11 ms·

"And your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you." So still selfish (if doing it for the reward), but that is human nature.

whiddershins 4y ago
It's more subtle than that. Because God's reward isn't really in the same conceptual category as material reward or approval of your peers.
- azinman2 4y ago
  But it means you’re doing it because you think you’ll get something out of it.
  - whiddershins 4y ago
    It's more mind bending than that. The reward is synonymous with the fact that it is good. These are definitionally equivalent within this framework. It doesn't map one-to-one to the way we typically conceptualize rewards or self interest or altruism.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
jonnycomputer 4y ago
"do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing"
- sudosteph 4y ago
  Weird metaphor, right? We're probably missing context for that one. My theory is that it boils down to "don't nickel and dime or be overly concerned with recording the amount of your charitable giving" The reason I think that, is because in ancient Roman times they had a way of counting on your fingers where you could count up to 100 on your left hand alone (then you could use your right hand after that for even larger values). [1]. So if the context is "small values" and charitable giving, it makes more sense to me at least. [1] https://tookmund.com/2020/05/roman-finger-counting https://tookmund.com/2020/05/roman-finger-counting
  - jonnycomputer 4y ago
    That is very interesting!
  - clejack 4y ago
    The context is the next sentence. "do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret." It's just hyperbolic/poetic language. It's not possible to do something in such a way that your right hand doesn't know what your left hand is doing, because they are both connected centrally (and they can't know anything to begin with). "Be so secretive that your resting hand doesn't know what your charitable hand is doing."
andai 4y ago
I remember wondering, when I first heard about altruism, whether I was actually an altruist. If I feel good when I do something good for someone, am I not just an egoist who's wired differently? True altruism would be going against what feels good, because I know it to be right.
- unsupp0rted 4y ago
  Even then it's not true altruism because you're doing it because you know it to be right and you (selfishly?) want to be the kind of person who does the right thing. I don't think it's possible for apes who evolved and outcompeted other apes in the endeavor to become the dominant species on a planet to be truly altruistic. At least not without a lot more cultural, social, and possibly biological evolution, if ever. Doesn't matter though. What difference does it make how "true" one's altruism is?
- ALittleLight 4y ago
  I think you are an altruist if you feel good for sacrificing to helping others. That good feeling will motivate you to sacrifice to help others and sacrificing to help others is what an altruist is.
- kelnos 4y ago
  I think this is a classic philosophical problem. Unless you are a philosopher, though, I don't think it really matters all that much. The bottom line is that you are making a sacrifice for someone else, and that you aren't involving other people in it. Doing good for others should feel good! And if that internal reaction helps us want to continue doing good for others, then that's also a good thing. I think also we should be less concerned about labeling ourselves this way. I would not try to make "altruist" a part of my identity (or "egoist", for that matter). You are just someone who does good things for others, and -- incidentally -- that makes you feel good. That should be enough.
lelandfe 4y ago
The way that CS Lewis puts this is essentially that if the reward becomes the motive, you're not going to get it: > We are afraid that heaven is a bribe, and that if we make it our goal we shall no longer be disinterested. It is not so. Heaven offers nothing that a mercenary soul can desire. It is safe to tell the pure in heart that they shall see God, for only the pure in heart want to. There are rewards that do not sully motives.
- ALittleLight 4y ago
  If the alternative is eternal torture in hell I'm not sure that holds.
  - dropit_sphere 4y ago
    This is more a disagreement about fact than it is a threat. "Take care of your body or else it will grow weak and sick" has a directive and a warning of consequences---is it a threat?
    - kelnos 4y ago
      Your example isn't a threat because there is no external/conscious actor who is going to cause your body to grow weak and sick if you don't take care of it; it will just happen as a consequence of normal biological processes. There need not be a consequence of failing to follow the Christian Bible; God/Satan have decided that there will be consequences, and Satan will be the one torturing you if you don't do what God says. That's definitely a threat. In these stories, God and Satan are conscious, sentient beings with free will. They can choose to reward or punish you based on whatever criteria they've decided.
      - lelandfe 4y ago
        Your questioning here rhymes with what drove me from the church: If God is good, why do bad things happen? I never got an answer that resonated with me. Wound up not pursuing theology.
rendaw 4y ago
I think the point is that if you focus too much on the reward, you lose focus on helping the person. It's not that it's bad to (want to) be rewarded for good deeds, it's bad when you end up making things worse because of it. By some views every action you take is motivated by some psychological reward, and if you follow that through you end up with a view that there's no good/bad/emotion/etc and everything is purely mechanical.
swat535 4y ago
Everything in the Bible, including what Christians are supposed to be like, should be viewed through the lens of Jesus on the cross. The idea is that you are supposed to imitate Christ in your life for salvation which is reaching Heaven i.e glorifying God, the Father forever via achieving the Beatific vision. So the "reward" in this case is you becoming one with Christ and thus closer to God. It's not a "currency" to be accumulated to attain Heaven. This is why you can't "fake" your way through it by for example donating money to the poor or the Church and thinking that will impress God. I think what Christians say before receiving the Eucharist at Mass really summarizes this nicely: "Lord I am not worthy to receive you".
- vel0city 4y ago
  Is that last part really a Christian (in a wide sense) thing or just a Catholic thing? I definitely hear it at Catholic Mass but I have not experienced it at most protestant Eucharist ceremonies.
  - curryberto 4y ago
    I've never been to a protestant church where the message was that we were "worthy" of the cross. Everything has always been predicated on grace which is necessarily unmerited.
    - vel0city 4y ago
      Yeah don't get me wrong I'm not suggesting that any somewhat mainstream protestant church emphasizes that its followers are worthy. I'm just wondering about literally that line being said before they eat the bread and drink the wine.
      - curryberto 4y ago
        The theology of the eucharist/communion is definitely different in protestant churches. I've never been to a protestant church where they believe you receive a sort of saving grace from consuming the host - though there is agreement it is pleasing to God to do it. In the Catholic church they definitely believe you receive some sort of grace. What "kind" of grace is something I still haven't wrapped my head around.
jonnycomputer 4y ago
Perhaps it only means, seek reward from heaven, not from people. Perhaps because the former would lead you into correct behavior while the latter will lead you inevitably astray. Not clear the passage is about selfishness per-se at all. And since presumably reward from heaven is the ultimate in delayed gratification.

