๐๐ง ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐๐ง๐ฑ๐ข๐๐ญ๐ฒ ๐จ๐ ๐๐ง๐๐ฅ๐ฒ๐ณ๐ข๐ง๐ ๐๐ฅ๐ญ๐ซ๐ฎ๐ข๐ฌ๐ฆ (being a “good” person)
Do we do good things for others, or for ourselves?
Do motivations matter?
Are all actions inherently selfish?
Hello, my treasured friends,
Some philosophical musings on this blessed day.
Recently, a friend of mine posted on social media about an experience of existential dissonance:
After helping someone (with a gift of money and food), he tried to ascertain whether heโd acted solely for the benefit of that person…
…or for his own immediate satisfaction. (And, the potential validation heโd receive on social media.)
The question of whether altruism is “real” in absolute terms or exists solely relative to our own experience (and is therefore prompted byย self-serving emotional fulfillment)ย is one of theย core inquiries driving our examination of the motivation(s) of the human psyche.
In the current social environment, in which discussion about service to other people seems to be:
running rampant,
are picked apart,
overanalyzed,
decoded,
and evenย weaponized,
Leading us to the questions I posed above, centering onย whether doing something of service is trulyย for othersย or simply virtue signaling.
There’s angst in the asking, a philosophical black hole thatโll lead to either enlightenment or despair or both.
In the age of social media, the question is both larger and more visible, creating more opportunity AND more judgment.
This has been bandied about byย rhetoricians, poets, and navel-gazing gurus of all stripes for centuries.
So we can perhaps take heart in knowing the discomfort inherent to such examination of ourselves (and our actions) is a link in a chain far older than the humblebragging hashtaggery endemic to Instagram.
The practice has value, though, and there are a few things Iโd recommend to guide you.
Firstly, delve into a little reading to see both sides. Most applicable is Ayn Rand’sย ๐๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐๐ช๐ณ๐ต๐ถ๐ฆ ๐ฐ๐ง ๐๐ฆ๐ญ๐ง๐ช๐ด๐ฉ๐ฏ๐ฆ๐ด๐ด; as a counterpoint to Rand, Kierkegaardโsย ๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐ ๐ฟ๐๐ฃ๐.
These are both conceptual, and quite necessary.
Should you be interested in reading philosophy as a practice for developing a behavioral framework by which to live, may I suggest the work of the dueling German titans of philosophy,ย Schopenhauerย andย Nietzsche, who held opposing views on this issue.
Secondlyโand I cannot stress this enoughโ, cultivate objectivity. Nothing will help you analyze your own actions like space from them.
Whether you do it throughย storytelling, therapy, meditation, or plant medicines,ย create the space necessary to foster objectivity.
Thirdly, for the purposes of alleviating self-judgment, consider the implication of examining your own motivation: the very act of asking, โdid I do that for them or for me?โ is indicative of both a kind spirit and an awakened mind, both predisposed to focus on service.
Lastly, rather than drive yourself to madness, step back and look at things from result, rather than reason.
Perhaps it doesnโt actually matter. To take a quote from a recent Netflix comedy,ย โyou donโt have to be a goodย person, as long as you do good things.โ
Focus on the pragmatic over the ephemeral.ย Perhapsย it is the Stoics who, in theย end, have the answer, best stated by Marcus Aurelius:
โWaste no more time arguing what a good man should be. Be one.โ
So long as the good deed is done, and the ripples thereof shape the world for the better, regardless of your ego’s involvement.
Ah, the absurdity of humanity: we find ways to make ourselves feel bad about doing good.
PSโ
For my part, I tend to make it simpler: it’s rarely wrong to do right.
Moral objectivism is hard. Being kind is relatively easy.
It makes me feel good, so much the better.