Morality and Human Behaviour

At lunch today, I had a vigorous and energetic debate over what I'll term "good deeds."

Consider:

Person A does a "good deed" for Person B. One might term this a "favour." Time passes, and Person A requires something of Person B. When Person B does not rise to the occassion, Person A feels wronged. In fact, due to Person A's previous actions on behalf of Person B, Person A feels there has been a breach of trust and a personal injury committed to his person by Person B.

For the record, this is, of course, purely hypothetical and has no basis on any actions of myself.

1. What is the nature of "good deeds" or "favours"? How much of these are a result of normal human actions and should *not* in fact be considered special circumstances?

I contend that what the good-doer may perceive of as a favour and act of good will, the lucky recipient may not consider the same deed to be of such quality. The reverse can also be true, and the good-doer may not be aware of the merits of his actions. Is there a moral and objective truth in these matters as to whether or not something is or is not a good deed? Can both parties be, in fact, correct on the basis of their perceptions? In general, I contend that perception DOES matter and it is quite a dangerous game to consciously perform a "good deed." Sometimes this "favour" may have been fully expected of us and therefore nothing out of the ordinary, at other times, we may cause more harm than good. We should seek to perform the good in our hearts, but we should not carry a badge listing out our good deeds.

2. If we assume a favour was performed, is there any obligation to return a favour in like fashion? Can the favour-giver essentially demand repayment from the receiver? Is it justified to expect similar treatment?

Here we take two roads: the moral road and game theory. From a moral perspective, I feel there is no justification in expecting any type of obligation, repayment, or same treatment from the original beneficiary. The benefactor must act as if his deed is a single and isolated action (unless there are fallouts from harms he should correct) and can expect no return payment. Otherwise, I contend that the action is stripped of all moral "goodness" and becomes merely a roundabout means to further self interest by working through others. "Love thy neighbor as you would have him love you" and all that jazz does not mandate that the neighbor does act in such fashion, nice as that would be. We must act alone and perform true good with no expectation of reimbursement. If and when we receive it, our genuine giving spirits will be further gladdened, because we will know that our good deeds have served as an example to others to act likewise (I cheekily sight the film Pay it Forward in these circumstances). If our favours are not returned, so be it, and there is no reason to bear a grudge or anger.

From a game theory arrangement, we are facing a tit for tat game in which equal benefit will be derived from cooperation and mutual repayment of similar behaviours. This is stripped of any moral rhetoric of good deeds, the nature of human giving v. greed, etc etc. It is a simple strategy--the unabashed quest for self interest by realizing that our own interest can be furthered by taking the risk to assist others and "bring them over to our team." It's a cold, calculating view of life, and something I myself try to avoid, but that's not to say it's in any way wrong.

We thus see a distinction between idealism (1st explanation) and rationalism (2nd). The way the world ACTUALLY works is probably much closer to type 2--people, in general, ARE inherently selfish. However, I contend that, as much as it may be a case of tilting at windmills, those with the fortitude to commit good deeds for the mere sake of doing them with no further expectations should by all means do so--their example may serve to inspire some few others, and the world will be that much brighter and better a place with less self-serving ends. Even if no one is inspired, the deed itself serves to brighten the world. For those that choose a more tit for tat means, I'm not going to argue, that's how the world (generally) seems to work. That doesn't, of course, make it right--there's many things in this world that are firm realities but still fundamentally flawed. Anyway, a tit for tat policy follower should not reject and judge negatively those who fail to step up and play by these tactics, rather, if one is let down, I suggest that you devolve that relationship and surround yourself with like minded "game players."

That's all I have to say at the moment on this one. Audience commentary is welcome.