I remember an episode of Friends which got me thinking, of all things. Joey defied Phoebe to commit a completely selfless act, all the while saying that none exist. Every deed done has some hint of selfishness attached to it. This troubled me. Am I and everyone else really incapable of what may be considered a truly moral gesture?
The underlying philosophical assumption in Joey's challenge was that for an act to be moral there must be nothing "in it" for the doer. The doer can gain nothing from it; only give. I've held this to be true for most of my adult life, but upon reading the surprisingly fascinating book Desiring God I am in the process of coming to vastly different conclusions. An example will help illustrate the point.
Take two husbands. No, they're not two men married to each other; they're in separate marriages. One husband buys his wife flowers for her birthday because he knows it's his duty. Nothing in him wants to do it, but he goes through with the purchase and hands his wife the flowers. He feels no gain from the deed. The other husband cannot wait to hand a bunch of flowers to his wife. He loves her passionately, and so he delights in these moments. It makes him feel terrific to be able to buy this beautiful woman a bunch of flowers for her birthday. He is consumed by love for her, and so it is his pleasure to shower her with gifts.
Whose wife will be the happier?
In times gone by I would have said "But hang on a minute. The second husband is gaining from all of this. There's nothing selfless about what he is doing. It makes him feel good, and so of course he's going to do it". But such an interjection would be missing the nature of love completely, and also the nature of morality. The greatest deeds are not done begrudgingly. They are not done with a cold heart. They overflow from a heart which delights in doing good.
Only one of the above hypothetical wives will feel loved, because only one of them is truly loved. Her gain is her husbands gain, and her loss will be her husbands loss, which is the way it is supposed to be. The first husband is a dutiful husband, but he is not a loving husband, for his affections and desires lie elsewhere.
I used to think that the height of morality was doing things we don't want to do. Of course sometimes that is required, but true morality is when we take pleasure in doing what is good and right; when our hearts desire is to see others blessed, and as Christians, to ultimately see God glorified.
John Piper calls this Christian Hedonism. It's a complicated beast with many pitfalls to be avoided, but I can't help with agree with him and be excited about the consequences.
The underlying philosophical assumption in Joey's challenge was that for an act to be moral there must be nothing "in it" for the doer. The doer can gain nothing from it; only give. I've held this to be true for most of my adult life, but upon reading the surprisingly fascinating book Desiring God I am in the process of coming to vastly different conclusions. An example will help illustrate the point.
Take two husbands. No, they're not two men married to each other; they're in separate marriages. One husband buys his wife flowers for her birthday because he knows it's his duty. Nothing in him wants to do it, but he goes through with the purchase and hands his wife the flowers. He feels no gain from the deed. The other husband cannot wait to hand a bunch of flowers to his wife. He loves her passionately, and so he delights in these moments. It makes him feel terrific to be able to buy this beautiful woman a bunch of flowers for her birthday. He is consumed by love for her, and so it is his pleasure to shower her with gifts.
Whose wife will be the happier?
In times gone by I would have said "But hang on a minute. The second husband is gaining from all of this. There's nothing selfless about what he is doing. It makes him feel good, and so of course he's going to do it". But such an interjection would be missing the nature of love completely, and also the nature of morality. The greatest deeds are not done begrudgingly. They are not done with a cold heart. They overflow from a heart which delights in doing good.
Only one of the above hypothetical wives will feel loved, because only one of them is truly loved. Her gain is her husbands gain, and her loss will be her husbands loss, which is the way it is supposed to be. The first husband is a dutiful husband, but he is not a loving husband, for his affections and desires lie elsewhere.
I used to think that the height of morality was doing things we don't want to do. Of course sometimes that is required, but true morality is when we take pleasure in doing what is good and right; when our hearts desire is to see others blessed, and as Christians, to ultimately see God glorified.
John Piper calls this Christian Hedonism. It's a complicated beast with many pitfalls to be avoided, but I can't help with agree with him and be excited about the consequences.
"Delight yourself in the LORD..." - Psalm 37:4
See what I think you've done there is posed one question, can you do something totally selfless and answered another, something about flowers. It's important to note that both men were doing it for their own ends. The first because he's duty bound and doesn't wanna catch flak for not getting flowers as he is aware this is the likely outcome for his negligence. The other does it largely to make his wife happy which in turn makes him happy too.
ReplyDeleteBoth are selfish.
True altruism doesn't exist, which is why you should never trust someone who wants to love, like or help you. Bury your head in a sandy beach of self loathing and prepare yourself for the only certainty in life. The realisation that you suck almost as much as the rest of the world does. That people will help you to help themselves and that the pursuit of altruism, though futile, is noble and to be commended, regardless.
It's quite probable that I didn't make it clear, but the point is that you are right - true selflessness doesn't exist. However -- and this is more to the point -- this is a good thing. If someone delights in loving me, if they can share in my joy, then I will of course trust them, for they are only happy when I am happy.
ReplyDeleteIt sounds paradoxical, but there must be personal gain in altruism, otherwise it is only cold-hearted duty that is being performed. This is where the welfare of others becomes intrinsically linked to your own welfare. Where the pursuit of others is the pursuit of your own joy. The point is that it is not either/or. It's both, and that we should not apologise for it being both, just as the husband who loves his wife shouldn't apologise for the wonderful feelings she brings him.