My analysis is this. Giving, as seen in most cultures, is a form of free exchange – when I give to someone, it is to form a bond with them. If they decide to be selfish and not return my gift (which they do not have to) they forfeit my trust, friendship, association. The wise man gives first, in regards to this, and gives to those who value people. This way he both ensures people are either beholden to him, connected to him, or are possibly giving back to him more than what he gave. (Of course, the returned gift is not really the point, as it perpetuates the debt.)
But, there is another kind of giving, one that does not expect a return. I think that also everyone has this impulse, to help another without their knowledge and with no certain return at all. Instead of the calculus of the first kind of giving, the second kind is done ‘so that the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing.’ My notion is that people have an urge, a desire to give freely as well as be given freely to. If when I give freely it seems like I’m receiving a service in return, I’m unsatisfied. If I am given to and then feel as though I am paying for it or have paid for it, I am unsatisfied.
Religion – the organized kind – may in fact deal with these desires. This is true altruism, that is doing well for the sake of well being done.
To pretend that because we give people birthday gifts we are altruistic, or giving to charity for tax returns – we fool ourselves as Heinlein said. This doesn’t mean that there are those who give freely no matter what (even when there is possible self interest.) Those people, however, are likely the most happy and free, provided that they also possess a sense of moderation.
And then, there’s a satisfaction in rejecting self-interest as a motive. But then, we’re basically talking about virtue for virtue’s sake, I.E, real altruism.
If we assume that virtue is automatically unpleasurable and vice the reverse, we’re mostly ensuring we don’t understand either.
This is due, I think, to the fact that pleasure and pain, reward and punishment in the material world are not always associated with how good or bad we are. Some men who rob banks get rich and escape. Others are permanently ruined.
So, my point is, plausible self interest does not automatically rule out altruistic intent; it only calls it into question.
It is my opinion that the competition of those natures, the one to self and the one to others, are what create the difficulty in discerning selfishness. And then there is even a nature oriented toward God, which makes it even more complex.
Makes me glad I don’t have to work with people’s minds.
