Selfish Virtue?

In my last post I talked about the possibility of there being no selfless act, and no potential to actually do a good deed. Excitingly for me, more people responded (I post this blog a few places) than normal, and it gave me more to contemplate and reflect on.

One friend of mine pointed out that selfishness, may not be inherently bad. If you are a long time reader of this journal, then you know that I have brought this possibility up a great many times, and I certainly feel that there is truth to this. To act against your own person, I feel defies the very reason for your existence, whatever that may be. From a religious standpoint, if God created you, then working against yourself is working against the creation that he made. From a more atheist standpoint, there is no real reason to tear yourself down. My personal belief (and the one expressed by this friend) is that the only time selfishness becomes a problem is when you are willing to destroy others for your own gain. Now this is a dangerous statement to make, because at what point do you draw the line. If someone will get hurt if you don't do something, but you will definitely get hurt if you do, whose needs and life takes priority? The selfish thing would be to evaluate whether or not the pain you will feel afterwards will be greater. For example if you were to let your mother feel pain instead of you, one might assume that your anguish and guilt later on would indeed be greater, and thus you should take the pain. With a stranger, that might not work the same. While I think there is truth in this, there is certainly no clear answer.

One thing that was brought is that it all goes to intentions. To quote: "If you're doing something because of personal satisfaction or boosting of ego, or what not... Then I'd guess it's selfish.. But if you truly are doing something because you CARE..." This response is funny because in the song in Wicked that I quoted last time, one of the later lines is that "My road of good intentions lead where all such roads lead," drawing on the old phrase that the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. For one, I think there is a huge risk of moral superiority trumping all else, like CRUSADES, WITCH HUNTS, etc. I would venture to say that at least SOME of the people involved in there was because they were doing what they thought was a selfless act towards something or someone else. Even beyond that though there is the question that arises is it ok to do something bad if you do it because you care? Is it ok to hurt someone if it will help them later? Finally, I think that the point I tried to make last time was that if you are doing it because you CARE, you are still doing it to provoke feelings that you like. Though indeed the cause may seem more warm and fuzzy than say boosting your ego, the truth is that the meaning is the same: You are doing something for someone else that will make you feel better, or avoid you feeling bad. So how does that make one any better or worse? Is it because one feeling is "better" than another? Hmmm...

Finally the last I want to comment on is that of God's role in all of this. I was presented with a question of whether or not we were created by God with no benefit to Him, or if indeed we were created in His own image for some purpose of His own. Now the interesting thing brought up by this is that if God did indeed have a purpose in creating us, and didn't expend the energy for nothing, and if indeed we were created in His image, than by his own example, we are incapable of making a selfless act. On the flip side was the fact that indeed our goal was to overcome the fact that most acts are selfish and find the ability to make a "true" selfless act. That certainly would appease most churches (and in my opinion, excuse them from the many acts they commit that are very selfish in nature) but I am not sure that I buy it. I think that there is a clear delineation. Either there are selfless acts or their aren't. The thought of striving towards something that might not, and more importantly should not exist is rather hellish to me.

I do indeed like the idea that was brought up about karma, and I think that most faiths in the world have some indication of this, but I don't think that it answers the question of good or wickedness. If I am trying to help someone, but things go bad, does that mean that I am going to get kindness, or harm coming back to me? Is it again, related to the intent, or maybe the action, or maybe the result? I think that this last question may be at the heart of any of these discussions. Which part of an action do you look at? Can they all be in line? I would say mostly they cannot, so which takes priority? Ah, thoughts for another day.

WIcked Goodness?

"One question haunts and hurts
Too much, too much to mention:
Was I really seeking good
Or just seeking attention?
Is that all good deeds are
When looked at with an ice-cold eye?
If that's all good deeds are
Maybe that's the reason why
No good deed goes unpunished."

What an amazing verse that is! For reference, it came from Wicked "No Good Deed," sung by Elphaba. While I absolutely love the song for its own sake, this part really set my wheels in motion.

I while back I was watching Charmed (no comments. I like it, besides, if I can pull philosophy from it, it can't be all bad. And the eye candy is good too), and one of the episodes had a villain that could enhance the deadly sin you leaned towards the most. One of the girls showed Pride. Without getting into it, you could get rid of his "curse" by helping another. The one exception was Pride. The reasoning was that when you are prideful, anything you do is a benefit to you, and therefore not selfless enough to remove the curse. Hmmm.

