Selfish Altruism? (2)

In the first part of this piece, I presented a friend's point of view, that all acts, even ones that appear to be selfless, are in fact done for some selfish reason. I would now like to attempt to refute this claim.

I would place all ulterior motivations for seemingly selfless acts in the following categories:

1. Enjoyment. I'm doing an act that helps someone else, but I genuinely enjoy the act I am doing.
2. Material gain. I'm doing a "selfless" act now in the belief that I will receive a tangible benefit in the future.
3. Status. I'm not necessarily looking for any material benefits; the reward is the knowledge that others will hold me in high regard.
4. Self-esteem. I perform a kind act for the good feeling I receive from knowing that I am the kind of person who helps others.

I think that I can, for argument's sake, agree with my friend regarding the first three categories -- in each of those, there is a clear ulterior motive behind the selfless act, rendering it, by definition, no longer completely selfless.

I will therefore limit my disagreement with my friend to the final category. Thus, ultimately, what I'm attempt to do is to refute the argument of the bank robber who says: I'm no morally different from the philanthropist -- he and I are each simply doing what makes us feels good.

I have two objections to this claim. For one thing, as stated in the first part of this piece, I disagree with the entire premise, which I consider unproven, that behind every selfless act is what my friend might term a "selfish altruism" -- a self-satisfied feeling of moral superiority.

But even if I, for argument's sake, accept my friend's premise, that even every selfless act is, at its heart, done for some personal benefit, even if it is simply for the sake of feeling good about oneself, I still claim that this does not erase the selflessness of the act.

I would first posit that certain acts, such as rape and murder, are inherently hurtful to others, and other acts, such as giving food to a starving person or raising a child, are inherently beneficial to others.

Next, I would claim that in many, or even most, cases, acts that provide tangible benefits to others can often be performed only at the expense of benefits that could have gone to ourselves, and conversely, acts that are harmful to others are often committed for the benefit of ourselves. Stealing from someone else puts money in my pocket; money spent for my child's tuition is money I could have spent on a vacation for myself.

Let me now digress for a moment to consider the following scenario: two boys wish to master a musical instrument. One boy practices for an hour each day, while the other plays video games for an hour each day. At the end of several years, one boy is an accomplished musician, while the other has spent his time playing video games. I choose this scenario because it does not involve anyone else: the choice each boy makes affects him alone.

Now if we were to extend my friend's thinking to this scenario, we would say that there is really no difference between the two -- both boys simply did what they felt like doing. But I think this is a simplistic view, and that the truth is more complex than that.

Let's assume that at the outset, both boys:

• had an equal desire to learn how to play a musical instrument;
• had an equal love for video games; and
• were equally unenamored at the prospect of sitting down and practicing a new instrument for an hour each day.

So both boys were faced with a decision: (a) sit down now and enjoy a video game; or (b) sit down now and practice for an hour, in the hopes that maybe one day, years from now, I will be able to play a musical instrument.

So yes, on one level, it is true that both boys acted on self-interest. But on another level, it is certainly not true that both decisions were equally easy to make. The decision to sit down and play video games was a no-brainer. The decision that the other boy made, in contrast, to give up an hour of video game fun, and instead spend a not-exactly-thrilling hour practicing, in order to fulfill some dream that might come true years hence, was a difficult one. Moreover, throughout the hour, that second boy was working hard to continue practicing, even though the video games most likely were beckoning him the entire hour, while the other boy was chillin' and having a most enjoyable time.

It is thus the difficulty of the decision, and the struggle involved in adhering to that difficult decision which is the crucial difference between them, and which makes the second boy's choice so admirable. Put another way, the first boy decided: I'm going to do what feels good to me this moment, while the second boy decided: I'm not really enjoying what I'm doing right now, but I'm going to do it anyway, for the sake of some future goal.

Let us now return to our original discussion. Jim is committing an act which is enjoyable to him but harmful to someone else, while Bob is doing a deed which is not enjoyable to him, but is beneficial to someone else. Jim claims: "There is no difference between me and Bob [Jim was not a great student, so please forgive his grammar] because we're both doing what feels good to us; Jim's good feeling is in knowing that he is such a good person."

To Jim I would respond: "No, Jim, there is a difference between you and Bob. What you are doing is easy for you to do. You are enjoying the act you are committing right now. Whereas Bob is going through an effort and a struggle to carry out his decision.

"Since both your decision and Bob's carry a selfish reward, then if all Bob cared about were feeling good, he could have easily chosen your path, since that would give him a good feeling right now. Bob making the "selfish" decision that involved a difficult struggle in the present moment, as opposed to the selfish decision that would have been fun in the present moment, was done for no other reason than to be helpful to someone else, and for this reason, Bob's choice is ultimately altruistic after all."

Of course, there are cases when we so identify with another person, that even in the present moment we get a good feeling from helping them. To this I would simply reply that this person has arrived at this mindset through past moral struggles, and that therefore the above reasoning applies here too.

Is my argument convincing? (Somehow, I highly doubt that this piece would change my friend's stance.) Does it ultimately matter whether, on a philosophical level, my friend is right or I am, as long as we both act kindly towards others? What say you?