing same for yourself.

eden2eve, you just said unselfishness is enjoying watching another person have pleasure without needing the same for yourself. Look at the keyword you said ENJOYING, that means you are benefiting from this action. If you are benefiting, thats selfish.

you make others happy to make yourself happy, you wouldn’t do something for an enemy.

@ezywho Indeed.

I’ve wondered this, but I think the ultimate term of selfishness is completely taking something, emotional or physical. You’re still sharing karma, goodwill, etc.

Is it still selfishness if we’re both benefitting from the situation? If so, who’s the selfish one then?

No good deed goes unpunished. :) Seriously though, if the effect of the kind act isn’t lessened by the doer’s motive, I don’t see the harm.

No it isn’t selfish at all. People get that whole concept confused. If you are doing it because you will get some good feeling out of helping, then you aren’t being altruistic, but that doesn’t mean you are being selfish.

Altruism is a very uncommon trait. Very few people have that. It’s the kind of thing attributed to people like Jesus. You don’t need to feel bad just because you haven’t reached the spiritual level of Jesus. That is a pretty lofty standard to hold yourself to.

Helping someone is just a really nice thing to do. Selfish people will rarely do it except for a tangible reason. They need some kind of personal gain, and a good feeling isn’t one they will consider.

So go ahead and feel good about yourself. It’s only natural, and the end result is the same. You’ve done a good deed for someone. Wouldn’t the world be a much nicer place if more people felt good about helping others?

@ezywho – Selfishness is when someone is taking something without giving anything in return. If you are helping someone, then you are giving something. The fact that you are getting something in return is irrelevant, as long as you are providing something then you are not being selfish.

Altuism would be thinking only of the other person.
Unselfishness would be thinking of both the other person and yourself.
Selfishness would be thinking only of yourself.

I have an example if you’ll oblige me a bit.
I was going home from a late night movie and was waiting for the tram line. I met a young couple who were making their way up the west coast. They’d started in California, never asked me for anything and never hinted at it. We just talked. I gave them my last $20 because I thought they could use it. I don’t want to think that I’m being selfish for helping someone.

@PattyAtHome Thank you very much for clarifying the differences. I was actually worried for a second.

PattyAtHome, py_sue, What is the human emotional drive that you made when you helped someone? What human feeling caused the action to happen?

@ezywho – it doesn’t matter what the human drive is. As long as you aren’t thinking only of yourself, then you aren’t being selfish. The very idea of helping, if the only benefit is a good feeling, won’t occur to a selfish person. You all know who they are, everyone has a few people like that in our lives.

Most people nowadays call them takers. Whenever they need something they will always be there, but when the tables are turned they will come up with any reason they can think of as to why they can’t help. The idea that by helping they might feel good about themselves doesn’t enter into the equation for them. Unless they get something tangible out of it they will not help, and whenever possible they will accept help from others. That is the selfish person.

PattyAtHome, nope, the drive is the ONLY thing that is important in the action. What is that drive? You are getting so much pleasure thinking you are doing such a selfless act to help someone else. What happens after the action? You feel really good. What happens before the action? You feel really good. Sorry but the only emotional experience and drive you feeling is self-pleasure.

My husband and I are both fucking givers from hell. If I sound annoyed, it’s because I am. Last fall we went to a huge, outdoor flea market. When we stopped for lunch, we sat next to a couple, the woman of which was very, very pregnant. I was miserable, just looking at her Through the course of our conversations with this couple, we discovered they were as broke as we were. They had come to the flea market to find an infant carrier to secure their pending newborn in the car. The only one they found was $99.

Hubby and I said our good-byes and good lucks, and wandered off in search of some heretofore undiscovered treasure. What we ended up finding 5 minutes before closing was an infant carrier for $40. Do I need to tell you we agonized like hell over this decision? We didn’t have any money, either! Yet both of us wanted to snatch that thing up. Well, that’s what we did. Then we both went looking for this couple all over the damn place, finding them just as they were getting into their car – with no carrier. They hadn’t found what they came there for.

I asked them if they liked it, they both inspected it and said yes. So I shoved the handle of the carrier into the man’s hands and said, “Good! It’s yours. It’s bought and paid for. Don’t forget to pay it forward.”

So I put it to you: Was what we did for us, or them?

@ezywho The human emotional drive was compassion.

phillis, I stand by on what I said earlier. You did an amazing thing & they are very happy as well as you are very happy. Though the question is, the incredible feeling you had to run to help these people because you wanted to help them out was what feeling? Self-Pleasure knowing you will be helping them out and thinking how happy they will be, and after you completed the action, you had self-pleasure knowing that you helped these people out.

@ezywho are you getting self pleasure out of this discussion?

