Your views on kindness

[MMandM]

Is there an inherent expectation of reciprocity in kindness? I don't think its kindness anymore if someone does something out of self-interest. Those cases, the ones where people do something that is beneficial to someone else and also rewarding to self should have another word applied to them, right now the only phrase I can think of is mutually beneficial, but that doesn't address the aspect of the initial positive thought or intent.

 

If I think about it, I may be able to come up with another word, but the point I'm trying to make is that implicit within the concept of true kindness is the fact that it's completely independent of the thought of any reward or benefit to self, though that might indeed be a by-product. Do you agree or disagree. Yes I also studied Philosophy, in which I found very beneficial in practicing civil rights. Does that make sense or am I just rambling again?

[Graeme]

I don't think we can have a discussion unless we define what is meant by "true kindess".

 

Kindness almost always brings some benefit to the one doing the kindness -- even if it is just getting a "feel-good" feeling. Being kind to someone brings its reward in feeling good about what you've done -- and I believe that that is a major part of why people do it. Being kind when you don't feel good about it is something that is very, very rare -- I can't think of a single situation where I've ever done that.

 

So, my view is that "true kindness" that is "completely independent of the thought of any reward or benefit to self" is almost non-existent.

 

If I go for the spirit of what you've said, then I would have to agree -- being kind because you expect or require something tangible in return could be considered to be enlightened self-interest, rather than a pure altruistic act.

[MMandM]

Graeme you never cease to amaze me. Your true genius always gives an insightful and warm account of every topic you post in, I find you a remarkable man.

[Razor]

Ummm... I read the first post, and no.

 

When I am kind to another person, I do it because I expect the exact same damn thing from them or I will not associate with them. I'm always nice first, and whether or not they return my initial kindness is what determines the nature/existence of the relationship from that moment on. Kindness is a necessity to me. After all, how can you expect me to treat you any differently than how you treat me?

 

I always place trust in an individual until they prove me wrong, and I always assume they are kind until they prove me wrong. It's just how I operate.

[eliotmoore]

I don't think we can have a discussion unless we define what is meant by "true kindess".

 

Kindness almost always brings some benefit to the one doing the kindness -- even if it is just getting a "feel-good" feeling. Being kind to someone brings its reward in feeling good about what you've done -- and I believe that that is a major part of why people do it. Being kind when you don't feel good about it is something that is very, very rare -- I can't think of a single situation where I've ever done that.

 

So, my view is that "true kindness" that is "completely independent of the thought of any reward or benefit to self" is almost non-existent.

 

If I go for the spirit of what you've said, then I would have to agree -- being kind because you expect or require something tangible in return could be considered to be enlightened self-interest, rather than a pure altruistic act.

 

I went through that argument with my older brother many years ago. Argued it bitterly and came to realize he and you are right. On the other hand it reduces human motivation to such a cynical level that a person is forced to resurect the concept of altruism just to differentiate the sociopath acting purely for his or her self gratification from the empathetic person gleening some small satisfaction from their self-sacrifice. Otherwise we are left with that nonsense where we are simply all users exploiting other people for some form of gratification. Not a comfortable way to view everyone around you I think.

 

Great topic by the way.

[Ieshwar]

I don't know how to say my viwes...

 

Well, first of all, it's true that our world isn't devoid of kindness but I think we're talking of things like giving your seat to a young lady, giving a friend a lift, or things like that which make someone seem charming. But is this all about kindness? Doesn't kindness involve forgiveness too? And things more serious?

 

What about cases of hurting yourself to help others? Is this too kindness?

 

And if 'true kindness' means having no reward or gratification, by awarding things like nobel prizes isn't like insulting the essence of kindness?

 

And what about persons who are 'kind' during their work? Example, nurses who take better care or makes you feel at ease.. Are they kind or just doing their work? If they're kind, aren't they doing that coz that's their duty? If they're doing their work, what about nurses who are 'unkind'?

 

I think I asked questions much more than giving my views.

 

Ieshwar

[Menzoberranzen]

True kindness (and altruism), like Graeme said, is all but non-existent, and I would agree with the egoist school of philosophy that it is fundamentally amoral. People who argue for altruism really forget that altruism cannot take place as long as the 'altruist' gets something in return. There is no biological or evolutionary incentive for people to do such thing, and as such I would be hard pressed to find even a single example of real, true kindness.

