Is doing something good to get something in return morally worse than doing nothing at all?

[Dash87]

Yeah, both sides benefit, but let's say you do something knowing that the other person will grant you something / give you something? Are you actually doing a good deed, or are you just being manipulative?

Furthermore, are you good-hearted if you know you will also benefit from your actions?

[CJCRANE]

1. No. But doing something good that you will not benefit from is morally better.

Also, I just wanted you to know that this should be in the Religion forum.

[In_The_Wind]

2. There is nothing wrong with doing something good.

[Dash87]

5. Agreed, but does it make you a charitable person?

Are you a charitable person in that instance, or just pretending to be?

[In_The_Wind]

7. Actually it is being charitable in that ...

a blind eye could have been turned to the original need.

I do realize that the person doing the good will walk away with something more than just feeling good ... but ... we never truly know how much effort will be needed to complete the deed. I still call it a charitable attitude.

[Populist_Prole]

3. I see nothing wrong with this

I've seen situations like that but the good deed is the main focus and the fact that it's a mutual benefit is only found out in hindsight. If someone is acting in good faith, that in itself should be a reward because you see it so seldom these days.

[OriginalGeek]

4. The other guy could be the manipulative one too...

I mean if you want to do this thing and he wants you to do this thing and he is willing to recompense you for doing this thing, why isn't he the one manipulating you to do this thing?

I think I'm of the opinion there's not enough good things being done so anything good done is a good thing regardless of payment.

On the other hand, I suppose there are cases that prove teh exception - it's a good thing if guy A doesn't kill guy B's wife. It's a bad thing if guy A says to guy B, "Hey, how 'bout I keep not killing your wife and you give me all your lunch money? Oh, and you eat very expensive lunches..."

It's even a worse thing if guy B says "Hmmmmm...I REALLY like my lunches...you do what you gotta do..."

[Xyzse]

6. It depends on cost benefit.

It is good as long as it is not taking advantage.

I am not sure the actual degree, but it can be manipulative at times.

The idea really is that intent. If one is doing it specifically for the benefit, then it is manipulative, but if it is genuine concern and to do something, with no thought towards a reward or benefit, then that's fine.

If you know you're going to benefit from a particular action, so what? As long as your intent is to do good rather than for the reward, then it is all good. It is best to do good and pay things forward.

[Chan790]

8. That depends.

How do you feel about social contract theory?

Those kinds of quid pro quo arrangements are the basis of all enlightenment-era social contract thinking...from Hobbes through Locke to Rousseau and Burke. Simply put, humans do things explicitly to escape the state of nature and enter into social contracts because being in society benefits them even at costs deducted from their own total autonomy and resources. Keep in mind that while social contract theory is the basis of liberalism, it's also the basis of despotism. Both Thomas Jefferson and Ayn Rand argued that doing things for solely reasons of fulfillment of self-interests is a social good.

There's a basis in postmodern thought that both Jefferson and Rand were wrong; the only reason to act is the social good of benefiting society. (Everybody from Mill to Marx.) There's also a basis of thought that social contracts are not good but bad, a restraint upon individual humanity. (Nietzsche, Nozick, to a lesser extent Rousseau)

It's really up to your own ethos where you fall in terms of social contracts.

(Ask a political theorist a question about philosophical morality, expect an answer than answers nothing, leads to more questions and evokes hours of contemplation.)

[nomorenomore08]

9. +1

I see nothing wrong with being rewarded for good deeds. In fact, that's more or less how it should be - mutual benefit.

[rurallib]

10. sounds like religion to me

[Callmecrazy]

11. Sounds like commerce to me...

[elleng]

12. No

[Major Nikon]

13. It depends. Is this a sex thread?

[Dash87]

17. lmao. Like all Lounge threads, somewhat.

[alphafemale]

14. It's pretty much the way life works.

Humans crave reward of some kind.

[Dash87]

18. I think you're right

[bluesbassman]

19. Yes, and in the case of a "good deed", even the smallest expression of gratitude is a benefit.

The concept that we will be appreciated in some fashion (gratitude, return favor, tangible reward) is certainly an underlying motivation for many of our actions. Even the self gratification we feel in doing something nice or helpful for another is a form of benefit.

Where this gets twisted is in our expectation.

[ConcernedCanuk]

15. No - not on the face of it -

.
.
.

but if you expect MORE in return, and pressure the other person on a time frame;

then the "good deed" is not a good deed imo.

For example - you give a homeless person 20 bucks for food/whatever;

Ask for 20 bucks worth of labour cutting grass, shoveling snow, etc,

that's OK in my book.

But if you ask them to work for less than a decent wage,

it's worse than doing nothing at all . . .

Sure, they'll eat better for a few days,

but they will be further disenchanted with "society"

and that ain't helpful at all in the long run.

CC

[Tuesday Afternoon]

16. I think kpete's sigline puts it well: action is my duty, reward is not my concern

people constantly renege on grants anyway.

positive should beget positive.

[Throd]

20. Does oral sex count?

[alphafemale]

21. I have gotten someone money.....not huge amount. $50 ot $20 bucks or so.

And been able to do it so they did not know where it came from.

Not a life changing amount.

But maybe eating a little better that week.

[Lady Freedom Returns]

22. Reminds me of the old Ethics Question...

2 men on standing on the side of a river.
They see a man coming down the river, drowning.
One man jumps in, the other stays on the shore.
Who is the ethical man?

[alphafemale]

23. Like This?

http://theinspirationroom.com/daily/2011/change-for-a-dollar/

[Duer 157099]

25. I don't see how morality enters into the equation at all

Doing something good is all that matters. Getting or expecting something in return does not diminish the good deed.

Morality has to do with knowing right from wrong. Are you suggesting that doing good is wrong under some circumstances?