Nicholas Kristof’s Christmas Eve article The Sin in Doing Good Deeds includes some interesting thoughts about nonprofit work.
He quotes author Dan Pallotta:
We allow people to make huge profits doing any number of things that will hurt the poor, but we want to crucify anyone who wants to make money helping them… Want to make a million selling violent video games to kids? Go for it. Want to make a million helping cure kids of cancer? You’re labeled a parasite.
I work for a wealthy businessman in a nonprofit organization. So this article raised some pretty interesting questions to me.
Kristof’s article reminds me of Economics 101. I never actually took this class in college, but I suspect I would have read bits from The Wealth of Nations if not the entire work.
You may have heard the story about the Butcher, the Baker, and the Brewer already. Out of self interest, they agree to use money to trade their services with each other in a more flexible manner–and their self-interest leads to a great good. You can read the parable in this excerpt from The Way The World Works, but don’t misunderstand the concept.
People often quote the conclusion Adam Smith draws about these three workers:
It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self-interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own neccessities but of their advantages.
You see, they might say, self-interest is good for society. From there it’s only a hop, skip, and jump to Gordon Gekko’s anti-inspirational claim that “greed is good.” (If you have three minutes, watch the clip from Wall Street.)
Where does that leave us? Is greed good? Of course not. But there is a more complicated question in Kristoff’s article.
Can a person’s self-interest benefit society as a whole? What do you think? Do you act out of self-interest? Does it produce good results?
{ 12 comments }
I think we all act out of self interest, I think it is in our nature to do so. Self interest is not always bad, what is good for you may also be good for society. If you are fulfilling some calling in yourself that is motivated by God, it is best for you and as it is God's plan, good for all.
However, our nature does include the sinful side as well. Acting out of sinful self interest is bad in the long run for all.
it takes discernment and discipline to know you are acting in God's will in all you do. And we all fall short of that at some point or another, and probably much more than just once or twice.
Is there a difference between self interest and selfish interest? Does it matter? What if doing good is always good anyway?
I think Barkat hit on something with her question. There is definitely a difference between self interest and selfish interest. We obey God because of self interest; we want want is best for us and acknowledge that He knows what's best and will provide that best for us when we obey. Selfish interest, in contrast, acts not out of wisdom (which comes from God and encourages obedience to God), but out of a hedonistic desire for pleasure. It comes from our sinful nature.
I also like what AndyC said. We are incapable of acting in completely, truly selfless manners. At least this side of Heaven. We just can't do it! Even when we do good deeds, it is because we want to do them, because we gain pleasure from helping others or having others see us help others. We gain joy from serving God. Isn't that self interest?
Back to your questions: yes, I think self interest can benefit society. I would like to put stipulations on this, to say that it only works under certain circumstances, but the truth is God can bring good from anything.
I guess I'm really wondering if our ulterior motives are somehow corrupting.
If I write a book with the ulterior motive that it make money, does that corrupt the book itself somehow?
If I create a blog network that benefits me financially (I haven't done this), have I somehow corrupted the relationships there?
Can you see where this is going?
May I just gently say… if you write a book with the ulterior motive that it make money, you may be sorely disappointed. (Not because of your writing talent, but because of the dismal reality that books don't make money.)
If I cook a meal for my family that benefits both them and me nutritionally…
(Can you see where this is going? ; – )
Of course you know there's a conflict of interest for me to answer that question about IVP. : )
As for ulterior cooking motives, couldn't one want a pat on the back for being the “good mom”, or a healthy person (who isn't going to financially burden the healthcare system), or a frugal gourmet (who eats better on a particular budget than the next guy) and so on and so on. Are profit and greed restricted to money?
Yes. I think profit and greed are restricted to money unless we're going to
be metaphoric.
Maybe what we have is a nuanced continuum and not an either or situation.
Best – Doing very good things for selfless reasons
Good – Doing good things with some thought to yourself because you're human and can't help it.
Still good but perhaps less deserving of praise – Doing good things, even very good things, but doing them in ways that also help and serve yourself.
Good but not deserving of any praise – doing a good thing completely out of self interest.
Bad – Doing a bad thing with good motives. Dangerous as hell.
Worst – doing bad things out of self interest.
Evil – doing bad and awful things to people with a sadistic self interest – taking pleasure in the suffering of others.
Hmmm.. I think money is just one form of collateral related to profit and greed… perhaps it is better to speak of power?
And RLP, I love your chart. Really. [whispers aside so MG can't hear: You could probably put it on a bookmark and sell it through your blog. ]
The thing I admire about Adam Smith's observations is that they always seemed to be descriptive, and not prescriptive, of the benefits of markets. Gekko's appropriation of that notion is ultimately self-serving.
But Smith nails something that feels fundamentally true to me about the human condition, moreso than noting that trade as a positive-sum game can be beneficial to society, but WHY that is so. It's because other people can never assess your needs and wants as accurately you can. Not because of their insensitivity, but because most people will lack the information necessary to make the optimal choices on your behalf.
This plays out all the time in the cases of foreign aid (this aid does no good for dysfunctional states since it lines the pockets of an unneedy few). The trick is figuring out what are effective and efficacious means of improving the welfare of the world's people. If I could just figure this out I'd probably get the Noble (and that fat wad of cash that goes with it, hollaaaaa!)
Walter Williams has a helpful example about the power of self interest in his essay, “The Virtue of Greed.”
He wrote:
“There's probably widespread agreement that it's a wonderful thing that most of us own cars. Is there anyone who believes that the reason we have cars is because Detroit assembly-line workers care about us? It's also wonderful that Texas cattle ranchers make the sacrifices of time and effort caring for steer so that New Yorkers can enjoy a steak now and then. Again, is there anyone who believes that ranchers who make these sacrifices do so out of a concern for and feeling the pain of New Yorkers?
The true reason why we enjoy cars, steaks, and millions of other goods and services is because people care mostly about themselves. Now ask yourself: How much steak would New Yorkers have if it all depended on human love, kindness and feeling the pain of others? I'd feel sorry for New Yorkers.”
Charles North and I wrote about the power of self interest, with the proper boundaries, to do good in our book, “Good Intentions.” The idea is that best solutions to most of our problems can come when people have the right tools and the right incentives to save themselves.
Walter Williams has a helpful example about the power of self interest in his essay, “The Virtue of Greed.”
He wrote:
“There's probably widespread agreement that it's a wonderful thing that most of us own cars. Is there anyone who believes that the reason we have cars is because Detroit assembly-line workers care about us? It's also wonderful that Texas cattle ranchers make the sacrifices of time and effort caring for steer so that New Yorkers can enjoy a steak now and then. Again, is there anyone who believes that ranchers who make these sacrifices do so out of a concern for and feeling the pain of New Yorkers?
The true reason why we enjoy cars, steaks, and millions of other goods and services is because people care mostly about themselves. Now ask yourself: How much steak would New Yorkers have if it all depended on human love, kindness and feeling the pain of others? I'd feel sorry for New Yorkers.”
Charles North and I wrote about the power of self interest, with the proper boundaries, to do good in our book, “Good Intentions.” The idea is that best solutions to most of our problems can come when people have the right tools and the right incentives to save themselves.
Comments on this entry are closed.