 

Menzo

[Graeme]

I went through that argument with my older brother many years ago. Argued it bitterly and came to realize he and you are right. On the other hand it reduces human motivation to such a cynical level that a person is forced to resurect the concept of altruism just to differentiate the sociopath acting purely for his or her self gratification from the empathetic person gleening some small satisfaction from their self-sacrifice. Otherwise we are left with that nonsense where we are simply all users exploiting other people for some form of gratification. Not a comfortable way to view everyone around you I think.

 

Great topic by the way.

Mahatma Gandhi once said "Peace is its own reward." This was then taken and used with lots of those things replacing the word "Peace". In this case, "Kindness" fits very well.

 

Kindness is its own reward.

 

While it is not altruistic, what it means is that doing kind deals has a purely internal reward for the person doing the deed. They don't need external benefits to do what they are doing. To move away from the pure form that Mark was originally talking about, this would be the closest to "True Kindness" -- in that the only reward/benefit that is being received is that internal good feeling that they have done something "good".

 

But Eliot has raised an interesting point. From a high level point of view, what distinguishes the person who does a good deed and feels good, and the sociopath who does a "evil" deed to feel good? I think the answer lies in the motivation. The first person is not doing the good deed to feel good -- they expect to feel good as a result, but the intention is to help someone else. The second person's motivation is purely internal -- they are doing the deed because they want to feel good.

[Jack Frost]

Don't be too kind to me, it makes me sick and I'll unleash my teasing skills on you.

[Menzoberranzen]

Mahatma Gandhi once said "Peace is its own reward." This was then taken and used with lots of those things replacing the word "Peace". In this case, "Kindness" fits very well.

 

Kindness is its own reward.

 

While it is not altruistic, what it means is that doing kind deals has a purely internal reward for the person doing the deed. They don't need external benefits to do what they are doing. To move away from the pure form that Mark was originally talking about, this would be the closest to "True Kindness" -- in that the only reward/benefit that is being received is that internal good feeling that they have done something "good".

 

But Eliot has raised an interesting point. From a high level point of view, what distinguishes the person who does a good deed and feels good, and the sociopath who does a "evil" deed to feel good? I think the answer lies in the motivation. The first person is not doing the good deed to feel good -- they expect to feel good as a result, but the intention is to help someone else. The second person's motivation is purely internal -- they are doing the deed because they want to feel good.

 

I disgaree, for the most part. A person who does a kind deed rather than an evil one to feel good knows that the consequences for said eveil deed would most likely make the reward not worth the cost. A sociopath finds the pleasure of killing (as an extreme example) outweighs the possible risks associated with criminal activity. The person who helps an old lady with her groceries knows that nothing but accolades and a warm fuzzy feeling will come to them for their efforts. It's all about percieved cost/benefit ratios and willingness to risk something.

 

As an example, during grade school there were people whom I would have gladly punched in the face. This 'evil' act would have given me pleasure, but the cost (in the form of suspensions) to me, outweighed the benefits of the act. I don't doubt that some people have altruistic motives (doesn't make the deed truly altruistic, though) but I think that in most cases it's simply a less risky way of getting personal satisfaction.

 

Menzo

[Menzoberranzen]

You people need to read some Ayn Rand. Now.

 

Birds

 

 

I <3 Ayn Rand.

[JamesSavik]

Kindness is one of several behaviors that people often confuse.

 

In its most basic definition, kindness is a tendency toward gentle behavior in dealing with others. People who display this behavior are said to be thoughtful, considerate, warmhearted, agreeable, tolerant and forgiving.

 

Kindness is often mistaken for common courtesy as people that practice one are usually more apt to practice the other. They are not exactly the same but are both rare and exceptional to find.

 

Kindness does NOT automatically equal charity. While a kind person may be chairitable, the definition and motives for chairity can be quite different given the situation. For instance, a person who would never be considered kind may give to chairity for tax purposes, recognition or entirely pragmatic reasons.

 

example: People were surprised to discover that Mr. LeGree, a notorious misanthrope, had donated 100,000 a year to the Beat Cancer Now Foundation for decades. The act only made sense when his papers were published and we find out that his mother died of breast cancer and how deeply it affected him.

[Graeme]

I disgaree, for the most part. A person who does a kind deed rather than an evil one to feel good knows that the consequences for said eveil deed would most likely make the reward not worth the cost. A sociopath finds the pleasure of killing (as an extreme example) outweighs the possible risks associated with criminal activity. The person who helps an old lady with her groceries knows that nothing but accolades and a warm fuzzy feeling will come to them for their efforts. It's all about percieved cost/benefit ratios and willingness to risk something.

I think we've got a misunderstanding, rather than a disagreement.