@ezywho – you are a real black and white type of person aren’t you. :)
Ok, I’ll make one last try to make my point.
Altruism is at one side of the scale, the only thought is about the other person.
Selfishness is at the other the only thought is about the self.
Anything in between is neither altruistic nor selfish. You are thinking about the other person because you are helping them, you are thinking about yourself because it will make you feel good for helping them. So it is neither selfish, nor altruistic.

And in case you think there can’t be levels of grey, then here are some unrelated examples just to give a comparison that things aren’t always black and white.

Angry and Happy are opposite ends of a scale.
You can be angry with what someone has done.
You can be happy with what someone has done.
Anything in between those two feelings is neither angry nor happy.

Sad and Gay are opposite ends of a scale
You can be feeling sad about things happening around you.
You can be feeling gay about things happening around you.
Anything in between those two feelings is neither sad nor gay

(traditional use of the word ‘gay’ of course, not the PC term)

py_sue, ofcourse, why would I be here then?

@ezywho I dont know what that feeling was, to be honest. It was covered by sheer desperation to find this couple and hope that they liked it enough to accept it, and we had no idea whether they had even left yet. We both wanted it for them so badly that it really defies common sense. We didn’t have the damn money for that. I had been standing in a food pantry line to feed my own family, for heaven’s sake. So, I don’t know what that was.

I was wracking my brain to come up with a scenario that would either make my argument, which is the same as yours, by the way, or make a final judgement (in my mind) as to py sue and eden2eve’s argument. I don’t care who is right. I just wanted clarity. I kinda wish I hadn’t thought of it.

Definition from Webster’s dictionary:

Main Entry: self·ish
Pronunciation: \ˈsel-fish\
Function: adjective
Date: 1640
1 : concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself : seeking or concentrating on one’s own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others
2 : arising from concern with one’s own welfare or advantage in disregard of others

PattyAtHome, here look at py_sue, there you see “pleasure, or well being without regard for others. What i’m saying is that you still have pleasure WITH regard for others.” The self-pleasure never disappeared when helping others.

@py_sue – thats’s a great reference. Since helping others does show some regard for others then it isn’t selfish, even if you will get something out of it yourself.

@ezywho – exactly, it is only selfish if there is NO regard for others. If you feel pleasure in helping that does not mean you have No regard for others. It means that you are having regard for yourself as well as others. Again, it is in between altruism and selfishness, and so it is neither. Just a nice thing to do.

@PattyAtHome Dang, woman, that was a lot of work. You are the type of person that every social website benefits greatly by having around. Your earnestness is impressive.

@py_sue When all else fails, post the definition. Now, why didn’t I think of that? Good thinking.

PattyAtHome, You only felt pleaure for others because it gives you pleasure for feeling pleasure for others. The action only happened because you feel pleasure for others beause it gives you pleasure for feeling pleasure for others.

I don’t mean to get snarky, but I feel like I’m being made to feel bad about helping people by calling it selfish.

@phillis – what was a lot of work?

@py_sue – society depends on that feeling in order to function, the fact that you feel good when helping. (not the snakiness part, lol.) The fact that people feel good about helping each other is what allowed mankind to create culture and civilization. There is a fair amount of selfishness that went into it as well, but humankinds propensity to help each other is what allows us to achieve greatness.

@py_sue – Ignore the snarkiness creeping up on you. I honestly don’t believe that is the intent, here. I can see why you might feel that way, though. Arguments can be strong, and still not personal.

@PattyAtHome The massive effort you’ve given to this thread.

@phillis – there is no effort involved. this is just basic ethics. i grew up with this stuff.
it’s unfortunate that not everyone learns this stuff anymore. my mom used to tell me they taught it in schools, for some reason they don’t so much now.

@py_sue – giving a helping hand is a good thing. you shouldn’t feel bad about helping, no matter what your motivation is. the important thing is for people to help each other. throughout history, societies alway function better when people are willing to help each other.

PattyAtHome, Any rebuttal to what I wrote? If not, I gotta get some sleep. :)

@PattyAtHome They don’t teach it at all anymore. They speak once a month on bullying, the earliest grades, like kindergarten, are taught sharing, and that’s it. It shows, doesn’t it! With both parents now forced to work jobs to support a family, something has to give somewhere. It’s a palpable loss that I feel all the time in societies.

I watched a lot of Nick at Night as a kid, that’s mostly where I got it from.

@ezywho – I thought you got that. the rebutal is that it doesn’t matter if I get pleasure from it as well, as long as it also gives benefit to others it isn’t selfish.
Once again it isn’t altruistic, and it also isn’t selfish. It is in between. You seem to think that if something isn’t altruistic, then the only other option is selfishness. But that isn’t the case.

@py_sue – I have some great parents. :)

They did their best to teach me well.

@PattyAtHome Yay! Me, too. Nick at Nite was supplemental. :)

@ezywho I asked it before and now I ask you, who’s being selfish if we’re both getting pleasure from the situation?

