Just saw a kind of slogan in the profle of a friend's WhatsApp account.
DO GOOD FOR NO REASON.
Is it possible to do good things "for no reason"?
Even if, strictly speaking, it's not possible to DO GOOD FOR NO REASON ~ and if it's only possible to do something that approximates it ~ does [kind of] doing good for no reason constitute a special category of virtuous deed?
In terms of how virtuous acts are, how does targeting acts of goodness measure up against random (albeit) needed/welcomed acts of goodness?
And how does the Leon Tolstoy assertion... ""It is much better to do good in a way that no one knows anything about it"... fit into all this?
@fmf saidIn terms of the definition, any act of goodness will presumably have a beneficial effect upon the person or persons being done good to, as it were, so there is perhaps always a 'reason.' If you are talking about doing goodly things for no benefit to yourself, or even to the detriment of yourself, then this commonly happens, and I could give you a case in point from personal experience but suddenly I don't have time now, so if you want I'll come back to you.
Just saw a kind of slogan in the profle of a friend's WhatsApp account.
DO GOOD FOR NO REASON.
Is it possible to do good things "for no reason"?
Even if, strictly speaking, it's not possible to DO GOOD FOR NO REASON ~ and if it's only possible to do something that approximates it ~ does [kind of] doing good for no reason constitute a special category of virtuous deed?
...[text shortened]... . ""It is much better to do good in a way that no one knows anything about it"... fit into all this?
We could perhaps add into the mix the saying that 'No good deed goes unpunished.' There is some truth in this, I think!
Christianity has grappled with this problem for a long time. The general answer is that one cannot really do that. This meaning is found in Romans 3:10:
As it is written: "There is no one righteous, not even one;
This is also found in Matthew 6:3:
But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing,
We are incapable of doing good because we think that that which we do benefits us, and so we must do our best to forget the fact that we are doing any amount of good. It must be done as subconsciously and with as little connection to our ego as possible.
Its a good motto to do good without knowing it, but it is also impossible, so we need to resolve this problem by depending on God. Through God we can receive the grace to actually do something that slightly resembles this.
3 edits
@fmf saidI think it's possible to "do good things for no reason", but only if you do them by accident.
Just saw a kind of slogan in the profle of a friend's WhatsApp account.
DO GOOD FOR NO REASON.
Is it possible to do good things "for no reason"?
Even if, strictly speaking, it's not possible to DO GOOD FOR NO REASON ~ and if it's only possible to do something that approximates it ~ does [kind of] doing good for no reason constitute a special category of virtuous deed?
...[text shortened]... . ""It is much better to do good in a way that no one knows anything about it"... fit into all this?
This reminds me of an episode of the TV show Friends in which Joey tells Phoebe that there is no such thing as a 'selfless good deed' - and she spends the rest of the show trying [and failing] to perform an act of goodness that does not make her feel better in any way.
Tolstoy's quote seems to drive in that direction. It reads as a caution against doing good deeds out of a desire to be recognized by other people for so doing.
Personally, I think that Tolstoy and Joey are overly paranoid about "selfishness", and that good deeds are only 'selfish' if the primary motivation is personal gain. Good deeds are supposed to make the doer feel better, along with improving the lot of the person(s) helped. It's a benefit, and not a drawback, to have societal synergy in a positive direction.
Basically, Joey's misusing the word "selfish".
@bigdoggproblem saidTotally agree. I do not see why getting pleasure from doing good for others negates the very good one does for others. One is supposed to feel good doing for others. This kind of attitude that it's not altruistic unless you get nothing from it is ridiculous.
I think it's possible to "do good things for no reason", but only if you do them by accident.
This reminds me of an episode of the TV show Friends in which Joey tells Phoebe that there is no such thing as a 'selfless good deed' - and she spends the rest of the show trying [and failing] to perform an act of goodness that does not make her feel better in any wa ...[text shortened]... to have societal synergy in a positive direction.
Basically, Joey's misusing the word "selfish".
-Removed-This is why a quantitative measure of the good you do for others will always fail. It's not a contest, and one doesn't have to meet some pre-defined idea of how much to give. It's totally qualitative, so that you begin to ask yourself, "How can I do more with what I do give?", whether what you are giving is money or time.