Things I’ve learned from my degree 2

There’s no such thing as a selfless act.

From the very beginning of today’s lecture, staring intently at ‘there’s no such thing as a selfless act’ written on the PowerPoint, I immediately thought back to that episode in Friends where Phoebe tries to prove to Joey that she can do something completely selfless, and perpetually failing to do so. With each ‘selfless’ act, came a reward. It was either her feeling good about herself, feeling good about something she was able to do for her friend, and in one case (I believe- the last time I watched Friends was a while ago now), a tangible reward as a consequence of her selflessness. While she was very altruistic- helping other people without thinking about an immediate gain for herself- as you’ll see watching that episode, it becomes difficult to argue that she was being selfless. But what does true selflessness even look like?

Before the auditorium had even reached a unanimous hush to signal the commencement of the impending lecture, I thought to myself ‘I guess it makes sense- you can’t do something for someone else without it doing something to you’. Good or bad- whenever you give, you receive. And to me, that’s really interesting.

For context, the module from which this essay stems from is inspired by (I guess), is called ‘Altruism, cooperation, and helping’ so I expect some really insightful takes from whatever it is the Doctor of Psychology teaches me this Spring. From the very first lecture, with such a simple statement, the professor at the front of the auditorium with most of the theories to some of the answers to a modicum of life’s biggest questions locked in his PowerPoint forced me to consider- is it just inherent human nature to be selfish?

Yes. Well, all the major philosophers say so, so it must be. Let’s begin with Plato- it always begins with Plato, doesn’t it? Plato claims that human beings are selfish to avoid pain and pursue pleasure. Quite a primitive take considering how the world has changed to accommodate the avoidance of pain and the pursuit of pleasure simultaneously without affecting another human being as a consequence. Next, is Aristotle who speculates that the helper gains a greater positive mood than the helped. True yesterday, true tomorrow, and true always. Unless it costs to give, right? But even then, the greater the cost, the greater the reward, the better it makes you feel knowing just how much it costs. It’s like, giving half your lunch to a friend one day who has no lunch. Sure, it cost you, but it was worth that bit more being able to help them as much as you did. And if you give them all your lunch one day, yeah, you’ll miss your turkey sandwich with the moist maker, but you have given to the point where you have nothing left to give, how honourable is that? And if people are watching, your rep points are now through the roof! With this, comes Hobbs who, in his Moral and Political Philosophy, suggests that we are motivated to help others if there is something to gain for the self. Doing something as amazing as giving away your moist maker with no immediate payoffs may seem pointless, but not only is it an investment to be paid back with a favour at a later date, but with an audience to witness such a commendable act, comes the opportunity to build a good reputation. Which is a very beneficial thing to have. More on that in next week’s lecture.

Enough about selflessness, let’s talk about being completely selfish now. Forget being altruistic, and helping others for a moment, and consider those who benefit from being selfish, from being a ‘free rider’- people who do not help or contribute to a given situation but gain from that same situation having lost nothing and gained from the contributions of others. Think of a group project in school where everyone has to work together to get a grade. In this scenario, the free rider is the student who contributes nothing but still gets the A along with the rest of the group. Evolutionary scientists (some) argue in favour of free-riding- if we can give less, and gain more, we should give less. Looking at it through the lens of natural selection, helping others incurs a cost to the helper and the gain to others. So why would we want to lose and as a result, compromise the general fitness of our population? We don’t.

But things are different today. We all start as selfish babies, demanding attention, food, love, and support from literally anyone who will look at us and contribute little else but a smile, some laughter, and general cuteness. We may not be born to be selfish, but we are born selfish. This changes as we grow older and are pushed into the world of social interaction when we notice that some behaviours are rewarded, and others punished. In the case of the free-rider (please note- this is contingent on many things, namely culture (I know this is the case in collectivist cultures)), we notice that free riders are likely to be subject to censure and humiliation being labelled as selfish and inconsiderate, while more altruistic people are regarded as being generous and kind. And so, avoid the pain of condemnation, we express more altruistic behaviours to win social approval (pleasure). I guess this means Plato had a point- we are only being selfless to be selfish- we help others to help ourselves, to save ourselves.

If you, like me, are driven by faith, you are likely compelled by forces beyond societal expectations to demonstrate altruistic behaviours. You are inspired by the Golden Rules. In Judaism, benevolence is one of the main pillars of the world and ‘you should love your neighbour as yourself. For me, a Christian, it’s ‘do unto others as you would have them do to you’ — Luke 6:31. Buddhists believe in regarding others as you would yourself, and the Golden Rule in Islam is to give preference to someone’s needs and welfare over your own. The Golden Rules of altruism are therefore rooted in mutual reciprocity- in creating an ideal society in which people are giving as they are receiving. It’s beautiful, but it’s also exactly that- ideal. Society, unfortunately, does not look like this. And as a consequence, it becomes increasingly difficult to be selfless when you aren’t sure whether your selflessness will help you or cost you. It’s a gamble that few risk-taking.

Growing up, my mother would always tell me that our family were rich in good karma. That we had a huge reservoir of good karma which had accumulated over the lifespan of every single member in our family, and this reservoir was a deposit of how generous and benevolent their spirits were. How much good they gave, they indirectly received. If not for themselves, then for the wellbeing of their kin. As you can imagine, such belief compels us all, to this day, to give when we can, and as often as we can. I think this is the closest I’ve been to what true selflessness might look like. As a bunch, we didn’t have much, but whenever we had anything to give, we would always do. But still, as heart-warming as it is to be altruistic with no intention to ever gain from an altruistic exchange, isn’t helping out a loved one, directly or not, still selfish? It is… A little bit.

So that brings me back to the age-old statement- ‘there’s no such thing as a selfish act’. Evidenced throughout this entire essay, any effort I have made to describe how a selfless act can exist, I’ve refuted in dissecting how anything selfless is inherently selfish. I guess there is no such thing as a selfish act. If there is, I don’t know what it looks like.

The end. (My professor didn’t venture an answer either. From this, I presume he also doesn’t know what a truly selfless act looks like. Oh well).