Is enlightened self-interest Good?

[Mark Chance]

Action does not determine morality, motive does.

Both motive and the action determine morality. A good deed done for a bad reason is immoral. A bad deed done for a good reason is immoral.

As to the "enlightened self-interest," it sounds like whoever wrote the witch class is possibly too enamored of Ayn Rand, despite the train wreck she made of her life, the life of her husband, and the lives of her children.

 

[VirgilCaine]

(I believe, and feel free to disagree, that everything you do you do because you get some kind of reward for it - even if it's just the "warm fuzzy" feeling of making somebody else happy.)

Watched a lot of Friends, have we?

 

[Voadam]

Both motive and the action determine morality. A good deed done for a bad reason is immoral.

Uhm, so in a good deed done for a bad reason you wouldn't say the deed is moral but the motivation was immoral, for you the good deed itself becomes immoral? The two are conceptually inseparable for you?

 

[painandgreed]

That has jack-all to do with my question. To rephrase it: Does doing good deeds out of purely selfish reasons mean that you have a good alignment?
I asked a more real-world question to Eolin because I was interested in his viewpoint, but I'm primarily concerned with D&D.

I hate to give a trivial answer, but it's the only one that will do: Ask your DM. There are going to be lots of different interprestations of the rules to flat out restructuring of such. Although different, each system is probably going to work in the campaign that it was developed for. Some DMs may have different answers according to the flavor of the particular campaign or even adventure.

My personal answer is that it probably does. When judgeing "eligntened self interest", I reason that evil people simply won't come to the assumption that helping others will result in helping them. Neutral will judge each case by itself and act accordingly. Only somebody with at least good tendencies would assume that if they do good, then good things will eventually come back to them. I'd say that the witch that helps people because they believe that the they will eventually get something back is still neutral (with good tendencies) to Good. A neutral person would work out the deal at the time such as requireing the person helped to agree to a "favor" in the future or at least some assureance that they will be beholden to the witch. An evil person would require soemthing for their services, most likely before providing them.

Still there is a good deal of wiggle room and special cases. A lawful evil NPC might preform good deeds because that is what society is expecting of them (like the person who goes to church every week to be seen, and tithes more than anybody else so they all know such), as part of a disguise to not look evil, or because careful observation has garenteed them they can turn such to their benefit and they are trying to gain a net gain by doing so. Still, I figure the doing of good acts would really get on the evil doers nerves and they'd have do more evil acts to balance themselves out. Those who don't would find themselves slipping in alignment towards good. Same for good characters, they may commit the occational evil act but will preform more good acts to make up for it. Those that don't find themsevles becoming evil. Once again, the witch that preforms significantly more good acts than evil even if for selfish reason is good because a neutral or evil person will have compulsive desire to balance things. The difference between doing the good acts due to "selfish reasons" or purely out of complete self sacrifice is not the difference between neutral and good but between good and saintly.

 

[John Q. Mayhem]

I'm playing in any games right now, and this question isn't related to any specific situation in my DMing. I've already pretty much made up my mind, I was just wondering what the concensus was, and was interested in other people's opinions.

 

[mmadsen]

The Enlightened Win-Win

We live every day in a world where acting in our own self interest helps others:

It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.

-- Adam Smith
​

Although we instinctively think of winners and losers, much of life involves cooperation and win-win situations -- and that's what enlightened self-interest is all about.

Unenlightened self-interest, depending on your focus, involves either (a) being on the winning side of a win-lose situation (e.g., looting and pillaging), or (b) acting in your short-term interest even when it's not in your long-term interest (e.g., drinking to excess, being lazy, spending your savings on new toys).

 

[Voadam]

To rephrase it, does someone who is otherwise a good guy become not good if he is doing it for selfish reasons?

I'd say no, D&D is pretty stark, good and bad. Someone doing good is on the side of good. He intends to do good, not neutral, not evil. That is good. Love of deity, for the good of the country, enlightened self interest, the motivation behind it does not negate the goodness of what they are doing.

To add just a little more, in my view selfish vs. selfless is irrelevant to determining morality on a good evil continuum. Evil can be selfish or selfless. So can good. So can neutrality.

So pretty much by definition, someone who is good out of enlightened self interest is selfish good and still good in D&D terms.

For an example of selfish good writ large in D&D see the stereotypical LG dwarf.

 

[aurance]

Watched a lot of Friends, have we?

Surprise, this philosophy was around a lot longer than "Friends." Jeremy Bentham codified it in the 18th century as the core motive of utilitarianism. Others probably thought about it before him.

Modern social psychology hasn't clearly resolved whether it's possible to have any action devoid of self-interest. There is a lot of research to back up either side. Since what we believe about D&D morals is at least colored by our own, there probably isn't a satisfactory answer either way.

Hypothetical question: Would the character still be altruistic, when you strip away all the rewards he would attain from those actions, except his own positive feeling? If yes, he is clearly Good. If not, consider at what point would he no longer feel that it's in his best interest to be altruistic, and let that be your guide to determine his alignment.

 

[fredramsey]

I'm afraid I have to come down on the side of "There's no such thing as altruistism."

Even if all you get out of it is a "good feeling", then you benefitted from it. About the only act I can even begin to feel is altruistic is giving your life - in a split second decision - to save someone else's. But then it's kind of hard to ask the person who did it how he feels about it

Surprise, this philosophy was around a lot longer than "Friends." Jeremy Bentham codified it in the 18th century as the core motive of utilitarianism. Others probably thought about it before him.

Modern social psychology hasn't clearly resolved whether it's possible to have any action devoid of self-interest. There is a lot of research to back up either side. Since what we believe about D&D morals is at least colored by our own, there probably isn't a satisfactory answer either way.

Hypothetical question: Would the character still be altruistic, when you strip away all the rewards he would attain from those actions, except his own positive feeling? If yes, he is clearly Good. If not, consider at what point would he no longer feel that it's in his best interest to be altruistic, and let that be your guide to determine his alignment.

 

[Tonguez]

To add just a little more, in my view selfish vs. selfless is irrelevant to determining morality on a good evil continuum. Evil can be selfish or selfless. So can good. So can neutrality

Yeah sitting back and thinking on this issue (rather than completing essays) I pretty much came to the same conclusion that this issue doesn't belong in a good vs evil debate at all

far better a Law vs Chaos debate