There is no in between. You felt pleasure for yourself and others very true, but what made you want to feel pleasure for others? Was it not self-pleasure? If no, then what was it?

@ezywho Then disect this situation and tell me who’s selfish. I find someone’s wallet, they give me a reward for finding and returning it to them.

@ezywho – that’s a fallacious argument. Try applying that to the other examples I gave you. If you truly believe that things are only black and white, then that means you can only be happy or angry, but aren’t there times when you really feel neither? Or that you can only feel sad or gay, but aren’t there times when you feel neither.

The drive never changed is what I’m saying. You only wanted to help others for your own pleasure, even though they benefited from your action & you and them had mutual pleasure. This all happened because of the self’pleasure drive.

What feeling is neither?

I’ve come to a plausible (for some) explanation of why the event last fall occured involving my husband and me. We are generous givers, no doubt. We’ll share the last of anything we’ve got, but we don’t go to the extreme and compromise our own family. Plus, we are very well-grounded people. We aren’t going to buy something that entails so many contingencies that it could render our purchase useless.

What would you guys say if I suggested that maybe it hasn’t anything to do with being predisposed to this behavior or being nice? What if, in some/rare instances, it is a karmic situation wherein the couple or a person needed something and could not get it by themselves? Might that be what hubby and I responded to?

@phillis It’s being a decent human being. I commend you for it on a massive scale.

@ezywho – well inbetween happy/angry or gay/sad would be described by words such as relaxed, serene, tranquil, calm, peaceful

or in our examples it is often described by transitory negatives,
– unselfish would be describe neither altruistic nor selfish
– unperturbed would describe neither happy nor angry
– undisturbed would describe neither sad nor gay

english usually only gives words to the opposite sides of scales. The in between parts we describe by syntax and discussion. Literature would be a lot more boring if things didn’t have to be described sometimes.

@phillis – I’d say there is a lot to that. Once again, it doesn’t matter, it was still a nice thing you did. The world is a much nicer place because people feel like doing things like you did sometimes. If it’s just because it made you feel good, or if it was due to a grander scheme involving karma. You did a nice thing, and probably made a difference in someone else’s life.

Do you realize that all the things you mentioned are not motivations? You would not be able to do action with the emotions you mentioned. I could feel like a pile of bricks that won’t drive me to do anything. I will just feel like bricks. So what?

Let me ask you something. Is a wall positive or negative? If you kick the wall its force and when push yourself of the wall, its resistence. Is there any other ?

If there’s a serial killer on the other side, it’s positive.

@ezywho – well i guess technically there actually are either walls or unwalls in a house.
the walls hold up the ceiling, and everything else is unwalls. :) lol

That’s taking analogies so far from the topic, it breaks the discussion. Walls are real physical objects, they aren’t concepts or ideals, so the comparison doesn’t hold up. In case you haven’t figured it out yet from my previous posts, I could work with it if I felt like it. LOL

Bottom line is this, you are right that all motivations are based on thoughts of ourselves, all of pyschology is based on that premise. But you’re making a fallacious argument that since all motivations are based on self, everything done because of those motivations must be selfish. Once you have satisfied the motivation, if the resulting action takes others into consideration as well then those actions are not selfish, they are simply self inclusive. It doesn’t matter that the primary motivation is about the self, the action is about both yourself and the other person.

Once again the final result which is: helping other people is neither altruistic nor selfish.
Helping other people is just a nice thing to do and its too bad more people don’t do it.

Now if we we’re arguing about if helping people is ever altruistic, I would have conceded the point. With the few exceptions of examples like Jesus, Buddha, or [insert religious figurehead here] humans aren’t capable of altruism, there is always some motivation based on ourselves.

There really isn’t a point for us to continue, because the points have been made. There are many great philosophers that have argued this point for thousands of years.

Alright then, I’m of to bed. :)

Wonderful discussion, everyone!

I wonder what gutterpanda is gonna think of our answers to his question. LOL

LOL, totally. You stood your ground well. Applause!

Thanks, guys. This was a fabulous thread.

no, because it’s also benefitting others.

it is selfish in the sense that by being nice you expect the reciever to be grateful to you. you arent doing it purely for their benefit. but selfish, or not, it doesnt necessarily mean it is bad.

This question has been asked soo many times. So. Again. There is no such thing as a non-selfish act. Period.

Not everyone is the same. No one person can judge and attribute another’s motives. Perhaps there is no unselfish act for you, @tinyfaery , but there may be for some other person. Period.

I don’t think it matters even a little bit what motives precipitate anyone being kind to someone else. JUST DO IT!!!

The mods gave the question a pass. That’s good enough for me. Until there is any noticeable change for the better, it is of little consequence how often this is brought up. There are always new eyes reading the comments. You never know when a question might stir an influential heart.