Well, on the other side, the idealist side, the person will think "Hey, I liked being helped, I'm going to start helping people!" Then the helpingness gets spread along.

Of course, ideally, everyone is in the right situation to help everyone else and no one has to pass on helping someone due to their own lack of safety.

By creating an expectation of doing something, people eventually engineer a situation that benefits themselves too. Of course, the majority of people do not want anything bad to happen to others if they could reasonably prevent it, but they generally don't put themselves at a greater risk for people they don't know, only make a reasonable attempt.

Good point. That's a clash beteen idealism and materialism. The truth is probably somewhere in between and relative to the personality of the helped person. One will then lean back and will get dependend on help, while the other one will see it as an incentive to do it himself. I think it really depends on which kind of help we're talking about. By helping someone in daily life, he won't change into a selfless human that saves people by endangering himself. At least I just cannot imagine this to happen.

One may say that by helping someone you'll always have some kind of a ulterior motive. In general you'll help someone because you are sorry about his position. Some part of yourself will always think "Geez, if I was in his position, I'd just hope that there is someone that will help me too." Again, I'm not valuating or relativizing the help itself. I am just not convinced that it is utterly selfless. This doesn't mean it's selfish.

I think as well as what you've said Cassio that sometimes people can also think to themselves "I can't watch this person struggle, and no one is helping them so I'd better help them". To be honest I think that it's up to the individual and their values and personality on whether they help people or not.

Absolutely! What I was trying to say is that a motive consists of many different motivations that are important for our decision of why doing something good and why not. The original question of the topic was, if we do help simply because of the personal pleasure we get from it and not because we want to be kind. So referring to my last answer my post my answer to this would be no. But it would also be no, if the question was the exact opposite. :D

In my opinion it's just a mixture and proportion of all these things that brings you to the point doing something good. Generally when you're doing something good, the help motivation that you're meaning will certainly be the by far strongest motivation in your consideration. But is it really the only motivation at all? Since that's what the topic was about in the first place - just in the exact contrary direction by stating that it's maybe not 100% help motive, but 100% personal pleasure motive. For me, neither statement really seems to be right. Even the most simple decisions we make have so many different motivations behind them, so I can't see why doing something good shouldn't. So I'd rather say it's more like 80% help and 20% pleasure or whatever (just random numbers to clarify what I mean). Whether one motive is stronger or weaker, is what I think to be up to the values and personality that you mentioned - and the concrete situation. One person will have it at 90% vs. 10%. The other one at 30% vs. 70%. I just have difficulties in saying that it's 100% vs. 0% or the other way round. It just appears to be quite too simple for such a complexe thing.

That's what I think too Cassio, but suppose it is 100% for personal pleasure, is it a 'good' deed then would you say?

I would say that the deed would be helpful but with the wrong intentions.
So I suppose you're determination on whether or not it is a good thing is if you think that good actions overweigh bad intentions or motives.
I'd say no but it's up to anyone to decide.

Actually, let me rephrase that, not necessarily if it's a "good deed" cause the deed done is obviously good, but if it's a "good thing" cause obviously the deed is good, but is the whole thing good in general? Hope that clears it up.

Hmm well if you take it like that it's a bit harder to answer but I suppose I'd say yes . It's like a person donating to charity because they want to look good..It's not the best thing to do but overall it's good in general because it benefits the people who really need help.

Difficult question indeed. Of course, I just can answer it in theory because, as I said, I don't think in reality there can be the only motivation.

But even in theory I would also join Pa'li here and say that it is a good thing. The objective act - the "actus reus", if you want - is after all a good thing and, most important, the acting person knows this. He knows it because otherwise he wouldn't think to look good, if he does it. You can say that he accepts doing something good, although it's not is motivation for acting like this. So even if you may say that the "mens rea" is flawed, he does not do something bad objectively.

That's why I would still consider it a good thing as well. Even though a subjectively flawed one.

I guess the best I could do is a case by case basis, like if a tobacco company donates to a cancer foundation, the good probably outweighs the bad, unless they get to sport their logo everywhere, then it's iffy. I guess that's the best definitive answer I can give. If the amount of good the person receives is more than what the selfish person gains. And, it's better I suppose to have a cancer company donate to charity and get their logo on the charity, then the charity not getting any donation. I guess your personal opinion comes down to if you are a "do it right, or don't do it at all person"

It's a very interesting thread. I've been in two charity programs for a few years but right now it is the moment to reconsider the situation & to ask "why?" & "who wins?" (Ftang! (stop!) Mawey! (Calm!) :na'vi:)So I am stepping back, taking time off & trying to impartially observe what's going on - unless it is an emergency & my help is absolutely needed - and asked for!

According to a legend, some Tao sages/healers applied these rules when the "to help or not to help?" was the question :
1. The person recognized s/he needed help.
2. The person was looking for help.
3. The person was looking for help from this particular sage/healer.

Only when the three conditions were met, the help was given "ahead".

I would add: the person might not ask you for help - in this case it is good to suggest but then leave it to free choice: the answer might be "yes" or "no" - respect that fact (every second of every day). Unless it is an emergency, like an accident or something.

I also agree with those who said about discernment: are you in conditions to help? If you have a horrible flu the best you can do is probably to recover! and then you can offer more & better help - if needed.

I also agree about "what kind of help?" Instead of giving food to someone day after day maybe it's better to give him seeds & teach how to grow one's own food (as an example).

As for feeling good about helping people... IMho that's right & natural - as long as it is within the balance. You did something good - the person feels better - & it is a fact. It's correct to recognize it but without making a big deal out of it.

"Out of the balance" could be "I am so wonderful, I always help people!" - & then one can become intrusive.
Another extreme is "I am doing my utmost to help the others but I don't receive that much from them, ungrateful ****" - & then one can get bitter. Who wins? :hmm: it's probably better not to help if these thoughts are appearing.

As for punishing yourself for feeling good after helping people... :hmm: - what purpose is served??

All said, in one phrase, I would bet on impartiality & discerment -be it helping people or anything else.

Nicely said! Although I also really agree with Theorist with looking at things case to case as well.

actually I meant this, too, by "discernment" :)

Edited:
This:
is very important. It's the giving - receiving balance, where would the humanity be if people didn't help each other? :shock: