Love is not selfish.
There’s this philosophical argument going around that suggests the non-existence of the “selfless deed.”
First time I ever heard of this was during an episode of Friends.
(quick side note)
I love Friends. I have seen every single episode multiple times. I used to leave a disc in my DVD player at all times...just to play in the background of whatever I was doing. As a result, I quote the show extensively. To this day, if someone utters the word “unisex,” within earshot of me, it is a 100% absolute certainty that the next words out of my mouth will be, “maybe YOU need sex. I just had some.”
Most of the time, I just get weird looks. Other times, like when I’m standing in a church, I get REALLY weird looks, and I am extra-quick to throw in -- “You guys don’t watch Friends, do you?”
So, pardon me while I quote Friends for a bit. I fully realize how annoying this can be...
(end side note)
The episode I’m referring to is “The One Where Phoebe Hates PBS”
Toward the beginning of the episode Joey agrees to co-host a PBS telethon. Phoebe informs everybody that she hates PBS because she wrote to Sesame Street after her mom killed herself, looking for some emotional support, and all she got back was a key chain. Joey says he just wanted to do a good deed for PBS. Phoebe tells Joey that he’s just looking for TV exposure, so his “good deed” is really selfish.
Joey then provides me (Austin) with the thesis for this chapter -- that all good deeds are truly selfish because they make the person doing them feel good.
Phoebe disagrees and vows to find a selfless good deed and prove Joey wrong.
So, first Phoebe tries all the normal stuff: giving money to the homeless, donating to charities, helping people with normal needs. But quickly she realizes that this will not cut it: each is motivated by her need to feel good about herself rather than the need to actually help these people.
So she attempts to find something that will bring her pain while helping another. Her first attempt is allowing a bee to sting her. She explains that while it hurt her, the bee gets to look cool and macho in front of all his bee-friends.
Joey tells Phoebe that the bee probably died after stinging her -- totally deflating her excitement.
Phoebe’s next attempt is donating money to PBS. Her logic is that she still hates PBS, so she gets no pleasure out of it, but she knows that “they bring happiness to lots of kids whose moms didn’t kill themselves”, so she does a good thing, but isn’t happy about it. She is totally sure that she has found her selfless good dead, until the host announces that Phoebe’s pledge put them over the edge to surpass the previous year’s pledge total. This gets Joey a lot of TV exposure, and now Phoebe feels good because her pledge got Joey on TV...again deflating her excitement...finally closing the book on the argument.
Yikes, I have to admit that, in writing down the plot of the show rather than forcing you to watch it, I have totally destroyed the comedy. Sorry...to you and the cast, crew and writers of Friends. (It’s a great show. I promise. Very funny.)
Anyway, all this pokes fun at an absolutely valid, unquestionably real psychological dilemma. Even if Joey hadn’t gotten the television exposure, she still would have been totally self-serving in the nature of her donation. Any psychologist worth his or her salt would tell you that Phoebe’s actions were motivated not by a selfless desire to help children, but a selfish desire to prove Joey wrong. She wanted to win the argument.
You give a dollar to the poor. Why?
- To make him stop bugging you?
- Because you will feel guilty otherwise?
- Because it will make you feel like you are a good, generous person?
All three -- selfish motivations.
Now, you’re going to argue with me -- “That’s not selfish! Compare the selfishness of giving to the poor with the selfishness of walking directly past that poor person and buying something expensive.”
“How can you call a person who goes to Africa to feed hungry children selfish? That’s ridiculous! It’s the person who sits at home and watches TV, ignoring those children, that is selfish.”
Wrong. They are both selfish -- just to varying degrees.
We would call one selfish and the other selfless because selfishness so pervades our realities that we cannot even fathom people who are entirely selfless.
So what’s the point in striving to be something impossible to achieve?
Our Messiah himself, in Matthew 5 says:
“You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment”
“You have heard that it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”
“It has been said, ‘Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.’ But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness causes her to become an adulteress.”
“Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not break your oath, but keep the oaths you have made to the Lord.’ But I tell you...simply let your ‘yes’ be ‘yes’ and your ‘no’, ‘no.’
“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.”
One after another he says: “This is the law. This is what you’ve heard. This is what you know. If you can manage to accomplish these things, GREAT. But don’t pat yourself on the back so quick. I demand a higher standard.”
And I want to make a note here...he LOVES you regardless. Whether you are an epic screw up who can’t manage to keep a single commandment, or you’re the pope, he LOVES you, and ultimately it doesn’t matter which one you are in his eyes. But, I think he wants us to be aware that we should never sit down and feel like we’ve arrived.
Sure, based on society’s definition of love, we love plenty. God demands that we love MORE. And Paul says that love is not selfish. He doesn’t say “Love is only a little selfish.” He says it’s not flippin selfish, dude!
If even our most selfless deeds are purely self-centered then how the hell are we supposed to feed all those starving kids in Africa?
Self-Transcendence
Ever heard of it?
Kinda sounds sketchy, huh? Like some tenet of one of those crazy Eastern religions? Well, it’s not. It’s a psychology term.
I learned about it briefly in High School Psychology. (Not College Psychology...upon realizing that Mr. O’Brien had taught me pretty much everything I was actually interested in learning about human psychology, I quickly dropped my Psych minor.) Granted, I want to point out that Self-Transcendence IS ONLY A THEORY...and at that, the idea was suggested by a man shortly before his own death. However, it is an extremely interesting theory, and I believe it warrants significant attention from those of us who have the gall to name ourselves “Little Christs.”
