A moral way to exploit the world

I would argue that whenever you do a good deed, you are in fact exploiting who ever it is you are helping. This post will presuppose much about determinism and the idea of all actions being selfish (two popular topics on this blog).

When you do nice things for a person what are some reasons for your altruism? To cause someone to owe you a favor in return is one, to fulfill a desire you feel towards another person is another (keep in mind that BOTH can be a result of your action).

There is apparently a moral distinction between the two. Those who wish to maintain this distinction would have us believe that if you realize you are affecting yourself it is not a selfless deed. They say for it to be a true selfless deed you must be ignorant of the ulterior motive to benefit yourself. I argue that in both instances your act of kindness will result in you and the recipient being affected in a way that you’ve been conditioned to desire, hence they are both a “selfish” deed.

There is no moral distinction between giving thousands of dollars to charity because you want to feel good about yourself or to help people. The (selfish) action has been acted out and its effects seen. If we accept that all actions are selfish does it remove the absolute sense of nobility we get from good deeds? I say absolutely so.

What matters more? That good actions are being carried out, or that people feel some sense of higher purpose from said actions? It is time to move past fictional notions of nobility in our reality. They are deeds lacking objective purpose, but we like them. There is no ultimate justification for it.

When you do a good deed you are exploiting this world’s problems in order to ease your state of consciousness while simultaneously making the world a better place. Realizing this in no way diminishes the effectiveness of the good deed. There is an entire world in need of help. Exploit that need by helping others in order to elevate yourself. You’ll bring the world up with you.

 

-AD

Advertisements

  2 comments for “A moral way to exploit the world

  1. June 26, 2014 at 3:57 am

    There can be no action by an individual such that this action does not in turn change our own emotional well being. Any action (social or personal) must have some bounce back. This can certainly be used as justification (as you have done) to say that any action which is made is selfish, because it is done with the sole purpose of changing the participants mindset. I believe this argument rests on the per-supposition that we all behave to our own self interest.

    While I agree that there can be no action that has a net 0 effect on someone’s mindset, I must say there do exist situations where there is a net negative effect on one’s mindset. That is, they behave contrary to their interest, making them feel bad or placing them in a worse position than they began. So does the distinction really matter? If the spectrum of behaviors is [Negative, None, Positive],
    where ‘none’ does not exist, that doesn’t mean we cannot approach a neutral decision from either the positive or negative direction.

    Therefore, it is possible to do a weakly negative action to one’s self which leads to a strongly positive action on another. I would say just because we can’t ‘hit’ 0, doesn’t mean the distinction between a strongly positive reaction by the participant and a weakly positive reaction is meaningless. Just some thoughts, maybe i’m full of it =)

    • June 26, 2014 at 6:28 am

      I agree with your reasoning, but I would argue a lack of free will renders all actions subject to the laws of nature. Following that, you are programmed to do what inevitably affects you, and that eliminates any concern you have for a person that is not dependent on their relation to your condition. From this viewpoint, I call the motive of these motions selfish, not the outcomes. The motive came from the self meaning it will concern the self.

      I think this means we lose objective meaning which leaves the definition of the word meaning up to the speaker, or the self in the question.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: