Is everything we do self serving?

If I observe an act of kindness, is this self serving? I see someone being kind to someone else, and I feel good. Is the feeling of goodness not a sign to me that something good has been done? Therefore by my merely observing something, even involuntarily, is this a selfish act? Is it even an act? Why should we feel badly about how we feel? When we do something kind for someone else, knowing we will never see them again, we obviously know we will feel good about it afterwards. Is the cause of the action really ONLY because we knew would feel good? Might the action be also because we have an idea of what is right, what should be done, what ought to be done?

On the flip side, If we see someone in need, we empathize with them, meaning we imagine ourselves in the same situation.
We also to some extent, feel what they feel, as the mind imagines how it would feel in such a situation. If the feeling is painful, we may act to reduce this pain by helping the person in need out, and therefore helping ourselves. This could be viewed as selfish, as we are acting, through reducing the pain of another person, to reduce pain in ourselves. However if we act to reduce pain, we do it out of necessity, out of reaction, meaning we have no choice and feel compelled to reduce the pain; is this really selfish? Are we even acting for ourselves? Is there any choice?

Selfish means thinking only of oneself, with no regard for anyone else. But to perform an act of kindness one must also think of the person in need, in addition to oneself. This undoubtedly occurs.

I agree with this, Dimebag.

People who get praise for bravery often say something like 'I just did what had to be done'. They obviously weren't first deciding whether it would be good for them, but they just act. This is often in emergency situations without time for reflection or decision. So I think this shows there are actions which are not self serving.

And it answers the discussed question, no, not everything we do is self serving.

-- Updated Sun Feb 05, 2012 1:55 am to add the following --

Yes Russellbar, social constructivism is perhaps a little left field. But I am not sure what you mean by latent and fixed features in some psyches? It is an interesting line of thought.

I think how we develop is at least in part influenced by how we interact, and are interacted with by, others. Unless we are treated as persons as we grow up, we will not learn to speak, think or be part of society. Since society is ongoing, then there has been interaction for each one of us.

And at least some of that is not self-serving, otherwise it would not result in the development of the individual who is interacted with. I think that is confirmed by your last sentence: some people act more or less selfishly, so some people act in ways which are at least in some degree not selfish.

I do not reject social construction as a part analysis of human identity. Undoubtedly our experiences help shape us and this would include as moral agents. I believe, for example,that there is evidence to suggest that psychopathy is partly environmental in basis. But I am not happy with the idea that we are born into a condition of being a 'blank sheet' to use Locke's idiom. I think the fixed features I was talking about may fall into two categories. Firstly, there is an 'instinctual life' that consistently asserts its self regardless of environment. This would involve unconditioned responses. Or, on the other hand, there are latent potentials that are given form through our interaction with the environment. For example, we have the fixed capacity to acquire language but the actual language we acquire and, to an extent our ability to use it in, say, sophisticated and imaginative ways, is socially constructed. In terms of the self serving debate I guess I would say that people, to differing degrees, have latent tendencies towards both selfishness and being other regarding. We might think of such tendencies as fixed potentials that will express themselves or not according to experience and environment. So in shaping moral selves education is key.

-- Updated February 5th, 2012, 11:55 am to add the following --

I do not reject social construction as a part analysis of human identity. Undoubtedly our experiences help shape us and this would include as moral agents. I believe, for example,that there is evidence to suggest that psychopathy is partly environmental in basis. But I am not happy with the idea that we are born into a condition of being a 'blank sheet' to use Locke's idiom. I think the fixed features I was talking about may fall into two categories. Firstly, there is an 'instinctual life' that consistently asserts its self regardless of environment. This would involve unconditioned responses. Or, on the other hand, there are latent potentials that are given form through our interaction with the environment. For example, we have the fixed capacity to acquire language but the actual language we acquire and, to an extent our ability to use it in, say, sophisticated and imaginative ways, is socially constructed. In terms of the self serving debate I guess I would say that people, to differing degrees, have latent tendencies towards both selfishness and being other regarding. We might think of such tendencies as fixed potentials that will express themselves or not according to experience and environment. So in shaping moral selves education is key.

-- Updated February 5th, 2012, 11:55 am to add the following --

I do not reject social construction as a part analysis of human identity. Undoubtedly our experiences help shape us and this would include as moral agents. I believe, for example,that there is evidence to suggest that psychopathy is partly environmental in basis. But I am not happy with the idea that we are born into a condition of being a 'blank sheet' to use Locke's idiom. I think the fixed features I was talking about may fall into two categories. Firstly, there is an 'instinctual life' that consistently asserts its self regardless of environment. This would involve unconditioned responses. Or, on the other hand, there are latent potentials that are given form through our interaction with the environment. For example, we have the fixed capacity to acquire language but the actual language we acquire and, to an extent our ability to use it in, say, sophisticated and imaginative ways, is socially constructed. In terms of the self serving debate I guess I would say that people, to differing degrees, have latent tendencies towards both selfishness and being other regarding. We might think of such tendencies as fixed potentials that will express themselves or not according to experience and environment. So in shaping moral selves education is key.

I agree, Russellbar, education is the key, together with positive, other-regarding influence as parents or friends or whatever. But the crux is that the education, environmental influences, parenting, have to be positive, directed, and other regarding, otherwise we could not become autonomous, rational and moral beings. And yes, we vary in how other regarding we are, but that is the price of freedom, and perhaps that is why we need laws as well as morals.

People talk about education, when in fact what they really mean is schooling. Life is education, schooling focuses more in what direction you want to look at life from, when in fact, circumstances determined what it is, you ought to know.

I was trying to think of anything thatcould be recognised as beneficial to others but for which we received no reward.

The only thing I could think of was paying Taxes.

We lose money...

We don't generally feel good about paying taxes, we receive no plaudits from others for paying taxes (although the lack of condemnation for not paying may be seen as positive) I can think of no reward for paying taxes save keeping one out of prison which is of course why they have to force us to pay.

The conclusion I came to was that if a selfless act really provided no reward (if only a sense of satisfaction) we wouldn't do it unless forced.

Scenario: I'm a soldier in a WW1 trench. I love my comrades. I'm afraid none of us will ever get home & yet -

when a German grenade lands in our midst, I throw myself down on it. I'm blown to bits, but my comrades are saved.

Perhaps I wanted to die a hero? to have my story re-told, to "live on" in military glory. But remember, I was afraid none of my comrades get home- and guess what? Seconds later another grenade lands nearby, killing them all.

My self-sacrificing deed goes unnoticed, unsung.

How then, could it have been "self-serving"?

Scenario: I'm a soldier in a WW1 trench. I love my comrades. I'm afraid none of us will ever get home & yet -

when a German grenade lands in our midst, I throw myself down on it. I'm blown to bits, but my comrades are saved.

Perhaps I wanted to die a hero? to have my story re-told, to "live on" in military glory. But remember, I was afraid none of my comrades get home- and guess what? Seconds later another grenade lands nearby, killing them all.

My self-sacrificing deed goes unnoticed, unsung.

How then, could it have been "self-serving"?

I would make two points. A self serving intention is still a self serving intention even if it does not lead to the desired consequences. But also, how do we judge an action that has two or maybe more motivations that drive it? Kant said that an action was moral if it was done out of duty to the moral law. However, if it is psychologically coherent to say that action can be based on a multiplicity of motivations we can conceive of someone acting in both a Kantian and self serving way at the same time. How do we judge such action? Could we be led into the curious position of saying that actually there is no unitary self and that in effect the one action was brought about by two different people. This is to talk about 'split personality' as if it is inherent in the human condition. It makes sense to me. And me too.

Scenario: I'm a soldier in a WW1 trench. I love my comrades. I'm afraid none of us will ever get home & yet -

when a German grenade lands in our midst, I throw myself down on it. I'm blown to bits, but my comrades are saved.

Perhaps I wanted to die a hero? to have my story re-told, to "live on" in military glory. But remember, I was afraid none of my comrades get home- and guess what? Seconds later another grenade lands nearby, killing them all.

My self-sacrificing deed goes unnoticed, unsung.

How then, could it have been "self-serving"?

I would make two points. A self serving intention is still a self serving intention even if it does not lead to the desired consequences. But also, how do we judge an action that has two or maybe more motivations that drive it? Kant said that an action was moral if it was done out of duty to the moral law. However, if it is psychologically coherent to say that action can be based on a multiplicity of motivations we can conceive of someone acting in both a Kantian and self serving way at the same time. How do we judge such action? Could we be led into the curious position of saying that actually there is no unitary self and that in effect the one action was brought about by two different people. This is to talk about 'split personality' as if it is inherent in the human condition. It makes sense to me. And me too.

I wouldn't deem separate motivations to be split personality, but rather just that, separate motivation existing due to the multitude of interests we have. When those interests conflict, we are forced to choose which is more important in the situation. If in the case of helping someone or personal gain we chose to say, return someone's wallet with the money in it, morals won out, however there may have been a small ounce of wanting for a reward. On the other hand, someone might do a completely moral thing, without any conscious thought for reward, and upon doing the act, if no reward were given, in retrospect the person might feel bitter for not receiving something, maybe they were not actively aware they wanted a reward, but the notion of doing a good deed is associated with rewarding the behavior, and therefore this feeling might be illicited later on.

Here is another thought. If a mentally challenged person performs a moral act for someone, only because they were told it is the right thing to do and you should always do the right thing, would they perform such an act with no thought for themselves, almost out of reaction? Maybe this kind of moral deed, where the act is completely reactionary, might be considered purely selfless, as the self was not present during the identification of the problem and performing of the act.

Agreeable points, Russellbar & Dimebag. I might surmise, then, that moral actions cannot coherently be judged in terms of motivations alone, because motivates are multiple & vague.