I apologize. I’m about to get a teensy bit boring. To understand Self-Transcendence, you really need to understand Self-Actualization -- and to understand that, you kinda have to understand Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. So, let’s start with the hierarchy:
In 1943, Abraham Maslow published this paper that was (in my opinion) pretty revolutionary. He basically wrote the psychological blueprints on how to be a successful (and happy) human being. While most psychologists of his time were focusing on abnormal psychology and what was going WRONG, Maslow decided to focus on the cream of the crop and figure out what went right (this is called humanistic psychology for anyone who cares)...and what he discovered was a hierarchy of needs.
The overview is that there are stages of needs. As you develop (over the course of your life) you must take care of certain needs. If one need is left unfulfilled, you CANNOT move on to the next need. I’ll explain more after the examples.
First, there are the physiological needs -- things like food, water, oxygen. You need these things. If you don’t have them, you tend to freak out. When you are a baby, if you are hungry, you don’t care about anything else except getting food. If you are starving to death in Nigeria, you tend to be pretty focused on getting food. If someone is strangling you, your biggest concern is getting oxygen into your lungs. Get it?
The second tier is safety. Maslow suggests that people need ‘security of body’ next. People need things like shelter and good health. It is a requirement. Now, it’s not as important as the physiological needs. Does that make sense? If you’re starving to death, you’re more concerned with getting food than getting a roof over your head. If you are literally on the verge of dying of thirst, you will probably forgo health concerns and drink the polluted water.
Third level -- Love/Belonging. Love is an actual need. Did you hear that? When you hate people, or you deny love to those close to you, you are refusing them a basic psychological requirement. Again, we begin worrying about this need AFTER we have oxygen, food, water, shelter, good health. But people DO have to feel like they are loved or belong in order to move on to worry about the next level of needs.
The fourth level, according to Maslow is esteem. Are you starting to see the process? Once you’ve met the needs of one level, you are free to move on to the next. This particular level includes a sense of accomplishment, gaining the respect of others, and having confidence in oneself. Is it any surprise that so many high school teenagers have zero self-confidence? The parents are totally confused when their children bring home horrible grades and seem to take absolutely no pride in their own work. These kids don’t feel loved! Maybe their parents neglect them. Maybe the ridicule and skepticism they are constantly faced with at school leave them feeling dejected and rejected.
The bigger point is that once a person has their physiological, safety, love/belonging, and esteem based needs met, they are free to (potentially) move on to the final level of needs: Self-Actualization.
Maslow paraphrases himself to the self-actualization needs “the desire to become more and more what one is, to become everything that one is capable of becoming.” Some key traits found in people who have reached the self-actualization level of motivation are:
They embrace reality and facts rather than denying truth.
They are spontaneous.
They are interested in solving problems.
They are accepting of themselves and others and lack prejudice.
(Again, I want to apologize for having suuuuuuch a long setup. I am getting to the point.)
Maslow (or maybe it was someone after him) suggested that only about 12% of people are self-actualized. He believed that most people were stuck on the love/belonging or esteem levels.
Self-Actualization, then, was seen as the pinnacle of needs. Again, Maslow was studying the cream of the crop -- people like Albert Einstein, Jane Addams, Eleanor Roosevelt, Frederick Dougalss. He found these people to be self-actualized, and that is what allowed them to become the kind of people they were and accomplish the types of things they accomplished. These people were no longer ruled by the need to eat, drink, be loved, or be respected. They were now driven by the need to be the best version of themselves.
“Okay, Austin, this is great and all...very enlightening, but what does this have to do with not being selfish?”
Well, I’m glad you asked.
Toward the end of his life, Maslow discovered one more level -- Self-Transcendence. He estimated that an extremely small percentage of people would ever achieve this in their lifetimes. My guess is that he didn’t discover it until later because so few people reached this level that he simply hadn’t observed it.
Once a person has their self-actualization needs fulfilled, they are free to (potentially) move on to the final level. In this level, the person stops seeing their own needs as being their own personal needs, but begins seeing...the bigger picture...you might say. No more, “I need this, I need that.” They begin thinking in terms of “the human race needs this, the human race needs that.” They become extremely concerned with meeting the basic needs of those around them -- as many as possible. The goal of a self-transcended person seems to be to bring the entire world up to a level of self-transcendence.
And holy crap! Can you imagine living in that world? Where everyone stops being selfish and sees themselves as just one piece of the puzzle? One cog in the machine? One organ in “the body”?
hmmm...
Maslow uses a lot of allusions within his paper to help his readers understand what kind of people he was talking about -- poets, mystics, prophets, saints...
hmmm...
I can name at least one person I think was self-transcendent. He lived a little over two-thousand years ago.
There’ve probably been a few since then...after all -- Maslow makes no assumption that self-actualized people are “without sin.” They just have maybe got that one little thing figured out. Not love -- not all of it -- but one tiny little section of love...the not being selfish part.
There IS such a thing as a purely unselfish deed, but you and I (most of us) are not even capable of doing such a thing.
Here’s the problem. The way Maslow’s hierarchy works, you are fully dependent on other people to meet your needs all the way up to self-actualization. So, should we (under the false premise of being in the best interest of those around us) work on become self-actualized? Or perhaps, we can practice the best form of selflessness that we are capable of and read up on this Maslow guy.
*I HIGHLY recommend ‘A Theory of Human Motivation’ and ‘Theory Z’...like seriously*
Take care of the needs of those around you.
Feed the hungry.
Clothe the naked.
Love the unloved.
Respect the unrespected.
Encourage spontaneity, creativity, tolerance and the other tenets of self-actualization. Look at the people around you, and meet their needs so that THEY are free to become self-transcendent.
As C.S. Lewis famously said:
“Do not waste time bothering whether you “love” your neighbor; act as if you did." As soon as we do this we find one of the great secrets. When you are behaving as if you loved someone, you will presently come to love him.”
Who knows...if you act like your self-transcendent for long enough, maybe you’ll actually self-transcend.