whiddershins 4y ago

It's more subtle than that. Because God's reward isn't really in the same conceptual category as material reward or approval of your peers.

azinman2 4y ago
But it means you’re doing it because you think you’ll get something out of it.
- whiddershins 4y ago
  It's more mind bending than that. The reward is synonymous with the fact that it is good. These are definitionally equivalent within this framework. It doesn't map one-to-one to the way we typically conceptualize rewards or self interest or altruism.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]

jonnycomputer 4y ago

"do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing"

sudosteph 4y ago
Weird metaphor, right? We're probably missing context for that one. My theory is that it boils down to "don't nickel and dime or be overly concerned with recording the amount of your charitable giving" The reason I think that, is because in ancient Roman times they had a way of counting on your fingers where you could count up to 100 on your left hand alone (then you could use your right hand after that for even larger values). [1]. So if the context is "small values" and charitable giving, it makes more sense to me at least. [1] https://tookmund.com/2020/05/roman-finger-counting https://tookmund.com/2020/05/roman-finger-counting
- jonnycomputer 4y ago
  That is very interesting!
- clejack 4y ago
  The context is the next sentence. "do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret." It's just hyperbolic/poetic language. It's not possible to do something in such a way that your right hand doesn't know what your left hand is doing, because they are both connected centrally (and they can't know anything to begin with). "Be so secretive that your resting hand doesn't know what your charitable hand is doing."

andai 4y ago

I remember wondering, when I first heard about altruism, whether I was actually an altruist. If I feel good when I do something good for someone, am I not just an egoist who's wired differently? True altruism would be going against what feels good, because I know it to be right.

