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?

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

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

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

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.

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

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!

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

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

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

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.

;)

Lol sorry to be a nerd, but my favourite poem may help in some way to explain selflessness and selfishness etc...



Love seeketh not Itself to please,
Nor for itself hath any care;
But for another gives its ease,
And builds a Heaven in Hell's despair.

So sang a little Clod of Clay,
Trodden with the cattle's feet:
But a pebble of the brook,
Warbled out these metres meet.

Love seeketh only Self to please,
To bind another to Its delight:
Joys in another's loss of ease,
And builds a Hell in Heaven's despite.

-- William Blake


Sorry to geek you all out there... (Just had my literature exam, so I'm buzzing with now useless phrases and whatnot lol...)

I think we are all a society of cynics, so we see anyones good deed as something purely to help themselves. Celebs may help starving people for the publicity they receive for doing so, and one can never be sure whether it is just a publicity stunt or something they actually care about...
The years of voluntary work I've done could be seen as both selfless and selfish. I worked for nothing in my own (limited) free time for the good of others, yet I must admit it has helped in interviews and in obtaining work experience at a solicitors office. So yeah, selfless and selfish. Maybe I did it because I loved helping others, maybe I did it because I knew it'd make me stand out from the crowd. Who knows?!

I'm with Phanerothyme, I believe that everything we do is "selfish", or at least self-centred and intended for our own benefit (or at least the benefit of our genes).

This does require a fairly broad definition of selfishness, but one that makes sense. For example, the benefit we get from our actions may be something as simple as making ourself feel good about being such a nice "selfless" person (and a lot of celebrity selflessness probably comes into this category), or sacrificing our comfort in this life for what we hope will be a better time in some subsequent life. It's all "selfish", but I don't see this as a problem. Once you learn to stop worrying and accept that everything you do is driven by self-interest, you can actually have more fun being "selfless" while still being "selfish".

Hmmm, I suppose there is 'selfish' with the aim of 'self-benefit' or 'selfish' with the aim of 'self-satisfaction'

Basically, I suppose what i am saying is that some people seem to shout about the selfless acts they do, and this may bring some sort of benefit to them - by people thinking better of them or even some sort of reward.

Others undertake selfless acts without shouting about it and thus get some personal satisfaction and feel good factor.

I'm personally in the latter. I give to certain charities etc and I feel better about myself.

I've done quite a few things which have helped other people, usually in a small way but I believe the little things can make a huge difference. I feel good and feel that I am a good person. But it's not totally selfless is it if it makes me feel good? But does every good deed need to be done totally selflessly? If it did, then there would be very little done.