Is there such a thing as a 'free lunch'?

I think it's conventional wisdom wearing a metaphorical cloak. It's not necessarily a metaphysical statement about reality. It's a close cousin of 'too good to be true'.

During this semester of school I had the opportunity of taking a Cultural Anthropology class -seeing how I completed the majority of my classes for my major- because I just needed some extra credits to help graduate sooner than later. Once in the class the topic of Reciprocity and 'free lunches' came up, which hinges on the idea that nothing we do is ever done purely for 'free'. I put the term free in quotes to signify a deeper meaning than that of our immediate examples of, say, giving someone a 'get well soon' card, or some other trivial illustration along those lines because there are probably other more implicit (or dare I say 'subconscious') reasons for why we do what we do.

So if we do take the example of giving someone a 'get well' card or even a 'thankyou' card obviously we arent expecting anything in return, but that doesnt diminish the concept of reciprocity; for the very act itself is significant to the gift-giver and that is what balances out the exchange between the two. To expound on this from the wiki article, "Generalized reciprocity is the same as virtually uninhibited sharing or giving. It occurs when one person shares goods or labor with another person without expecting anything in return. What makes this interaction "reciprocal" is the sense of satisfaction the giver feels, and the social closeness that the gift fosters." Link

So my question remains: Is there such a thing as either an informal or formal exchange of goods/services that is actually free?

Of course. I often give gifts to my grandchildren without expecting any reciprocity from them. Of course, I would not give the gift unless I wanted to do so. But how is that doing it for getting something back? Of course, you can define the idea of reciprocity so broadly that just wanting to give the gift, and satisfying the want implies reciprocity. But then, of course, it becomes meaningless.

Even though I'm not the one defining it, I still don't see how its meaningless. If people are only doing things to get something in return, whether it'd be formal or informal, then that seems rather significant to me.

But what makes you think that I am giving gifts to my grandchildren to get something in return? I just told you I am not. If you think that I was anyway, then you must think I was lying.

From what was stated above. Obviously you aren't expecting something in return from them, I said this in the original post, but rather the gift-giver is reciprocating him/herself.

"What makes this interaction "reciprocal" is the sense of satisfaction the giver feels, and the social closeness that the gift fosters."

To be clear, I am playing a bit of the devil's advocate because I hardly know anything about cultural anthropology, and I dont want this to get personal, but again Im just seeing if there is a clear example that doesnt fit the definition of reciprocity from an anthropological perspective.

But why do you think I felt satisfaction? And, if I did, why do you think I gave the gift in order to feel satisfaction? Actually, I gave the gift in order to please my grandchildren.

I suppose the reply back by an anthro would be that seeing your grand kids do good makes you feel good. Likewise, seeing them happy by the gift makes you happy. Do you feel good or bad when you give a gift to someone?

Sometimes. It depends. But that need not be my motive. I think the view you are expressing is one that is not empirical, but one that you make true by definition. All it means is that when you are not actually forced to give a gift, you do it voluntarily. That is why I called it "meaningless". Of course, when I give a gift, I want to do it. Who ever thought differently? Anthropologists need not tell us that. The next person I meet on the street will tell me that if I ask him, and he is not surprised that I don't know that people give gifts voluntarily.

So my question remains: Is there such a thing as either an informal or formal exchange of goods/services that is actually free?

There is simply no such thing as a free lunch, in Economics for sure. As every action has an opportunity cost (The next best thing you could do with your resources). So for example if Gosh decided to take you out for lunch the opportunity cost may be the time you could have spent discussing Philosophy on Philosophyforum.com which you may value as $10 an hour.

There is simply no such thing as a free lunch, in Economics for sure. As every action has an opportunity cost (The next best thing you could do with your resources). So for example if Gosh decided to take you out for lunch the opportunity cost may be the time you could have spent discussing Philosophy on Philosophyforum.com which you may value as $10 an hour.

Exactly. Of course people can look take the question at face value and say that last week they got a free T-shirt at a basketball game, and didnt pay anything for it, but thats not what is meant or intended by the question. The subtlety is there and appropriate reasons behind it. All in all, Im getting pretty interested in anthropology and behavioral economics.

The reciprocity in question and discussed in most cultural anthropology classes is not a reciprocity of conscious expectation in respect to specific actions or "presents", it is a reciprocity of function inherent in the system.