Holy Abdomen, Batman!

Kev (good music / i dance / no good music / i not dance) zegt:
I'm supposed to be the selfish prick, not you!
Endless Audacity zegt:
you've rubbed off on me

This sunday, after yet another rather partiful weekend and a very late night, Tim somehow reminded me again of a discussion that's been going along on and off during the last years between Kenneth and Kevin, and whomever happens to be near at the time. Since I'm near quite a lot, I've discussed the topic quite a few times myself. The object itself is rather boring, possibly the reason that's it's been a while it's been brought to the table, but hey, I'm bored and have nothing else to say.

Position Kevin: everyone acts only in their own selfish interests.

Position Kenneth: people can act out of pure altruism.

Since both parties are usually very adamant about their respective positions, these discussions, benevolent as they may start, tend to quickly disentagrate into decibellicious (I know that's not a word, but it totally should be) he said - he said matches that not even Vlaams Belang politicians could do better. (author's note: all resemblance between aforementioned parties and Vlaams Belang politicians ends there.)

Since I'm a tad wishy-washy and very much a Belgian Boy, I always take the middle road in the discussion, granting that most behaviour is inspired by selfishness, but leaving room for the possibility of altruism (and basically deciding nothing, I only take a firm stance on very frivolous objects such as Sid Vicious pants {against}, leggings {against}, colourful underwear {in favour}, Paris Hilton {firmly against}, etc).

As far as I know, no winner was ever decided in the ongoing battle of me me me and the complete disregard of self. Both parties make some convincing points, though I usually am forced to agree more with Kevin's, which I don't really like, because I'd like to believe in altruism to some degree.

But, does it really exist? Of course, some people will claim that we very often do things we don't want to, purely for the benefit of others. But do we commit these generous acts simply because they are generous, or is there an underlying reason of self-preservation or -promotion of some sort?

When a friend calls, depressed and alone, while you are enjoying a good movie and he asks you to come over to talk, and you reluctantly abandon the movie, heaving a deep sigh and head over, do you do this purely for your friend or because of other reasons such as social conventions, the fact that your friendship needs to be maintained for your own future benefit, the Catholic tendencies that are still rooted in most our childhoods, or maybe just because, well, we all like a little drama in our lives, especially when it's not really ours.

Then there are those people who chronically seem to do things they don't want to, in order to help others. I know a woman who is constantly telling us how she drives around old ladies, babysits children, organises family gatherings, and generally supports an entire village with numerous acts, despite her own health problems. Yes, a brave woman indeed, but the sarcastic in me has begun to think that, yes, she does get something out of it. By mentioning these acts, usually in a sullen 'you should hear what happened now, why does everyone depend on me so?' tone of voice, she establishes herself as a near-tragic Saint, a Mother Theresa of the Kempen, often praised and pitied to her face (and derided as a whiny old push-over behind her back, but most of us are very unaware of what is said behind our backs, unless if it's in a bend-over situation, but that's entirely different).

So yes, she gets to feel like a martyr, a heroine, a great Personage of Good and it is a role she wallows and delights in, emphasizing it at every turn. Now, I'm not saying she's not a very nice, helpful woman, I'm only putting it out there that maybe it cannot be called true altruism.

When I was studying social work, we had a teacher who asked us why we studied social work, and a lot of people answered something along the lines of 'to make the world a better place' and 'to help people'. I was one of them, but being wishy washy and unfirm I selected the less ambitious 'to make a small part of the world a better place'. He then said we were kidding ourselves and that most social workers are, though kind (hopefully), selfish and trying to feel better themselves. They don't want to make the world a better place, they want to FEEL that they've made the world a better place. They don't want to help people, they want to FEEL they helped people and bask in the near-orgasmic glow of being a hero, a role model, a People Helper. A sentiment Tim echoed in our short conversation on the topic.

On to the next form of altruism: true love. If you truly love someone, you're willing to make sacrifices, purely for that other person's pleasure.

First off, if you consider it a sacrifice you're martyring yourself again, and that puts the selfish right back in there. Second of all, no one, no matter how loving, sacrifices and sacrifices without expecting some sacrifice from the other party in return.

An example often brought up in favour of the selfless theory has to do with a burning building. Why do people go back into a blazing fire to save their loved one? Well, you know, if you don't, you'll be alone. And if he survives, but it all burnt and stuff, it will be totally socially unexceptable to leave the ugly bastard and surgery be expensive, y'all. And if it's a mother and child, imagine being the mother who didn't lift a finger as her child was being charcoaled. She better move to a whole new neighbourhood, because all her kind, caring neighbours will be calling her 'that woman who let her child die' until the day she goes to meet her maker, who hopefully will be either a lot more forgiving, or non-existant.

Mother Theresa is always mentioned as well. Now, I never trusted Mother Theresa, there was something in that beak-faced leer of hers that always made me suspect she secretly hated puppies and various other unpleasant characteristics. It cannot be denied, however, that she gave her life to good pursuits and helped countless of people (though she did maybe kick a puppy or two). Of course, she was thrusted on by her religion, praised by the hatted man in the Vatican, loved by countless more than she helped and she became a celebrity. I daresay she felt pretty damn good about herself every time she glided through the slums on those silly sandals of hers.

So basically, we're all selfish bastards. It's the way we're made, we do what we have to in order to get on and fulfill our needs. And there's nothing wrong with that, it's what got us this far. And the ingeniosity of that system is that we actually need each other to fulfill those needs, thus ensuring love, friendships and family ties a chance of surviving our own selfishness. And heck, most of the time we really do believe we're helping out for the sake of helping out. And feeling damn good about that too, us tragic heroes.

(author's note: unwilling to seem as if I'm taking a definite stance against altruism, I hereby state that I'm sure it may happen from time to time, but the nature of altruism being not to brag about it, no one ever hears about these instances. That's why Jesus Christ, if he existed, doesn't count, because that bitch clearly made too much noise about his whole 'sacrificing myself for mankind' - schtick.)

And for those who got this far without getting bored and/or a little mad, and also because it's been a while, this sentence is ALMOST entirely composed out of boys!