In discussing acts of generosity to the less fortunate, charitable giving, helping the homeless or giving a quarter to a panhandler, it has been said that we do not do it without thought of personal reward, because it makes us feel good to do it, ergo, that's why we do it. In philosophical repartee, the question of altruism is often colored by the stigma of hidden personal motive: are any acts truly altruistic? The implication is that there is always some reward, some self-interest, behind acts generally perceived as selfless.

     In the context of behaviors congruent with religious or spiritual dicta, those of us who feel personally charged with living up to ideals may indeed be doing so under the influence of the notion of spiritual advancement. At some point, skeptical minds may accuse us of false piety, simply on the basis of that supposition: there is always a personal motive, some reward we seek to obtain, hence, we are hypocrites, pretending to act selflessly, well aware that we have hidden motives, some thought of what we gain.

     If altruism is impossible, then we all fail equally to live up to a misperceived ideal, in that the ideal itself is flawed, by nature. If, on the other hand, it is not impossible, then we can assume that some good-hearted folk manage to act selflessly, without the hidden personal gain, and good for them. Mother Teresa, for example, served others, gave care where it was needed. To question whether her motive was that it made her feel good, and implying that there's something wrong with that, is beside the point, and rude.

     Does the panhandler care why the quarter was tossed in the cup, or whether the giver's motives were pure? Of course not. And so what if it makes us feel good? What's so bad about feeling good? Who's to say that doing good in the world must be untainted by any scintilla of reward-motivated purpose? Doing good is still good, regardless.

     My point is that to be personally motivated to act with compassion and generosity to our fellow human beings (or animals, or the planet at large, for that matter) does not detract from the goodness of the act. Business companies raise millions for the United Way, at least partly because of the P/R value. Charities that benefit from it do not object.

     So in the case of religiously-motivated, selfless service and generosity, does it matter whether the doer benefits? If I believe that attaining the next level of spiritual realization requires me to give to the poor, show compassion, act more selflessly than I had before, does the spiritual "reward" I seek counteract or contaminate the goodness of the work? Does it turn my hope that my actions might be useful to God and humanity, more than to myself, into a cynical charade? Those who might accuse by that sort of rationale may be distrustful of the idea of selflessness because they deem themselves incapable of it, and refuse to imagine that others may be more attuned to a genuine, transformative Spirit.

     We are all imperfect, and, to quote a friend, every idealist is a hypocrite. But we try to live up to a higher standard of good behavior and good works, motivated by the sense that it behooves us to counteract, within ourselves, the mean, the petty, the stingy sort of dealings with others that we know are all too easy, because of ego-attachments. If we aspire to transcendence, to spiritual consonance, or simply to serve God by doing good, there are no valid cynical arguments that could disparage our intentions.

Yogi da  (14 Sept. 2009)