Is it possible to do a selfless deed without being selfish?

[John]

I ask this because I have read a few comments in several threads on here whereby famous people who are known for their generosity in someway or another are being put down with typical comment such as claiming that they do so to further their careers.

 

Which lead me to the question, is it possible for anyone to do a selfless deed without being selfish?

[cgksheff]

........... er .......

 

............ Yes!

[melthebell]

Originally posted by John

I ask this because I have read a few comments in several threads on here whereby famous people who are known for their generosity in someway or another are being put down with typical comment such as claiming that they do so to further their careers.

 

Which lead me to the question, is it possible for anyone to do a selfless deed without being selfish?

 

not in the eyes of the public................obviously those people who do it are the only people that know in their own heads why they are doing it..........the rest of us can only guess

[tslogf74]

You could argue that helping people alleviates your guilt at not helping them, so it's just a selfish act to make yourself feel better.

 

That's how I judge my own motives anyway. We are, afterall, just animals.

[JoeP]

Good question.

 

If, like a lot of philanthropists, you do good anonymously then the only selfishness involved will be your concern for feeling good and, if you believe in such things, the long term wellbeing of your soul or your karma.

 

I think that a lot of 'high profile' doing good raise the question of benefits to the originator. The best way for people to avoid accusations of this is to do their good deeds quietly.

 

The argument given is that the attachment of a 'name' encourages others to give money or volunteer time and energy. This may be the case but you then might argue that someone is doing it for the associative value of being involved in 'a good (and trendy) cause' rather than the true 'bottom line' benefit of doing good for others. A sort of charitable vanity.

 

Of course, at one level it doesn't matter - the good gets done. There is a philosophy that good deeds done in the name of a 'bad' thing, such as vanity, are still ultimately done in the name of God (enter your deity / force of goodness here).

 

I guess it genuinely does need to be a 'leve your ego at the door' job or let others sing the praises - or show humility in the act of giving.

 

Joe

[LordChaverly]

Good points there Joe.

 

Possibly what we may be seeing in the case of the celebrity consciences and their wrist band wearing acolytes is a kind of moral conspicuous consumption, Just as in previous eras people wore jewels to show off how affluent and successful they were, in our age people wear wrist bands - the equivalent of moral bling - to show how caring they are.

 

I have a sneaking suspicion that the participation of at least some rock stars in the Live Aid events might properly be characterised as the egotism of pseudo philanthropy. I say 'pseudo' here because as far as we know their contributions amount to doing gigs at these events rather than donating large amounts of wonga from their own pockets. The 'showcase' benefits accruing to these groups as a result of their participation are likely to be huge. A classic example is the case of the (in my opinion) hugely over-rated U2, which received massive exposure as a result of Band Aid and shortly afterwards 'cracked' America. Cui Bono? Cui Bono indeed!

[JoeP]

Hi LordChaverley,

 

Moral conspicuous consumption is an interesting phrase. I was browsing in an Oxfam bookshop a couple of weeks back and saw a book called, I believe, 'Cutting through Spiritual Materialism'.

 

http://www.shambhala.com/html/catalog/items/isbn/1-57062-957-9.cfm

 

The link above goes to an interesting comment - 'the ego can convert anything to it's own use, even spirituality'. I think this also applies to good works. I think it's just one of those things to deal with. Do we do good in the closest to an ego-less way that we can manage, or do we do good in a way allows our ego to praise itself with the deed.

 

the question is 'Why are we doing good?'

 

The benefit of others, the glory of God / nature, the benefit to our own society, personal aggrandisement. To me this is the order in which we consider the 'satisfaction' obtained from doing good.

 

I think there's a connection here to the wise words in Ecclesastes ' 'All is vanity' - but my brain's turning to porridge after eating a pile of pasta.

 

Joe

[Robbie Loving]

i thought this thread would be something to do with an episode of "friends"

[JoeP]

Originally posted by Robbie_Lovin

i thought this thread would be something to do with an episode of "friends"

 

Obviously not.

 

As an additional comment, I just watched an old episode of MASH and it made me think a little about one thing that must be involved with all selfless deeds and acts of charity - compassion.

 

Perhaps a useful measure of how selfish someone is is to look at the degree of compassion and self-sacrifice with which they are operating?

 

Joe

[Phanerothyme]

Originally posted by John

I ask this because I have read a few comments in several threads on here whereby famous people who are known for their generosity in someway or another are being put down with typical comment such as claiming that they do so to further their careers.

 

Which lead me to the question, is it possible for anyone to do a selfless deed without being selfish?

 

No.

 

Altruism is psychologically rewarding.