Godheval

Good will and self-sacrifice should be offered for no personal gain but for their own sake. Acts of good will should be accepted without suspicion or feelings of necessary reciprocation. The concept of “pay it forward” is close to accurate; good will should not be done as a return gesture, for that is a subtle form of competition, and contradictory to the principle of altruism. Good will should be extended arbitrarily – whether to one who has extended good will to you (but again not for that reason) or to others – again, merely for the sake of doing so, and not only because it has been extended to you.

An interesting idea, proposed by Moses Maimonides, is that of anonymous altruism – performing an act of good will for an unknown person, and with the person not knowing that you were their benefactor. This removes the problems of pride, self-interest, guilt, and resentment, that often arise from altruistic acts. If a room full of people all came to offer some good will, and each could somehow confer that good will upon another random individual without either knowing the other’s identity, all of the people in that room would presumably be kind to one another – at least to not risk being unkind to that one person who was kind to them. What kindness each person received could not be shared with the others in the room, as not only would that in some cases negate the anonymity for the givers, but also perhaps create a competition of values between the acts, i.e. some people may be resentful that the kindness they received was not “as good” as the one another person received. They would be missing the point – that the exercise is about performing good will in itself, not the nature or quantitative value of that good will.

The result of widespread altruism could feasibly be a pervasive web of good will without “purpose”, because altruism itself is the end and not the means. The goal of altruism corresponds to Maslow’s idea of self-actualization, for indeed once you no longer “need” anything at your given position in life, you become more inclined to do for others. Here Maslow would recognize the difference between performing good will for recognition or praise, for that is to fulfill the esteem needs, and not an act of the self-actualized person. It also seems to be true, at all levels of the hierarchy, that to be selfless, even self-sacrificial, brings greater joy in what we do for ourselves.

It does seem true, however, that there is a dangerous loophole within the altruistic mechanism that would allow for the the selfish to take advantage of the altruistic. This kind of malevolence could and would undermine the survival fitness of the altruistic, but only if they are not looking for such treachery. Those who are bereft of good will shall necessarily be excluded from the altruistic network; this decision is made with respect to each individual BY each individual. So it may be possible for the selfish man to travel from place to place, taking advantage of the altruistic, then moving on as his guile is recognized, but this life, for even the selfish, will become tiresome.

Unfortunately it seems that the altruistic mechanism can only work on a relatively large scale, for if only a rare few individuals act altruistically, they are likely to be tread upon by the majority and exploited to their ultimate ruin; therefore it may be necessary to adopt the altruistic mechanism as a practice in small groups, and each then becoming a microcosm for humankind’s ultimate social goal, but nested prosperously within the less advanced world.