 

I agree with what you say -- everyone makes cost/benefit calculations when they do things. Where I think we have a misunderstanding is the viewpoint of my comment. I wasn't looking at it from a societal point of view, but an abstract point of view (which is what I thought Eliot was trying to do). If feeling good afterwards is the reason for doing a particular deed, then how do you distinguish between the good deed and the bad deed? I was proposing that it be based on the motivation, and your cost/benefit view fits into that.

[Menzoberranzen]

I think we've got a misunderstanding, rather than a disagreement.

 

I agree with what you say -- everyone makes cost/benefit calculations when they do things. Where I think we have a misunderstanding is the viewpoint of my comment. I wasn't looking at it from a societal point of view, but an abstract point of view (which is what I thought Eliot was trying to do). If feeling good afterwards is the reason for doing a particular deed, then how do you distinguish between the good deed and the bad deed? I was proposing that it be based on the motivation, and your cost/benefit view fits into that.

 

And I was proposing that the motivation is the same in both cases: personal gain/satisfaction. I introduced the cost/gain concept as a reason why different people find different methods of obtaining satisfaction.

[MMandM]

The sociologist, Alvin Gouldner has identified one of the few cross-cultural "universals" established by sociology and social anthropology: The Norm of Reciprocity. He argues that this universal understanding, that favors should be returned more or less in terms of equal value ("balanced reciprocity"), is one the principle glues that hold society together and I believe most social anthropologists agree.

 

Now I do not know if this addresses the matter of kindness as it does that of the expectation of reciprocity.

 

When I look back I think that at least most of my acts of kindness have been performed because they have made ME feel good. Altruism and egoism have merged in most cases. I do not feel that this fact has diminished the ethical value of such acts at all. IMO society does play an important role in the concept of kindness, but there can be an instinctive act of kindness that is performed at some risk and without any realistic hope of reciprocation. Or perhaps I

[Menzoberranzen]

Altruism and egoism have merged in most cases.

 

The two are fundamental opposites. That they often lead to the same conclusion is, I believe, the only reason perceived altrusim exists at all. As you said, most of your acts of kindness were done to make YOU feel good. This is egoism. The fact that they also helped others does NOT make the acts altruistic. Of course, if your motivation had been altruistic, we would have arrived at the same conclusion and the egoistic benefit of feeling good would have been a byproduct of altruistic motivation. The same result is obtained in both cases, but egoism and altruism are still distinctly opposite ideas.

[Graeme]

And I was proposing that the motivation is the same in both cases: personal gain/satisfaction. I introduced the cost/gain concept as a reason why different people find different methods of obtaining satisfaction.

And there we have a difference of opinion I don't see the satisfaction for doing an act of kindness to be the motivation for doing it. It is a component of that motivation, but it is insufficient by itself to explain why I do an act of kindness.

 

When I look back I think that at least most of my acts of kindness have been performed because they have made ME feel good.

Do you do them because they make you feel good, or is this a normal outcome that helps motivate you to do something that will also make others feel good?

 

If the satisfaction was the only motivator, then I probably wouldn't do acts of kindness -- I'd but myself some chocolate or cream-cake instead. I get as much satisfaction, at least, albeit of a different nature, from eating one of them....

 

A few years ago I was travelling on a tram in Melbourne (heading back to the office, I think). There was someone who was an obvious tourist (from Canada, it turned out), who was struggling to find the right change to put in the ticket machine (yes, the ticket machine is located ON the tram, and it doesn't take notes -- this system was designed by agents of the government -- enough said). I pulled out my wallet and paid for the lady's ticket myself.

 

Why did I do it? Because I was in a good mood, it didn't cost me much, it made her happy, and it made me happy. The last one wasn't sufficient by itself to justify why I did it. Indeed, because I was in a good mood anyway, I don't believe it was a conscious factor in my decision to do this "random act of kindness".

 

That is why I feel that an act of kindness isn't motivated by the feeling of satisfaction that comes from doing a good deed. That answer is too simplistic.

[Menzoberranzen]

And there we have a difference of opinion

 

That is why I feel that an act of kindness isn't motivated by the feeling of satisfaction that comes from doing a good deed. That answer is too simplistic.

 

Life would be boring without differing opinions

 

But let me ask you this: Would you have paid for that lady's ticket (yay for Canadians, btw ) if had been a real sacrifice? You yourself said it didn't cost much...

[Graeme]

Life would be boring without differing opinions

Very true

 

But let me ask you this: Would you have paid for that lady's ticket (yay for Canadians, btw ) if had been a real sacrifice? You yourself said it didn't cost much...