However, the question is more broad than moral actions - "is EVERYTHING we do, self-serving?"

Because the question involves "everything" we do I think I can safely say "no" in response.

Scott is right on. A definition of ''self-serving'' must be established or we could all be going in different directions.

But let's just say, for the sake of conversation, that ''our'' definition of the adjective ''self-serving'' is this one: an action with one or many consequences which can possibly affect others, but always influencing one-self in a positive manner. By that definition we can now find an answer.

Humans are nothing more than animals with a universal survival instinct which always acts in accordance with what we truly desire. You may think and ask '' well, what about suicidal people?'', to which I would answer that it is what they truly want. They want to die, even though their life will end, they believe they will get a feeling of relief by ending their ''suffering''. Now, in the case of an action of charity, if the person who you gave a dollar to spat in your face, I doubt you will be giving many dollars away for a little while at least. Why is that? Simply because even though you know that giving the dollar will help him get what he needs (or in most cases wants), his reaction left you feeling as though you didn't accomplish a good deed. Therefore the satisfaction you were looking for wasn't in the ''idea'' of giving him a dollar to help him, it was in the actual pursuit of that feeling of having done seomthing good.

It is known that many wealthy people donate large sums of money to charities mostly because they think they will feel good doing so. Like being a God, so to speak.

Some very good posts take this inquiry into great depths, but I am a fan of looking at things more simply and answer accordingly.

Agreeing that there is a differentiation that needs to be made in terms of what and how we (you) use self-serving makes a slight difference in how one can draw from great thinkers and provide applicable examples or references.

If we look to Kant or Aristotle, to determine what ‘right action’ is, I think we find a simple answer. Not all things are self-serving. In efforts to supply an example as a mode of clarification, ‘I can swing a hammer and gain knowledge of home construction while building for Houses for Humanity as well as getting to feel good about myself.” Does this negate my action of doing what is right, because I get a reward? I do not think so. This work is not the same as work I perform as part of a job, it is a different set of responsibilities.

I am doing it because I can, I cannot buy a family a house, I do not have those means available, but I can work, this is what I can do. My actions benefit the other more than benefit me. I am not motivated by what I get; rather I am motivated by what I can give or in some cases give back.

Hope you all do not find this post to be too simplistic, but I believe if you have an idea that you consider insightful, it is best served when kept simple, for more people can follow. If you make it complex for the sake of showing off your intellectual prowess, you diminish the effects of the idea.

I think you are right, Simpleliving, and so is Socraspinn. We do the right thing because it is the right thing. But that means we are motivated by the right thing to do, doing well: as you say what you can give motivates you. But that is different from the receiver's benefit, which is helped by the action but only indirectly.

Adam Smith the Scottish philosopher wrote about this in Theory of the Moral Sentiments. He said we rescue someone in danger, possibly endangering ourselves, but only because it is the right thing to do. The wellbeing of the person concerned wouldn't interest us at all in other circumstances. So it is not the person's wellbeing we are aiming at directly, but at the right thing to do in the circumstances. Which doesn't make us self serving, or other serving either. Its the principle that is other serving, not really or directly our intentions, although I'm not sure about that.
Hope this isn't becoming complicated?!

Cogito wrote:

Adam Smith the Scottish philosopher wrote about this in Theory of the Moral Sentiments. He said we rescue someone in danger, possibly endangering ourselves, but only because it is the right thing to do. The wellbeing of the person concerned wouldn't interest us at all in other circumstances. So it is not the person's wellbeing we are aiming at directly, but at the right thing to do in the circumstances. Which doesn't make us self serving, or other serving either. Its the principle that is other serving, not really or directly our intentions, although I'm not sure about that.
Hope this isn't becoming complicated?!

(Credit to Julian Baggini, writing in yesterday's Guardian), the reason and probably the evolutionary cause of such cooperation is not simply the right thing to do,full stop, it is that the individual has a better chance of survival in a emotionally tied group than as an individual working solitarily.This explains the emotional ties of soldiers or coal miners who will sacrifice self to save a at least one of the group.

Quite so. Unpalatable though it may be, everything we do to help others can be explained by a desire to satisfy our own emotional needs (which is not to say that this is necessarily the case - but it is a sufficient explanation). This can be understood on the level whereby we help someone in order to feel self-worth or avoid guilt, and on the evolutionary level whereby feelings of self-worth or guilt have evolved because it helps the group survive if individuals in the group get gratification from helping others.

Simpleliving apologises for being too simplistic, but I think on the contrary he and Cogito et al are being too complex - or at least they need to explain why we should believe their complex explanations when there is a simpler one. Philosophers even up to the time of Adam Smith did not have the benefit of Darwin's evidence or more recent knowledge of genetics and psychology. There is no longer a need to come up with elaborate explanations - except of course the emotional need that some people have to believe they are somehow 'good'!