...when the wise man is asked why doing a good deed is worth doing, the only answer he could give is 'because it feels good".  Simple, isn;t it?

Whenever something gives pleasure, including helping another person, we must call the ethics of the action into question.  It's wonderful that Nicole's friend likes to give charity and that the wise man thinks that good deeds feel good.  But what would happen if doing good felt bad?  

I personally believe in the concept of "psychological egoism," which states that man is unable to act except in such a way that maximizes his comfort, happpiness, and general flourishing, either consciously or unconsciously.  It's cynical, I know.  It's also difficult to falsify, but try to think of a time in which you have NOT acted in such a way that somehow benefits yourself.

I think some people treasure their money more than others because they had to "work" to attain it, and for some that represents (maybe) sacrifice or determination.  Some people I know resent panhandlers because "they should go get a job and EARN their money like I have to earn mine."  Yet, some of those people I know who are of that mindset are like your lawyer acquaintance, and are willing to donate time, or merchandise (just not their MONEY).

Enjoyed reading your comments, and I could relate...thanks

Oh, btw, if you're ever in a REALLY charitable mood, how about...er, nevermind...

I recall a story many years ago (NPR?) which told of archaeologists who'd uncovered skeltal remains dating back eons.  They were the remains of three people: An adult male, an adult  female, and what was judged to be a teen.

What struck them as odd was that the teen had severe skeletal deformities (e.g., curvature of the spine?) which *should* have meant the child should have died at a young age, being unable to fend for, or protect, itself.  The archaeologists surmised the reason the child had lived into its teens was because others had cared for it.

Because of the age of the skeletal remains, they said it was the oldest discovered evidence of human compassion.  (And they didn't call it "compassionate conservatism," btw.)

So I think there's another innate aspect of human nature (compassion) which prompts us to act unselfishly...but I do believe there's a great deal of validity to "feeling better by doing good."  I see it all the time in hypocrital actions of the self-professed devoutly religious.


-- Modified on 12/29/2003 8:30:06 PM

Shit, then please ignore my e-mail and  forward it to her.

LOL! "Mephistiffy" is appropo.
(You bear an amazing resemblance to somebody who does that to me but is, alas, untouchable. I know your twin.)

Not to beat a dead horse, but I agree with you about charity.  It's good, no matter what.  I'm willing to leave it at that.  

You note that it is difficult to "separate absolute altuism from the knowledge that the act itself gives satisfaction and it has its reward."  Like I said, this philosophy is almost impossible to prove or falsify (and therefore isn't scientific, I admit).  For example, you could say that you perform a good action, but that it gives you no pleasure whatsoever and you cannot find the selfish reason for it.  I, as a Psychological Egoist, would say "you haven't looked deep enough.  The selfishness is there somewhere."  This could go on forever, no?  This sounds almost exactly like an argument I once had in a Business Ethics class in college.  It's unbelievable how much of this sh*t I can still remember.

Oh, by the way, not to burst your bubble, but I can find a selfish reason even for rescue attempts.  The rescuer dies in the process of rescuing, but his offspring are now viewed as the children of a hero (so they must have good genes).  They get better "breeding rights," and the rescuer's genes get perpetuated into the future.  Plus, if the rescuer lives, he now has better breeding rights for himself.  Try to beat that!

I'm reading your sarcasm, but I'm glad you got a kick out of it.  Men are basically valued for their ability to do meaningful work, whether it's digging a ditch, painting a portrait, writing a concerto, curing cancer, raising capital, directing a motion picture, or saving people who are caught in a burning building.  It's ALL just courtship display (like a peacock's tail -- as you imply, why else would it be useful for a bird to grow something so long and heavy that it may actually slow it down and get it killed in the wild?).  

Women are the genetic selectors; obviously they have to be selective because they have the biggest investment in the reproductive process.  That's one of the main reasons why I think feminists are misguided -- "equality" would take away this power from women.  

Anyway, everytime a man does something crazy or stupid, whether bungee jumping off a cliff or diving with sharks or running into a burning building to save someone, he's also just trying to attract or impress a woman.  Do you remember any FEMALE cops losing their lives in rescue attempts on 9/11?  I personally don't.

I don't remember where I first read this, but:

In Japanese tradition it is better to let a drowning man die that to rescue him.  This seems to make no sense at all to the western way of thinking.  How could one just stand and watch as a man drowns?  Yet the ancient Japanese thinking says that if you save his life you impose on him a life long indebtedness to you that he can never repay and thereby a life of sorrow and misery and shame.

...and I wonder:
If a Japanese man were drowning, does that mean he would not cry out for help?