Kindness?

Why is (what some might call in this instance) enlightened self-interest sad? Humans are not the equivalent of an ant colony (well some might argue we are).

I don't think it's kindness anymore if someone does something out of self-interest. Those cases -the ones where people do something that is beneficial to someone else and also rewarding to self- should have another word applied to them- right now the only phrase I can think of is mutually beneficial, but that doesn't address the aspect of the initial positive thought or intent.
If I think about it, I may be able to come up with another word- but the point I'm trying to make is that implicit within the concept of true kindness is the fact that it's completely independent of the thought of any reward or benefit to self, though that might indeed be a by-product.

No.
Given an environment of scarce and limited resources,
the logic of the situation is aggressively to act in one 's own interest,
as swiftly as possible, regardless of emotions.
U can CHOOSE your emotions; u can CHOOSE to be sad,
if u deem that to be your best alternative.
Good luck with that.

I will opt to exult in ecstacy at every opportunity.
Glory to Adam Smith, Jeremy Bentham, and Hugh Hefner ( and Barbie Benton ).
David

Maybe the implication
is that it is sad that we find ourselves
surrounded by limitations upon good n valuable resources.

I like to think of it as being quite an instantaneous, simple thing but also very natural to the extent that the person IS kind, rather than there being acts of kindness. So there's little thought involved and it's never too brash or over the top in it's gesture but neither is it too modest to the point of creating a spectacle of the modesty. I'd even want to say that a smile and warm presence about a person is kindness, it creates a content atmosphere for those around...but I think a lot of this is just probably just taking it too far. Also, maybe even in the idea of kindness for it's own reward, there is the very real sense of self interest, it makes sense to "keep things running smoothly" for those around you I guess. So, in my idealistic world, no for expectancy of reciprocity , a possible yes for tribal influences and a "not by definition" for the religious debate since religion is a pretty gigantic domain.

Being kind can be FUN,
depending upon the circumstances.

" The quality of mercy is not strain'd.
It droppeth as the gentle rain from Heaven
Upon the place beneath.
It is twice blest:
It blesseth him that gives and him that takes. "

William Shakespeare
--Merchant of Venice

Chumly asks the sophisticated question: Is there an inherent expectation of reciprocity in kindness?
The sociologist, Alvin Gouldner has identified one of the few cross-cultural "universals" established by sociology and social anthropology: The Norm of Reciprocity. He argues that this universal understanding, that favors should be returned more or less in terms of equal value ("balanced reciprocity"), is one the principle glues that hold society together--and I believe most social anthropologists agree.
Now I do not know if this addresses the matter of kindness as it does that of the expectation of reciprocity.
When I look back I think that at least most of my acts of kindness have been performed because they have made ME feel good. Altruism and egoism have merged in most cases. I do not feel that this fact has diminished the ethical value of such acts at all. I'm glad that I get personal pleasure from acts of kinds rather than from acts of cruelty. Don't you?

Society does play an important role in the concept of kindness, but there can be an instinctive act of kindness that is performed at some risk and without any realistic hope of reciprocation.

Many years ago, California senator Diane Feinstein gave mouth to mouth resuscitation to a wino in San Francisco who was choking on his vomit. She would spit out his vomit and then continue with the resuscitation. In this case, there couldn't have been any thought of reciprocity.

I think that explaining the advantage to self isn't necessarily a bad thing if it is done in such a way as to show the benefit to all of society rather than making it a personal lesson.

Children can be taught to be kind and honest without hope of reward. They can understand at a very early age the idea of doing right simply because it is the right thing to do. I provided those lessons for my sons and they continue to follow through in their own lives.

Agreed, Diane. I hope my post didn't sound too cynical.

No
Sometimes
Maybe, but not always.

Not at all, JLN. Your response was from both an academic background as well as personal experience. And, thank the goddess that acts of kindness give most of us a good feeling.

In fact, Dys and I should be coming out your way. I need to visit my brother in Tucson--after that we all get together and be kind to one another--get all that good karma going.

Don't misunderstand me. I feel that most kindness that stems not from an instinctive, intuitive reaction but rather from calm deliberation (eg. Should I give my friend some money? Should I help that man assemble the machine?) has an inherent notion of self interest as far as feeling good about oneself as a motivational drive in it. And that is how it should be, else, there would be a lot less 'deliberate' kindness in this world.
Yet, what I find sad, is that it seemed like the ONLY way for our children to learn kindness is to show them the inherent self-interest involved.

Naj

I agree with Ashers in that my concept of kindness is more a state of being than a judgment I would apply to any individual act. I think Diane Feinstein was willing to do what she did because she was a kind person ,it would seem -unless she just wanted her political career to be enhanced by her heroic act of selflessness- did she do it before or after she entered politics and needed votes?