When someone does good, are they seeking Good, in the moral sense, or are they being drawn for something else? As Elphaba points out, maybe she was seeking attention for her deeds, feeding her pride. Of course we can also do good things to avoid bad attention. Corporations do that all the time. They don't want to look greedy, so they donate to a charity. Though it is indeed a good action to take, their reasoning is not for good. But this example is obvious. I think that what the song and the show pointed out is that maybe there is no such thing as a good deed.

Think about this. Can you really say that there is ever a time when you do something with no benefit? Picking up a friend in the middle of the night when you were sleeping? True, you don't want to, but really, you are doing it so that you can keep your friendship, which makes you happy and also gives you someone to call when you need help. Is that selfless or selfish? Maybe you went and worked all day at the homeless shelter. In fact, the last one of my friends that did this informed me that though he didn't get paid or anything, it made him feel good just to see the kids smile when they were given some food. Good? Or good for you?

I think you get the point. If there is always something to gain in any situation, can anything be "a good deed?" Assume again that selfishness is bad, would that mean that all good deeds are in fact inherently wicked? Now that's food for thought.

What God Wants?

I have been meaning to write this since Sunday, but have been both busy and simultaneously slacking, so here it is Thursday before my thoughts become words.

This is another one of those rare instances where I want to chat religion. Fair warning that I am my traditionally brutally honest self in this post.

I recently attended and helped put on a Gospel Brunch in Kansas City for the HRC. The goal was to bring civil rights organizations of all types and religious organizations. As an outreach project, I thought it was great, the event was a hit, and fun to boot.

During the brunch we had several groups perform, including the Heartland Men's Chorus, the primary gay men's choir in KC. My friend Randy had a solo that he was both excited and nervous about. He had also just come from a very moving church service that coincidentally was very similar to what the brunch was all about. Anyway, Randy was going on about how he hoped that God would give him the strength to sing, etc. and lots of other people there were expressing similar thoughts about their own lives. At that point, it really struck me why I clash so violently with the average Christian religions.

I used to think that my more open view of the world is what separated me from organized religion. How can you believe in things like horoscopes, magic, spirits, etc and still believe in God? That never seemed to fit, because I more believe in everything than I believe in nothing, but I still never could align myself with one religion. Now I think I know why: They pray for the wrong things, and the wrong reasons.

I recently read a story that I loved sometime in the Middle Ages, a farmer was looking at his crop, and he got down upon his knees and thanked God for a good harvest. A religious man of some sort (I am still trying to get at what religion he was) said "Do not thank God for your harvest. Instead thank yourself for your heard work. If you want to thank God, thank him for making you in such a way that you have the ability to grow food for yourself."

Bingo. That's it. To me, God created me. He gave me all the innate abilities of who I am, and the potential of who I can be. He then set me free to make my own life on my own. It is not He that makes me laugh or cry, but He who gave me the ability to do both, and the chance to chose what things were in my life. Randy has a great voice. A God given talent if you will, but when he goes out there, it is not God that is with him, only himself. It is his hours practicing that made him ready. His desire to do well that pushed him.

I see so many religions hold people back because they think that nothing can be done without God, and that anything that happens is directly attributed to Him. No wonder no one feels they can stand on their own two feet. I would imagine that God hates the way many religions view his work. Everything is by God's hand, but we are made in His image, giving us the ability to be our best. Hiding behind divine intervention is a waste of a life, and to me that is the biggest travesty against God.

Just the same is doing things that are atrocities in the name of God. I mentioned this last time, but I think I have found the reasoning behind it now. When people think that God is guiding each man's life, he can justify anything without holding himself accountable. "God wants me to do this," or "I wasn't able to do that because God wasn't with me. He didn't want that to happen."

I think that what our job is, is to be the best we can be with what we are given. God may have made the rules, but WE play the game. We have the power to make the difference in our lives, not by prayer, but by action. By faith in ourselves as God's creations perhaps, but not his instruments. By taking credit for the good and the bad in our lives, and not hiding behind divine intervention.