"Me"-thinks selfishly

What do we consider beneficent act? An act with no selfish motive done purely because some being in nature sets an example to act or so "moves" us to act, or, because there exists a universal morality which binds human beings to so act for survival purposes or because the universe is ordered as such to elicit, to guide action in some form or fashion somehow balancing the universe? I don't mean to start of with such questions and perhaps I have started by asking the wrong questions in the first place, but the questions merely segue into what I really feel the need to blog about. This entry is about, surprise surprise, human nature (such a daunting discussion to be sure -- but a very relevant one that needs never end). Why do we act the way that we do making this decision and not that, choosing this cup of coffee over that, choosing to go on mission trips rather than cleaning our houses, choosing to save a boy's life in Africa rather than buying a year's supply of chocolate? To get to the nitty-gritty, what are our motives for acting? From the general public and according to public opinion our motives can be one of two things (or perhaps both): selfish motives for acting (motives which are made for oneself) or beneficent motives for acting (motives made for the benefit of another). Taking this a bit further, these can be divided a bit further for clarification. A selfish motive may be a beneficent one as well, while a beneficent motive may serve well as a selfish motive. The line between selfish and beneficent may be harder to draw than the person contemplating an action may even realize.

But honestly, how often are we making a decision solely for the good of another without an element of selfish motive involved? I've found that the two components of motive are inseparable with regards to a beneficent act (in most cases). A truly beneficent act without a selfish motive would perhaps be better realized in the person and work of Jesus of Nazareth to Christians, or perhaps Buddha to Buddists, or perhaps the theoretical potential of the human brain by contemporary scientists. A selfish act requires no beneficent motive as beneficence becomes merely a happenstance by-product of actions arising from pure selfish motive. To give an example of what I'm talking about, I can decide to help a child in another country because I believe it to be right. When I make this decision I perhaps making it under the pretense that I'm helping another, which in turn gives me a feeling of pleasure with myself for doing what I believe to be right? What I believe to be right need not be right, but because I believe it to be right it is right to me and because it is right to me and because I gain a sense of satisfaction with doing what I believe to be right then my motive and act is not solely beneficent. Here it is probably significant to divide selfishness a bit further. Perhaps we can suggest that a selfish motive is not necessarily a negative as popular culture makes it out to be. To be selfish and to think of the self is not necessarily a bad thing. We are one being among cultures of beings and we think with our own brains, we eat with our own mouth's, we speak with our own tongues. We are individuals in communities. Never have we thought solely for ourselves as human beings, but as individuals in communities. Because of a strong push for the individual in our culture it is often forgotten that we live in communities and thrive because of them. We don't thrive on our own. To think selfishly is natural since we are individuals, but to resort to solely selfish motives neglecting our communal nature is what I would consider negative selfishness, while selfishness that exists as a builder and motivator of relationships in community is positive selfishness. Whether an act or decision is made for a negatively selfish reason or a positively selfish reason (accompanied with a beneficent motive) is most times difficult to ascertain by anyone wanting to study (from an etic perspective) or examine, say, why a President chooses to go to war, or perhaps why a person decides to drink this coffee instead of that coffee.

Human beings are beings in constant tension between whole individuals and parts of communities, (for Christians) being made in the image of God (???) and yet not God, being in time and our perception of timelessness. We cannot escape being both selfish and beneficent because both characteristic of all human beings. I'm not making any claims concerning human nature here though this brief discussion has touched on some issues, because the discussion drifts off into various discussions on the defining of the terms "human" and "nature" which pretty much kill any discussion of "human nature" over disciplinary lines (i.e. religions, science, etc). Returning to the point of this discussion, is is significant to realize that we think selfishly and there is no way of escaping selfish motive. Of course I was raised and taught in the system of western ideological academia and very much have grown in locales and communities that tend to put emphasis on the power of the individual. The arena of ideas from which I speak can only arrive from this background and locale. Various cultures emphasize beneficence, the good of tribe, above all other values. And as such beneficence becomes the selfish motive as well, satiating the individual and group motive in acting. But does the way I categorized these terms (i.e. "selfish", "beneficent") really fit into such a scenario? Maybe not. Maybe I'm not being fair to other cultures, and this is a valid complaint, but as I said I am speaking concerning most industrialized countries where capitalism and democracy have hold as governing and economic systems. However, despite this Rogerian repose, I believe that I could apply this system to other individuals in varying cultures (This belief merely being an educated guess which may or may not be right. And because this belief is merely contingent upon whether or not the model does work across the board, this belief is different from the belief say in God which is a belief beyond contingency -- one belief can be verified or falsified while the other merely is without contention.)

Here's uncle Tim's advice: You're always going to be selfish. Be mindful of whether or not your selfish motives benefit others, strengthening relationships. When you act for the sake of others, it's okay to feel good about it, though your motive for doing the act was partially for that "good feelin'".