LIVESELFISH

"If any civilization is to survive, it is the morality of altruism that men have to reject." - Ayn Rand

About six weeks ago I ordered a few of those bracelets that were started by Lance Armstrong. Basically they're bright yellow rubber bands that say LIVESTRONG on them. They cost $1, with 100% of the money raised going to "educate the survivors of cancer...about cancer survivorship." Since they were launched in May of this year, they've sold something like 20 million of them, and everyone from celebrities to students can occasionally be seen with one around their wrist. Read all about them and order one for yourself if you'd like on the website.

Well, I didn't want to be left behind, so like I said, over six weeks ago I ordered 10 of them. I didn't plan on wearing ten at a time mind you, but rather, ordered some for friends and family members that might want to sport one as well. Well, anyway, a little over a week ago they came in, and after giving a few out, I wore one to work. Well, my little bracelet sparked quite the discussion before we started our shift, which I'd like to share with all of you in order to stimulate some thought and conversation.

It all started after I finished complaining to the eight or so people in the room that it took nearly five weeks of waiting for my bracelets to come in. I explained what they were to those in the room who didn't know, but, being honest, told them that I ordered them primarily because of my desire to keep up with the trends. I'm not really a trendy guy, simply because many of the current fads cost quite a bit to keep up with, but this only set me back a couple 3 Musketeers bars, so I dove right in. Regardless, the fact that the money spent on the band goes directly to a charity is only a bonus to me. Anyway, one of the cruisers got pretty agitated after I said that, telling me that I shouldn't have even bought it if I didn't care that the money was going to charity. I was utterly perplexed at the cruiser's logic, or lack thereof, because, as far as I can see, the money has been donated one way or the other. Which, brings me to the question at hand and the reason for this post:

Do the intentions behind an act of charity matter?

One might argue, as my colleague did, that the donation should not be made if altruistic intentions are not the driving means of donation. Charity, in essence, is the act of giving something without expecting anything in return, so by giving money one should not expect anything in return, be it written recognition or a trinket of some sort.

The counterpoint to this argument is that as long as the money is donated, it doesn't really matter the reasoning behind the gift. One might argue that the recipient does not care for what reason someone gave the donation, as long as they donated. Even though they may come from only the most selfless of thoughts, good cheer and best wishes do absolutely nothing for an organization looking for finances to promote its cause. Gifts and money, given selfishly or not, do.

I would even go beyond this point/counterpoint to say that altruism just doesn't exist. It is my belief that every single thing we do we do in order to benefit ourselves first. Altruism simply does not exist. Respectfully, I disagree with the venerable Martin Luther King Jr. when he said, "Every man must decide whether he will walk in the light of creative altruism or in the darkness of destructive selfishness." In my opinion, selfishness is not always destructive and wrong. In my case, I was selfish in that I wouldn't have donated unless I got a yellow rubber band, but was selfless because I was helping someone else in return. Selfishness is only destructive when one hurts or hinders another in order to further oneself, be it monetarily, emotionally, or otherwise. When I gave my donation, I may have given it because I was fulfilling my desire to be trendy, but do you think Lance Armstrong cares? When others give donations, maybe they don't even wear their bracelets, but they are fulfilling their desire to help others, thus making them feel good about themselves. Or maybe the 'selfless' donation gives their live a worthwhile meaning, elevating their egos to make them feel that they are above other people who don't donate at all. How is that any different than me fulfilling my desire to be hip? Either way, the both of us are benefiting, just in different ways. The fantastic thing is that the transaction is entirely efficient; both the giver and the receiver benefit from the transaction.

Also, I feel that's the only way charity works sometimes. Because most people's material desires are higher than their desire to help (read: than their desire to feel good about themselves,) charities must give something in order to get the money they seek in return. Look at any 'charity event' and you'll see what I'm talking about. You think people would donate thier $10,000 if they didn't get to meet President Bush or hear an acoustic set by Alanis Morissette? Maybe even get their name on engraved on a bridge or printed in the newspaper? Or what about those PBS telethons that are on every six months. If you donate $75 you might get a thank-you card, but if you donate $100 you don't get a bigger thank-you, you get a toaster. It's foolish to think that someone isn't upping their donation from $75 to $100 because they were drawn in by the shiny household appliance. Is it reasonable to think that PBS is disappointed because someone gave them an extra twenty-five bucks simply because they wanted the better 'prize.' I think not.

In short, Lance Armstrong has sold twenty-million rubber bands because he got celebrities and sports stars to wear them first, not because we're all entirely selfless and completely concerned about cancer survivors. It's brilliant marketing and I'm sure he isn't complaining about guys like me, so you shouldn't either.

What do you think? Is my argument a crock of crap, or does it make sense? Leave enough good comments and I'll make a post replying to them.