Philosophers and social scientists have questioned the ability for humans to truly perform a selfless act. Does a selfless act exist if one feels reward for doing such act? Even if the person seeks to perform a selfless act with the intention of receiving no thanks for such supposed act a thanks may still be rewarded. This was discussed in class today and seemed to be in consensus that if an individual performs a selfless act with no intention of the reward then yes that act may be selfless. However, it seems that with these selfless acts some reward will follow. Those that were in question were those individuals who do selfless acts but see the product of their selfless act as a form of success.
Instead of focusing on the readings from class I wanted to bring in a modern day example that may be more relatable to the subject and provide a more relatable example to the topic. In an episode of Friends , Joey and Phoebe engage in a competition to see if one kin find a truly selfless act. The two characters question is there an act in which someone may benefit from the act while the person performing the act will not receive anything in return?
Phoebe sets out to prove Joey wrong. Her selfless act is to allow a bee to sting her in order to make the bee appear cool in front of his bee friends. She claims that she has received no such award from her selfless act because she is in pain from the bee sting. Joey then points out to Phoebe that the bee will not benefit from her selfless act because he will soon die after losing his stinger in Phoebes arm.
Phoebe’s last effort comes when she makes a $200 pledge to CBS, a program in which she has no respect or concern for. She makes the donation because Joey is participating in the local fundraiser on live broadcast and hopes her pledge will aid in his promising acting career. Little does Phoebe know that her donation will land Joey on camera. Her act now has an unintended benefit of providing Joey with an on camera appearance. Obviously Phoebe had no intention of landing Joey on camera but she still did inadvertently help her friend. Damned by her selflessact Phoebe is still rewarded by the act that helped her friend Joey.
This modern example of what philosopher’s and our class questioned today demonstrates that it is difficult if not impossible to prove the existence of a truly selfless act. Do humans ultimately possess an altruism that allows them to perform these acts in the first place? What is the basis for human’s good deeds? This brings in to question the idea of the American Dream, if we do all things good will we be rewarded? I hope someone can expand on the American Dream idea in a subsequent blog post.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAaaand I accidentally deleted my first comment somehow. Oops.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, to recap, thanks for using the Friends example. Phoebe and Joey are my favorite characters.
More to the point, I would agree with the comment in class today that the motivation behind the good deed doesn't change the goodness of the deed.
Although I think that humans are naturally good, I don't think that natural goodness precludes the enjoyment of a reward. The good thing doesn't always have to be the hard thing or the solemn and unrewarding choice. Even, or maybe especially, when it is, good guys deserve a little positive reinforcement.
If humans are naturally neutral, or even bad, the reward system serves basically the same function. When doing the good things carries a reward, whether it be good feelings, the maintenance of a safe community, or whatever, then those who would be tempted to do bad might reconsider. Not to relate human morality to dog or potty training too closely, but a reward system and positive reinforcement usually work pretty well.
Whether we do good because we're naturally good or because we know it gets us something, society still benefits from good deeds.
I completely agree with Sarah in that "the motivation behind the good deed doesn't change the goodness of the deed." However, I don't think that there can be a selfless act without a reward. The reward isn't always something tangible, but frequently nothing more than the good feeling you get when you do something to help another. So, using your Friends example, Phoebe's reward would've been feeling good about herself for helping both the bee and Joey. Of course, that feeling usually isn't the actual motivation behind committing a good act, but it is an enjoyable side-effect.
ReplyDeleteBasically, I do believe in altruism, but I also think that there is at least a small added reward to every altruistic act. However, that does not subtract from the inherent goodness of the act.