Almost certainly not. I'm honest enough to know that if it had been more then $20, I probably wouldn't have done anything. Between $10 and $20, I don't know -- maybe, since I was in a good mood.

[ashessnow]

This sounds disturbingly like a heated debate I had to endure in Psych.

[eliotmoore]

The sociologist, Alvin Gouldner has identified one of the few cross-cultural "universals" established by sociology and social anthropology: The Norm of Reciprocity. He argues that this universal understanding, that favors should be returned more or less in terms of equal value ("balanced reciprocity"), is one the principle glues that hold society together and I believe most social anthropologists agree.

 

Now I do not know if this addresses the matter of kindness as it does that of the expectation of reciprocity.

 

When I look back I think that at least most of my acts of kindness have been performed because they have made ME feel good. Altruism and egoism have merged in most cases. I do not feel that this fact has diminished the ethical value of such acts at all. IMO society does play an important role in the concept of kindness, but there can be an instinctive act of kindness that is performed at some risk and without any realistic hope of reciprocation. Or perhaps I'm just babbling again.

 

No you are not just babbling again. The topic lends itself to the complex inversion of ideas as people struggle with reciprocity and now, God help us, Ayn Rand's rational self interest. Perhaps this is a perception that I have superimposed on everyone's comments, but it seems to me that the concept of kindness has been reduced to a cost-benifit analysis that cannot be resolved. Cost-benifit valuations are subjective so a standard is unatainable. Then too there is the odd premise here where the greater the satisfaction (or personal gain) received the less kind the act. "Sure Simon ran into the burning building to save the kid... but he just wanted to look good in front of the rest of us." Pish on that thinking.

Edited June 28, 2007 by eliotmoore

[Menzoberranzen]

"Sure Simon ran into the burning building to save the kid... but he just wanted to look good in front of the rest of us."

 

There are other reasons of rational self-interest that would likely be stronger motivation. The satisfaction of doing it, and the alleviation of guilt being foremost among them.

[eliotmoore]

There are other reasons of rational self-interest that would likely be stronger motivation. The satisfaction of doing it, and the alleviation of guilt being foremost among them.

 

 

very true and they don't devalue the act

[colinian]

I believe in being kind because it makes both those receiving and the giver fell good. I don't care if it's altruism, or egoism, or whatever. Making others feel good and making yourself feel good at the same time is wonderful. Being kind makes me happy.

 

And what's the alternative? If you're not kind you're what? Mean? Sadistic? A bully? Indifferent? Aloof? Does being that way make you feel good? Not!

 

Colin

[rknapp]

As far as kindness goes, I subscribe to the golden rule... "Treat others as you wish to be treated." By the same token, I subscribe the obsidian rule (totally made up just now), "Treat others as they treat you." If someone is nasty to me, then they should expect no less from me. Meanwhile people who are kind to me can only expect kindness in return. Take for example two different customers that I had today. One of them was a raging c**t, and so she was the recipient of crisp, hard answers and a venomous tone. I don't care if I am not to treat customers that way, I am not paid enough to be kicked around by some cuntsack who flunked out of 3rd grade math! The second customer came right after the asshole, and at the end of the transaction she smiled and said. "MUCH more pleasant, eh?" I couldn't have agreed more!

 

I've noticed that I've practiced the golden rule in various degrees with certain people who I interact with on a day to day basis. There is a woman in at the courtesy counter who typically appears to be a in a sour mood, and rightly so. Honestly if all you did was deal with returns and irate customers, wouldn't you have a poor outlook as well? Not too long ago I made it a point to make her feel appreciated by smiling and saying hi whenever I saw her, and saying goodnight as either I or her came off of my or her shift. Since paychecks are always dispensed from the courtesy desk, I would sometimes strike up a conversation with her as I got my paycheck and ask her how she was doing, and share tales of raging c**t customers. She has a few good ones, including someone who wanted to return an item, but had neither the receipt, nor the tag, nor the item itself. Seriously... anyway I have found that in the months that I have done these things, she seems to be a very pleasant person, and she now takes the time greet me as well. I don't know if this is because I am always nice to her, or some other facet of her life outside of work, but it's nice to know that even sour people can have very good sides to them if you take the time to uncover them.

 

Is the world devoid of kindness? No. Is kindness lost in only certain areas of the globe? No. People do all kinds of things for one reason or another and I honestly believe that the question of kindness and reciprocity was originally raised because everyone needs a reason to be kind, even if it is only because someone was kind to them or they are seeking a kind interaction with someone.