For Goodness’ Sake?
I was just wondering—What if my New Year’s resolution had been to not do any good deeds at all, ever, this year. As a sort of psychology experiment, to determine what I get out of doing good deeds.
Would it mean I don’t walk 7000 steps with my neighbor who finds it easier to stick to her exercise regimen when she has company? Or do I walk with her for my own good health as well?
Would it mean I hog the checkout aisle with my overflowing cart and let the frail old man leaning on a cane with only two grocery items wait behind me? Or do I let him go first to feel good about myself? To believe I am a nice person.
Would it mean that I don’t regularly visit my 90-year-old elder who lights up when we sit and rock together? Or do I go so my own soul will not feel out of kilter?
I am guessing all good deeds can be self-serving in some fashion, but that doesn’t make them inherently bad. In fact, it probably makes them good. The good deed doer feels better. The recipient of the good deed feels better. It’s a win-win.
But what if a political candidate goes to the soup kitchen to work—just for the publicity? Does the photo op negate the goodness of the act? Or maybe, just maybe, the act might have some small impact on the candidate other than 30,000 likes on Facebook and a boost in the polls?
What if a multi-billionaire donates a measly million dollars to the local build-a-library fund? The donation is a tax write-off. The billionaire doesn’t even feel the pinch. So, it is hardly seen as a truly good deed. But the library gets built. Maybe it bears the billionaire’s name over the front door. Is the good deed marred because it was too easy? And even egocentric? I love my public libraries, wherever they came from.
This line between what’s good and what is selfish is a fine one, indeed. Why do people go to church and put an offering in the collection plate? Strictly because they want to support the church and its community outreach? Because they care about getting into heaven?
Is it the degree of discomfort caused to the giver by the act of giving that measures the goodness of the good deed? In other words, does the good deed have to feel sacrificial to truly be good?
Maybe the real “sin” is looking the gift horse in the mouth. We shouldn’t question why any one of us does an apparent good deed. Probably there is give and take in any act of kindness. To omit kindnesses in favor of steering clear of faulty intentions would likely leave the landscape bleaker.
I’m not saying we should never be suspicious of a good deed doer’s rationale. Especially if they’re running for office. But rather, if we suspect the giving act to be less than altruistic, at least let the benefit of doubt ooze in.
I have to think the act of committing a kindness can, in many instances, nurture the seed of good in the good deed doer, and that perhaps, on occasion, that seed grows into a mighty tree. Some might call me naive.
Maybe they’re right. But to live entirely without that naivete would be unbearable.