Calculated Kindness

There is a saying, perhaps you've heard, about treating others the way you would want to be treated. It is quite virtuous, and generally accepted, that acting in ways that are selfless and beneficial to others - and society as a whole - is a 'good' trait for someone to express. The Christians extol its virtue calling it the Golden Rule, Buddhists call it Karma, Hinduism refers to it as Rebirth or Reincarnation. Irrespective of the origin, or the version that any particular person believes in, the core principles remain the same. Pretend for a moment, though, that the world is devoid of any ethics, religion, or underlying desire to perform charity for the sake of charity; what does this world start to look like? Does it take the form of an evil overlord corporation that robs people of their freedoms and their money without remorse, or does it take another form? Adam Smith would argue that, even in this vacuum, some form of ethical action would prevail, if only for selfish reasons.

It might be a hard concept to accept, given it's oxymoronic nature, but there is a great deal of truth in the idea of selfish kindness. Adam Smith, of course, is not the only one to present this concept, as Ayn Rand and Henry Sidgwick have also proposed similar theories of human behavior. Indeed, the idea of rational selfishness, as it is sometimes called, leaves a bitter taste on the tongue, as it reduces every noble and charitable act into some selfish action that was only done for the actor's benefit; it is a complete dismissal of the doctrines of altruism and selflessness. It would be impressively naive to call Mother Teresa selfish, or the Dalai Lama only cares for himself. At least, on the surface, it would be. Referring back to the vacuum state free of inherent religion or ethics, let us explore what Adam Smith argues - most convincingly - drives people to act as they do.

Starting with what could be considered two of the most human emotions of them all, pity and compassion, it would seem that humankind is predisposed to connect with others, independent of the state of the connection. However small it might be, as we become accustomed and desensitized to it, most undeniably feel a small pang of pity upon seeing a destitute or homeless citizen, or a fleeting moment of compassion for the attendees of a passing funeral procession. These emotions, at their core, offer no obvious benefit to the feeler, beside providing the basis for connecting emotionally with another. These passers-by are naught but strangers, though, so the feelings are weak and rather temporary. For those in our more immediate vicinity, and perhaps those for whom we share more substantial relationships with, these emotions hold more depth, and are traditionally referred to as sympathy. It is important to make a side-note here, and ensure that the typically negative connotation of 'sympathy' is not the only iteration of the word that comes to mind; sympathy, in this context of traditional English and as a definition from Adam Smith, is to enter into the feelings of another, for both positive and negative. One can express sympathy for the loss of a loved one just the same as they can express sympathy for the joy of a child's birth. It is a use of the word that - at least for our purposes and this article's exploration - will use the older English duality definition.

Entering into a sympathy with another, whether for joy or sorrow, then, must be a more substantial and necessary basis for connecting emotionally with another than pity or compassion, as it is a stronger feeling, and therefore, a stronger basis. Laughing while wincing at the pain seen by a mishap on a sportscast, as player bones are crunched, elicits a pity, but wincing at the pain seen by a similar mishap of a friend invokes a much graver and relatable emotion. The proximity of the friend allows a much greater breadth of emotion, and thus, ease of sympathizing. What benefit, or reason, does this sympathetic state have to exist; why, even in the absence of a deity's divine laws or traditionally defined ethical actions, does this tendency to sympathize exist?

A basic principle that necessarily must be explored, to answer the previous question, is what universal factor must be present in all humans to drive their desires. Of the list of all possible characteristics, if looking at what traits any particular individual throughout all time might have possessed, there only happens to be a singular commonality (arguably). Selfishness, though to varying degrees, appears to be a fundamental principle across all humanity, and thus, being the most attributable to the most people, must be the most basic principle for action. There is a connotation, however, with the term selfishness that should be dispelled for the moment, like with that of sympathy. Selfishness is defined as a negative or ill trait, by the conventions of society, but not as a negative trait unto itself. Certainly, no one would hold guilty the party that selfishly seeks out food when they hunger, or a drink to quench thirst. The party is indulging themselves, perhaps, but it is a reasonable indulgence, surely! Where the distinction between said reasonable, or the socially defined ill indulgence may lay is a matter for another discussion, but it is important to draw light to the fluidity of what selfishness is appropriate and what is not. Even with some conventional lines being drawn and accepted across most places, no single definition of what is, or is not, selfish, exists.

Then, if selfishness, free of the negative connotation, can explain most, if not all, of the actions and desires of humankind, where, then, does the need for sympathy arise from; it would, at first glance, appear contradictory to posit that selfishness drives action, and yet, emotional connection is a basic principle of what makes us human. A beautiful dichotomy, selfishness, as a concern chiefly for oneself, and sympathy, as a concern chiefly for another, exists not to oppose each other, but to reinforce one another. Understanding why each acts in harmony with the other, and how that can be utilized in the business place, can give a competitive edge over both internal and external competition. If we accept these premises, that selfishness is not necessarily an ill trait, and that all human action (or inaction) can be accredited to it, that sympathy can be felt for both positive and negative emotions, and that sympathy and selfishness are not in conflict, but in harmony, we can explore in what context the aforementioned competitive edge can be created and maintained - an exploration we will pursue in the next part.