Re: Is it ok to do something nice for someone else for your own self-interest?
The only time anyone does something nice for anyone else without getting something back is when their expectations of reward were way off the mark.
We do nice things for people because we expect something in return. If it's a warm fuzzy that we get then it's a very obvious reward and is highly unlikely that one wouldn't get it because just the thought of doing the nice thing probably gives one a warm fuzzy. But there could theoretically be a total mismatch of reward vs expectation.
Alternatively, sometimes we do nice things for people despite very little reward because we've been trained that way. Like a computer that would be programmed to say 'You look good today' when someone goes on it, the computer wouldn't feel good saying it, but it's still doing something nice. People can and are basically trained just like animals, and will automatically do so many things without actually pausing to think about them. While reward may have been necessary to develop the behaviour in the first place, reward isn't necessarily necessary once a behaviour is learned.
Basically, if we do something nice but didn't think about it, I think we've done something nice with no reward for ourselves. I am finding it hard to give an example, but perhaps something like holding the door for someone. Sometimes we think about it, but more often than not it's simply a trained habit. I don't think these actions are particularly altruistic though.
Back to the OP tough. Most megacorps, in my mind which is probably highly inaccurate, would be better off showing altruism through better employment, better pay, better plans, etc. Like if a company is known for creating and using sweatshops or uses tax havens or has pitiful employee benefits or won't let employees unionize, etc, then them throwing money at some cause seems pretty manipulative to me.
Of course it depends on what the cause is as to how manipulative it feels. Donating money for cancer cures isn't ideologically against paying employees small wages, and so at least they'd be doing something good. It'd be quite different, if, say, they supported habitat for humanity or something, while not paying their own workers enough to support themselves.
The only time anyone does something nice for anyone else without getting something back is when their expectations of reward were way off the mark.
We do nice things for people because we expect something in return. If it's a warm fuzzy that we get then it's a very obvious reward and is highly unlikely that one wouldn't get it because just the thought of doing the nice thing probably gives one a warm fuzzy. But there could theoretically be a total mismatch of reward vs expectation.
Alternatively, sometimes we do nice things for people despite very little reward because we've been trained that way. Like a computer that would be programmed to say 'You look good today' when someone goes on it, the computer wouldn't feel good saying it, but it's still doing something nice. People can and are basically trained just like animals, and will automatically do so many things without actually pausing to think about them. While reward may have been necessary to develop the behaviour in the first place, reward isn't necessarily necessary once a behaviour is learned.
Basically, if we do something nice but didn't think about it, I think we've done something nice with no reward for ourselves. I am finding it hard to give an example, but perhaps something like holding the door for someone. Sometimes we think about it, but more often than not it's simply a trained habit. I don't think these actions are particularly altruistic though.
Back to the OP tough. Most megacorps, in my mind which is probably highly inaccurate, would be better off showing altruism through better employment, better pay, better plans, etc. Like if a company is known for creating and using sweatshops or uses tax havens or has pitiful employee benefits or won't let employees unionize, etc, then them throwing money at some cause seems pretty manipulative to me.
Of course it depends on what the cause is as to how manipulative it feels. Donating money for cancer cures isn't ideologically against paying employees small wages, and so at least they'd be doing something good. It'd be quite different, if, say, they supported habitat for humanity or something, while not paying their own workers enough to support themselves.
Comment