unsupp0rted 4y ago
Even then it's not true altruism because you're doing it because you know it to be right and you (selfishly?) want to be the kind of person who does the right thing. I don't think it's possible for apes who evolved and outcompeted other apes in the endeavor to become the dominant species on a planet to be truly altruistic. At least not without a lot more cultural, social, and possibly biological evolution, if ever. Doesn't matter though. What difference does it make how "true" one's altruism is?
ALittleLight 4y ago
I think you are an altruist if you feel good for sacrificing to helping others. That good feeling will motivate you to sacrifice to help others and sacrificing to help others is what an altruist is.
kelnos 4y ago
I think this is a classic philosophical problem. Unless you are a philosopher, though, I don't think it really matters all that much. The bottom line is that you are making a sacrifice for someone else, and that you aren't involving other people in it. Doing good for others should feel good! And if that internal reaction helps us want to continue doing good for others, then that's also a good thing. I think also we should be less concerned about labeling ourselves this way. I would not try to make "altruist" a part of my identity (or "egoist", for that matter). You are just someone who does good things for others, and -- incidentally -- that makes you feel good. That should be enough.

lelandfe 4y ago

The way that CS Lewis puts this is essentially that if the reward becomes the motive, you're not going to get it: > We are afraid that heaven is a bribe, and that if we make it our goal we shall no longer be disinterested. It is not so. Heaven offers nothing that a mercenary soul can desire. It is safe to tell the pure in heart that they shall see God, for only the pure in heart want to. There are rewards that do not sully motives.

ALittleLight 4y ago
If the alternative is eternal torture in hell I'm not sure that holds.
- dropit_sphere 4y ago
  This is more a disagreement about fact than it is a threat. "Take care of your body or else it will grow weak and sick" has a directive and a warning of consequences---is it a threat?
  - kelnos 4y ago
    Your example isn't a threat because there is no external/conscious actor who is going to cause your body to grow weak and sick if you don't take care of it; it will just happen as a consequence of normal biological processes. There need not be a consequence of failing to follow the Christian Bible; God/Satan have decided that there will be consequences, and Satan will be the one torturing you if you don't do what God says. That's definitely a threat. In these stories, God and Satan are conscious, sentient beings with free will. They can choose to reward or punish you based on whatever criteria they've decided.
    - lelandfe 4y ago
      Your questioning here rhymes with what drove me from the church: If God is good, why do bad things happen? I never got an answer that resonated with me. Wound up not pursuing theology.

rendaw 4y ago

I think the point is that if you focus too much on the reward, you lose focus on helping the person. It's not that it's bad to (want to) be rewarded for good deeds, it's bad when you end up making things worse because of it. By some views every action you take is motivated by some psychological reward, and if you follow that through you end up with a view that there's no good/bad/emotion/etc and everything is purely mechanical.

swat535 4y ago

Everything in the Bible, including what Christians are supposed to be like, should be viewed through the lens of Jesus on the cross. The idea is that you are supposed to imitate Christ in your life for salvation which is reaching Heaven i.e glorifying God, the Father forever via achieving the Beatific vision. So the "reward" in this case is you becoming one with Christ and thus closer to God. It's not a "currency" to be accumulated to attain Heaven. This is why you can't "fake" your way through it by for example donating money to the poor or the Church and thinking that will impress God. I think what Christians say before receiving the Eucharist at Mass really summarizes this nicely: "Lord I am not worthy to receive you".

vel0city 4y ago
Is that last part really a Christian (in a wide sense) thing or just a Catholic thing? I definitely hear it at Catholic Mass but I have not experienced it at most protestant Eucharist ceremonies.
- curryberto 4y ago
  I've never been to a protestant church where the message was that we were "worthy" of the cross. Everything has always been predicated on grace which is necessarily unmerited.
  - vel0city 4y ago
    Yeah don't get me wrong I'm not suggesting that any somewhat mainstream protestant church emphasizes that its followers are worthy. I'm just wondering about literally that line being said before they eat the bread and drink the wine.
    - curryberto 4y ago
      The theology of the eucharist/communion is definitely different in protestant churches. I've never been to a protestant church where they believe you receive a sort of saving grace from consuming the host - though there is agreement it is pleasing to God to do it. In the Catholic church they definitely believe you receive some sort of grace. What "kind" of grace is something I still haven't wrapped my head around.

jonnycomputer 4y ago

Perhaps it only means, seek reward from heaven, not from people. Perhaps because the former would lead you into correct behavior while the latter will lead you inevitably astray. Not clear the passage is about selfishness per-se at all. And since presumably reward from heaven is the ultimate in delayed gratification.