In discussion today, we reviewed Hobbes' "
Leviathan" and spoke specifically about the three conditions in which the Enlightenment philosopher believes a state of nature exists: in civil war, within the native tribes of American savages, and between each sovereign nation. This made me wonder whether or not all foreign policy is self interested. In other words, even when we claim to have selfless intentions abroad, we are acting mainly with America's interests in mind. This sounds a little bit awful, doesn't it? Don't we claim to be charitable around the world all the time? With some more consideration, though, this seems to be more and more true.
In my American culture class about the sixties, we learned all about the end of the Cold War, President John F. Kennedy's mission to spread democracy abroad, and the programs he put in place to make that happen. We read the
speech that introduced the world to the Peace Corps, which was actually delivered on a cold, October night at 2:00 AM right here in Ann Arbor, on the stairs in front of the Michigan Union. After being elected, JFK immediately establishes the Peace Corps, making their mission to spread world peace and friendship, as well as to "
bring to man that decent way of life which is the foundation of freedom and a condition of peace."
 |
| JFK on the stairs of OUR Michigan Union |
Alright, JFK-- that all sounds really nice of us, but is that really why you established the Peace Corps? Would the Soviets, and perhaps the
Cold War, have anything to do with it? In my humble opinion, yes, meaning that the Peace Corps was a completely self interested act put in place to inspire democracy abroad (and stifle the growth of communism, of course). This makes perfect sense- various third world countries were caught in the middle of an international stalemate between democracy and communism. The future relied on nipping communism in the bud of these undeveloped nations. Granted, the HIV/AIDS prevention classes and building of water wells did a great job hiding it.
 |
Courtesy of the University of
Michigan School of
Social Work |
I've strayed from my point a bit, but the conclusion seems clear- even the most charitable of acts (or acts that appear to be charitable), offer some gain from the person completing the act. Hobbes was right--we are in complete state of nature with every nation we are not affiliated with. This is a pretty scary thought: a program built to spread world peace subtly acknowledges that every nation acts for themselves, and we are going to do the same.
I am not saying that selfless acts do not exist-- I do think certain
family dynamics and animalistic instincts can inspire us to put others before ourselves (granted Scar pushes Mufasa down the cliff moments later, but Mufasa had the right idea). However, generally, we are always making decisions based on what outcome yields the most benefit for us. This leads me, ultimately, to a question. Are we each in a state of nature with one another? While we have come a long way from our caveman days, we are still animals. While the separation may be more subtle than it used to be, am I pitted against you by virtue of the fact that we are not related? I think in some sense, this is true, but it is also easy to get caught up in the qualities that bring us together. We are all Michigan Wolverines, or we are all freshman, or we are all American. The conditions of Hobbes' state of nature remains unclear, but I do not doubt its existence even a little bit.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI thought that, overall, this was a very interesting post and I really liked your connection with JFK and the establishment of the Peace Corps. In a way, establishing the Peace Corps was the opposite of Dirty Hands, as it benefited (almost) everyone while also appealing to America's self interests. In response to the title of your post, I definitely think there is such a thing as "selfish charity" and I think that a lot of charitable acts are done with the donor's self interest in mind. For example, many people contribute and bid at charitable auctions, where they are helping others while also getting something in return. Or when people receive awards and public recognition for their charitable acts. If the definition of charity is a selfless act where you get nothing in return, then I don't think people are as generous as they might think.
ReplyDeleteI think this was a cool post. Selfish charity is definitely a thing. I know that I have done a lot of service over the years because I heard that it was a good thing to have on an application. There were Saturday mornings that I probably would have been satisfied watching cartoons, but instead I worked at places like the DeLonis center in Ann Arbor, which is a food kitchen. To be honest, I did charity work to but myself in a better position to get into college. I did it to advance myself. Although I have heard the fact that JFK presented his Peace Corps speech on the steps of the union an ample amount of times, this post actually taught me that the former President delivered it a 2am! That's pretty late. Our class recently voted that people are generally self-interested as opposed to altruistic. It should be no surprise the Kennedy started the Peace Corps with some self-interest in mind...something along the lines of "man I am so peaceful for starting this awesome group." Why shouldn't people be self-interested though?
