During this week’s lecture and subsequent discussion about development, a certain statement really sparked my interest. It ignited the memories of a debate I’d been having with some lovely people on Thanksgiving weekend, friends and hosts in Nelson.

The question that arose in class was, “Do we go in with the best intentions? Or is there always self-interest? Even just self-satisfaction?”

The debate that I’d been engaged in previously was not at all in relation to development, at least not as it was being discussed in class. It was merely the question of whether or not it is inevitable in humans for there to be some kind of self-interest involved in whatever acts of goodwill or kindness they are doing. Whether it be to neighbours, friends, loved ones or family. And I would argue that yes, that is the case – there is no such thing as one-hundred percent, straight-forward altruism in human beings. It does not exist.

This allegation, of course, is often met with some form of consternation and a heated rebuttal. But I am convinced that such is the case, and I do not see it in a negative light whatsoever. On the contrary, I think that each and every person should have selfish motives for whatever it is that they choose to pursue in life. Let me therefore define the word “selfish” as I intend to use it: 

“self·ish: devoted to or caring only for oneself; concerned primarily with one’s own interests, benefits, welfare, etc.” – dictionary.com

Most definitions would also include a provision for the disregard of others, however, this is not something I believe needs to be a part of the word. A person can be self-interested and have no ill effect whatsoever on those around them.

I would argue that having a vested personal interest in what you are doing is the key to really making a positive influence in the world. Someone who is say, at heart a farmer, and is forced by one of the innumerable pressures within society to become a doctor is never going to be all that happy. They might do just fine at it sure, but their heart won’t be in it, and therefore their impact on society as a whole will be a little less positive as a result. But if that same person were to follow what they truly loved, what they truly wanted, and what they saw as most beneficial to them, then the things efforts that they put into their work would be done so with joy and passion, thus leading to a net benefit much greater for all.

That is not to say that philanthropy is not a worthy cause, nor to discredit the practice of those who pursue it. Yet even this pursuit, often seen as noble and worthy, has threads of self-interest, but as I see it, not at all a self-interest of negative connotation. It is, interestingly, very difficult to find a word in the English language to define what I mean by this. When I finally Google-searched the definition I was looking for, I came up with the German, “Mitfreude” which translates into “sympathetic joy”, and the Buddhist term, “Mudita”, which is essentially the same. What I would propose then, is that by nature we enjoy feelings of happiness, joy and unanimity, and so those who are philanthropic are, in part, feeding there own personal desire for Mitfreude. Again, I would like to reinforce that I do not see this different take on selfishness as a solecism, nor as a metaphysical fault, but as an underlying reality of the human condition that cannot be changed, but can and should be utilized to one’s advantage.