I don't think you can make someone kind. I don't think you can teach childen or anyone else to be kind if they are not kind-hearted people. I think you can teach them, as David said, it's in their best interest to act kind and at least appear to be kind.

But I think kindness is a personality trait- just like IQ- maybe there's even a kindness quotient. Some people have a kind heart and others don't. Think about siblings who were raised/taught exactly the same who react differently to people and situations- ever heard the term "mean streak"? I think that can be innate as well.

I think the best you can hope to do, as a parent, or as any other adult in a child's life, is treat them with nurturing, love and kindness and hope it rubs off, all the while providing an example of caring for others for them to experience and hopefully want to replicate- but they'll only want or care about doing that if they are kind-hearted people.

David- symbiosis doesn't fit because that entails mutual manipulation of one sort or another.
altruism is closer- because that usually is a direct result of a genuinely kind heart.
By the way- I think you have a kind heart- as much as you try to disguise it....Busted!

Aidan, I'm sure that she was already in politics, but only the blindest ambition would encourage giving mouth to mouth resuscitation to a vomiting wino simply for the possible good press. Just reading about it made me want to brush my teeth (possibly with Clorox).

Yeah, clorox- me too. But although I'm sure that there are politicians somewhere who are working selflessly for their community and society- I do think the term "blind ambition" usually applies- and wouldn't put it past some of them.

Although to be fair to her- if I remember correctly I do think I admired her stance on issues and did think they indicated a genuinely kind heart.

But I think one either is kind or isn't and that informs everything that person does, what actions they take and what words they say- and that's pretty much a 24/7 state of being- to the point that even when that person says or does something to inadvertently hurt someone else- even a stranger- that in itself is wounding to a truly kind person.

I think kindness can almost better be judged by someone's unconscious and immediate reactions than by their carefully considered actions.

Aidan wrote:



Yes! And that is why I chose to mention the actions of Diane Feinstein.

I also think that those who enjoy causing harm could be considered an abberation because of the accumulation of harm to all of society.

Now to bed or I won't be feeling very kind in the morning.

Say goodnight Gracie...

I think I'd use stronger words to describe this Diane Feinstein's actions, I mean damn. I'd teach a child about kindness in terms of reactions and results i.e. smiles, happiness, laughter, contentment etc. To me, encouraging a child to act in such a way as to produce smiles on the faces of those he/she plays with needs little talk of what is best for said child, the results almost speak for themselves. In fact I'd say that the appreciation of these kinds of results is not particularly self oriented at all because of how spontaneous I see kindness as being. Talk of what is best for a child probably muddies the waters more than is necessary, I will do this to produce this reaction because it is best for me which seems so mechanical, not at all how I'd like to view kindness. I'd like to think that telling a child that kindness makes those around you happy, with a smile on my face, conveys that extra something which need not be said...but who knows. I guess that's just associating an idea with positives feelings.

Ahers wrote:



I can't think of anything better. No matter how it is analyzed, it has a positive effect.

If there is anyone out there who wishes to explore this a bit further, I suggest Lynn Trusses' "Talk To The Hand" It's great and I agree with most of her concepts ("Most" because I'd have to read the book more than once to even understand all of them.) There are mainly two factors, as I've come to see it, in the general minds of today, either the mind-set that's fixated on the idea that everyone ought to be kind to each other for, as a result, a better society would be formed, and tend to do so, not only to set an example but also for means of personal integrity and morals and what-not... Then there is the other mind-set: those who tend to think, "Hey, I'll keep my problems to myself, if they'll keep their problems to themselves, I can then be alone in public, because I generally feel uncomfortable interacting with other human beings." This general idea promotes a society where everyone fends for themselves, this slowly evolves into a hatred for others and more importantly a hatred for those who try to interact with them. Another stem of the latter ideal is, after a while people begin to feel lonely, so they start groups, small clicks, if you will, that band together and commit acts of hatred towards those who are not in their group. Now these "acts" may not be as extreme as they sound, an example would be you holding the door for someone in your group then walking in after them and leaving the door to close on an outsider's face. I'm sure it gets a bit more complex than this but generally this is sort of how I see society these days. I see the nice old ladies that tell strangers good mourning and I see the bitter business men who walk around with a suit case in one hand and a cell phone in the other, sometimes even pretends to be in an intense phone conversation in order to avoid any awkward moments with any strangers...and I see the groups of rebel teenagers who try to annoy perfect strangers just to break the "normal" way people are supposed to act to sort of create a place where they are in control, and of course this only brings the group itself closer together, makes it more exclusive, and further hazes outsiders from making any connections. I'm sorry if I'm a bit off subject but I believe all this ties into "Kindness" and its roll in society today.