ReplyDeleteJulie,
ReplyDeleteFirst I wanted to say I thought this was an extremely interesting, well designed, and organized post with great connections and insight. I definitely believe that there is selfish charity in our world today and there has been since human existence. Furthermore, I think it is more prevalent in today's society than it has been in the past for many different reasons. For example, we have many charity organizations that constantly ask people for donations and help, but many (not all) people often donate or participate because of tax returns. Yes, obviously this is an incentive to donate, but would people donate as much if they didn't have this incentive and if it was only a selfless act that you wont benefit from or receive recognition? Another example that relates to your example of the Peace Corp, is how our court systems in America have set up probation departments. Most probation sentences in America come with community service stipulations and I wonder if this idea came from the belief that community service is actually a form of rehabilitation or did our government have different interests in mind. Furthermore, this relates because I think it is possible that most people who violate crime and are sentenced to community service are engaging in selfish charity because they may not have the right intentions. They may be doing it because they have to rather then what charity should be for and ultimately, they probably would not be doing charity work if they were not forced to do so. It is human nature to have your own self interest in mind whether it is a conscious thought or unconscious we all think about how certain things will benefit us or harm us before we make decisions. Do people really believe that it is better to "give than receive" or do we give just with our own self interest in mind?
I completely agree with your post, and I would take it even farther and say that it's virtually impossible for anybody to do a completely selfless act. I'm involved in environmental activism, and even if I did not get personal fulfillment out if it, there would still be some personal benefit to me from being an activist because I work to make the earth a safer place to live, which I believe benefits all humans. This goes for almost all forms of activism and community service. If you volunteer at a soup kitchen, you are feeding homeless people and therefore decreasing the amount people begging on the street, and most people don't enjoy being asked for money while they're downtown with their friends. If you tutor kids who need help, you're helping prepare kids for their future careers where they will provide something that will probably benefit you. But, even though nothing is completely selfish, is that bad? In my opinion, it does not really matter why you are working to make the world a better place, as long as you are doing it. Who cares if you feel good or proud of what you are doing, and who really cares what you're motives are? Even though JFK was probably trying to get himself brownie points, I'm glad that I now have the opportunity to serve in the peace corps. And even though many people do community service as a punishment, who cares that they're not doing it because they want to? They are contributing to society, and in my opinion, that's what counts.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that American foreign policy is self-interested to some agree. However, just like it's difficult to have completely selfless acts, I also believe that it's difficult to have acts that are completely selfish. If you take some of the examples that our peers have mentioned, one of our peers said that he did community service so he would be in a better position for college. If he was truly selfish, I don't think he would do community service at all and he would just focus on his own studies. It doesn't take away from the fact that he is doing the service. I think that there are occupations where you are almost completely selfless such as counseling and hospice. I think that wanting to do a certain "selfless" occupation because it makes you happy is not selfish. I think that a motivation can necessarily be equivalent to selfishness.
ReplyDeleteJulie, I agree with your post entirely. I'm going to take it a step further and say that there really aren't truly selfless acts. We may do something for someone without expecting anything back, and that's great. It seems selfless. But I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the true reason that someone would do a "selfless" act is to make him or herself feel like they are a good person. I think it goes further than doing community service make our college applications look good, although I, like Joseph, have participated in community service for this reason. I do it because it makes me feel good that I'm helping someone else out. And while this may not initially seem like a selfish thing, I'm doing it for the good feeling that I get. I don't think that makes me a bad person, though; the fact that we feel good inside when we help someone out is evidence to the fact that people have selfless tendencies. I don't think it makes us selfish people, like Aya stated. The opposite of selfless is not selfish. I enjoy doing good for other people. I would hope that the reason that I'm doing the service doesn't really affect the fact that I like bettering my community.
ReplyDelete