Doing Good and Ego Motives

by ishambat | August 15, 2012 at 03:27 pm
123 views | 0 Recommendations | 2 comments

One criticism frequently mentioned of people who are into doing good is that they are coming from other motives than altruism. It is claimed that some do it to boast or to boost their ego, that others do it out of a sense of guilt and obligation, and that there are also people who use it as part of status climbing. My response is: Who cares?

Doing good is a good thing, whatever the motivations. Whether one does it out of compassion for humanity or out of ego, in either case good gets done. One may or may not be made a better person as a result of it, but the world benefits. In either case benefit is achieved, whatever one's reasons for doing it may be.

One destructive dynamic I've frequently seen is someone finding - in one's partner, in someone related, or in someone unrelated - a real or a perceived flaw, which then leads one to claim that the person cannot be good and cannot be true to their stated ideals. This does nothing except the following: Discourage the person from any ideal-driven action, resulting in a worsening not only of their temperament but of what comes from them into the world. If it is claimed that someone who argues with his wife cannot be in favor of women's rights - that someone who takes a plane cannot be in favor of environmental sanity - or that someone who is wealthy cannot care about the poor, the result is neither honesty nor integrity. The result is the person being discouraged from having the ideal entirely, to the point that none of their action becomes ideal-driven, and benefit to the world from the person is vastly reduced.

Far better it is that the person continue to do good, whatever is thought of them personally. Far better it is that contribution and benefit continue to be made. Far better it is that doing good be a value in and of itself, and that one not need to be "a perfect person" or to come from a rigid set of considerations in order to contribute benefit to fellow human being.

Some actions are good, whatever the motivations for them. In case of people who are driven by other things than pure altruism, it makes sense to make an incentive for them to do good. If they are driven by ego, or by status, or by any other non-altruistic concern, then it should be a part of status-striving or ego reward for people to do good in the world. That way, good will be done, whatever the people's character or motivations. And the result will be benefit realized all across the board.

Advertisement
recommend Sign In or Join to post comments
1
colins

Now, what is the meaning of working without motive? Nowadays many understand it in the sense that one is to work in such a way that neither pleasure nor pain touches his mind. If this be its real meaning, then the animals might be said to work without motive. Some animals devour their own offspring, and they do not feel any pangs at all in doing so. Robbers ruin other people by robbing them of their possessions; but if they feel quite callous to pleasure or pain, then they also would be working without motive. If the meaning of it be such, then one who has a stony heart, the worst of criminals, might be considered to be working without motive. The walls have no feelings of pleasure or pain, neither has a stone, and it cannot be said that they are working without motive. In the above sense the doctrine is a potent instrument in the hands of the wicked. They would go on doing wicked deeds, and would pronounce themselves as working without a motive. If such be the significance of working without a motive, then a fearful doctrine has been put forth by the preaching of the Gita. Certainly this is not the meaning. Furthermore, if we look into the lives of those who were connected with the preaching of the Gita, we should find them living quite a different life. Arjuna killed Bhishma and Drona in battle, but withal, he sacrificed all his self-interest and desires and his lower self millions of times.

0
ishambat

Colins: I wasn't talking about working without a motive, I was saying that even if the motives for doing good things aren't themselves good, the good still gets done.

I'm not sure if anyone operates without a motive, or if it's a good or a bad thing if they do.

Arjuna was a principled enough guy, but I'm not talking about him here.

closeSign in to NowPublic

is reporting from