4 Views Of The Motive Of Acts Of Kindness

What is the motive behind acts of kindness? Why do you do things for others? Do you expect something in return or are you genuinely trying to help someone else? What makes you want to be kind and how can you apply these skills to your own life? Today, I want to talk about something, that is thrown around a lot in our culture. It's something that people identify with and use as an excuse for their actions. This is "kindness," which is defined as follows: The quality of being friendly, generous and considerate; readiness to help others; kindness.

The most compelling philosophical question is one of motivation. Why would a person do something nice for another person. In our society, we are constantly barraged with what appears to be altruistic behavior – strangers helping strangers, people donating their time and money to worthy causes. So why do they do it? What drives them to help others? In this article I want to find answers to these questions in the following four views.

Are Acts Of Kindness Based On The Motive?

There are four main schools of thought that seem to be emerging. The first is that acts of kindness are based on the altruistic goal of helping others. In this view, the person who performs the act of kindness is expected to receive an obvious benefit in some way. For example, the person who performs the act might receive praise, the satisfaction of a need, saving someone's life, or something similar. For the sake of argument, let's call this the "altruistic" view of kindness.

The second view is that acts of kindness are performed for the sake of the person who is being kind. In this case, the do-gooder might not need anything in return. They might simply be performing an act of friendship, a random act of mercy, or something similar. Under this view, the person who is being kind is the one who benefits.

The third view is the neutral view, where the unconditional kindness comes in. Finally the fourth view is the existential or in another word meaningless view, where the actor is being kind for the sake of being active. Which of these four viewpoints is most compelling? Let's consider the following arguments for each position:

1. The Altruistic Motive

The altruistic view claims, that kindness is practiced for the sake of others. The reasoning behind this is that we are all too often selfish in our actions. We focus only on the benefits, that we hope to receive oneself. The truth is, we are all too often blind to the interests of others. It takes a steady, conscious effort to put ourselves in other people's shoes.

One might argue that a truly altruistic act would be one that does not benefit the actor at all – like, for example, throwing away one's money. However, most people would say that this is impossible. Even the most extreme forms of self-denial, such as that which would result from the voluntary starvation of oneself to the point of death, can't go unopposed by the basic needs of one's own body.

If we are to accept the altruistic view, it follows that there should at least be some form of balance between the goals of the altruist and their beneficiaries. To give to the point of death would be to go too far. At the same time, one might argue that there are degrees of altruism. For example, if one is only willing to risk one's life to save another person, then that is a far more extreme example of the practice of kindness than merely giving one's money to a worthy cause.

On the other hand, there are some who would argue that all forms of sacrifice are equally bad. It would seem that the only difference between these two extremes is a question of degree. However, this view is certainly not supported by the common conception of altruism.

2. The Egoistic Motive

The egoistic view maintains, that an act of kindness is not necessarily done for the sake of another person, so long as one is getting something out of the transaction. In other words, the goal of the actor is not the other person, but themselves. The idea is that when one does something kind, they are in effect paying it forward. Kindness is like a currency that can be spent on oneself.

This argument focuses on the notion of reciprocity. If someone is kind to me, I would be wise to pay it forward. In fact, one might even consider it one's sacred duty to pay it forward. The problem with this theory is that it seems to rely on a very weak form of reciprocity. If it were not possible to benefit oneself through acts of kindness, then one's action would be in vain.

To take another example, consider the case where a person gives their money to a beggar. We can assume that the beggar knows how to spend it. The person has done something that benefits the beggar, but only in so far as they are now being given something for free. There is no way that this person could gain from the transaction.

A theory that has been proposed to combat this weak form of reciprocity is the "triangle of giving." It maintains that there is always a mutual exchange of benefits and that none of the parties involved in a transaction can be made better off except by the occurrence of the transaction itself.

3. The Neutral Motive

The third idea that one might consider is what is commonly referred to as "unconditional kindness." This notion focuses on the fact, that one cannot be unkind to another person if one is being kind to them. If one is being benevolent, then one cannot be doing it maliciously.

This idea does not necessarily deny the validity of the other two views, but it does maintain that they are extremes. It is the middle ground that denies both the concept of an "act of evil" and the "purely selfish" notion of an "act of kindness." Unconditional kindness maintains, that one's primary motivation is not to be beneficial to another, but to be kind.

The fact that one cannot benefit oneself through a kind act does not necessitate a state of self-denial. One can still be kind. One can still make sacrifices. The difference is, one understands that they are being kind to others in the process and not merely expecting something in return.

4. The Existential Motive

The existential view maintains, that the concept of an "act of kindness" is meaningless. The only thing that really matters is that one is being kind. There is no greater purpose behind a kind act and any purported justification is merely a superficial rationalization.

The existential view is, in a word, "existential." This means that it is centered on the question of being, or not being, in the state of existence that one chooses. In other words, it is focused on the question of meaning. It is the "ultimate meaning" that one is seeking, not a meaning relative to an other being, but a meaning in relation to oneself.

The problem with this position is that it is inherently solipsistic. It seeks to justify kind acts based on the idea that they are being done for one's own sake and not for someone else's. It is an attempt to create value, out of a vacuum. To create value out of nothing.

It is as if one is deciding at a fundamental level, that there is no meaning to their actions. The only meaning that exists is the action itself. Everything else is meaningless. This approach fails to recognize, that there are consequences to one's actions. One's choices have real world consequences.

The fact of this is not an argument against the existence of meaning, but it is an argument against a vacuum. Meaning does not exist in a void; it exists in relation to something else. One cannot create value in a vacuum.

It follows that one cannot create value by being kind to others. If anything, being kind is an expression of self-hatred. One only does a kind act to negate their own value. To prove that they are not worthless. That they are not evil.

This is an inherently unstable position to be in. It is an expression of fear and cowardice. The only thing one fears is the possibility of being completely insignificant.

Thank you for reading.