silly rabbit, innocence is for kids!?

I have a similar opinion to Dr.House

People BELIEVE they are doing things out of the kindness of their hearts, but really they're seek some form of validation. Whether it's validations from others, or some sort of misplaced guilt. People almost always act in self interest.

 

While this is true, one can act in both self-interest and altruism.

Personally OP's mom sounds bitter as hell if she feels kindness is only a vehicle for advancement of self. What does she consider all the sacrifices she makes while raising kids? :S

Somebody may stand to gain in even the most indirect ways from kindness, but where do you draw the line? If someone gets true pleasure from simply easing another's struggle and brightening the world by a tiny fraction of a percent, was the point of the act the pleasure, or the service?

It doesn't have to be one or the other. True goodness is service to self AND others.

 

Mahatma Gandhi, Mother Teresa and Dr Martin Luther King, Jr. Sorry but your mum is just plain wrong. Someone she trusted perhaps hurt her in the past or she's been reading too many stories in the news about twisted charity officials or such like.

Don't tell me other people can't motivate you to do good. There are lots of examples which say otherwise. Yes some people are self-serving, but those who do good things mainly do them because they want to. If they benefit from it, so be it. But the motive is pure.

 

For me I think that people want to believe they can do things selflessly but in reality humanity is imperfect and its impossible in my perspective to believe everyone has everyine elses interest at heart and not want something from their deed. I like to think im a realist so eh but its fine to believe people are essentially good.

 

Honestly, it's 50/50. There are people who do things for others out of the kindness in their hearts and then there are people who do kind things with ulterior motive. For example, a person could bring flowers to another, just because they wanted to do something nice. Another could help someone paint their house, hoping that their friend would watch their pets for a week while they where on vacation.

It's definitely tough to figure out but it's also a good thing. People with ulterior motives need to understand that no one in this world owes them anything and helping another person out doesn't mean that they need to pay them back. The word "No" exists for a reason. But if these people with this particular idea in mind decide to act out in a negative way, then they're just easier to spot and be weeded out of your life. You don't have to put up with that kind of behavior.

 

A flower's bloom inspires.
Though this flower may expect nothing, it receives appreciation from it's actions.
To do is fine, to expect is defeating.

Mm.

 

Well each person is different, some may do things for valid and heartfelt reasons, where as others won't something in return.
I myself do not care about gaining. I do things for others for the pleasure of making them happy. And yes, I suppose you could say I gain form it. I gain happiness in return, to me seeing someone happy is worth more than any material objective or personal gain.

Although...If it was a hot guy...Then I know what I would be after gaining!

 

I can't speak for everyone, but there are people who do kind things out of tactic, and others who do it out of true care.

Personally, I help everyone out of my heart. I mean, people didn't advance as a species with no help from the other fellow human being. Helping people is a cycle and a part of life, and it does carry a lot of altruistic value in many senses.

Plus - I like helping people. It creates positive things, I like to surround myself with the good things, especially in people.

 

I find this question interesting. If you were to pose the question to a "primitive" tribesman, they would look at you with a cocked head, quizzically. It would be the kind of question that just doesn't make sense. Of course they would help their fellow tribesman if he or she were in trouble.

If they didn't help, the entire tribe would be weakened, each member has an important role in it, and each contributes something. Is that self-interest? Sure, there is very little we do that isn't, but it isn't only one person's self-interest, for these cooperative tribes, it is in everyone's interest.

I think this is one of the major cultural differences between Canada and the United States. Although we appear indistinguishable from "Americans" (aren't we Americans too?), our politics have been shaped by three distinct founding pillars: communal French Catholicism, English pragmatism and fairness, and the First Nations, whose indigenous tribes welcomed us and had a key role to play in the founding of this country. Consequently, we help each other. It isn't only universal healthcare (although that is a big part of it), but other institutions were put in place to help each other.

The United States, in contrast, is wrapped up in individualism, self-interest is woven into the society's DNA. The system is set up in terms of incentives and the minutiae of rules (an extraordinary legalistic, and often litigious environment). I'm not saying this is worse, I am saying however that this question would not make an American wonder about your sanity if you were to ask it.

It comes down to this: I am "I" only in the context of my community, or my tribe, as it were. If someone is hurt or needs help, I am hurt, I need help. I am a member of several tribes: of parents, so that when a child dies, I feel it keenly; of my country, so I pay my taxes which supports our services to each other (no matter how imperfectly); of the LGBT community, so I join the fight for my brothers and sisters, for equality and respect.