Dear browneyes2482:
Thank you for writing. Your friends’ outlook is shared by many social scientists and natural scientists. They argue that “real” altruism cannot benefit the one who acts to help others. I disagree. In my research and teaching, I have argued that we help others best when we do it in a way that also helps ourselves. I’m not talking about ripping people off under the guise of charity (there are unfortunately plenty of examples of that). And it is, of course, good to help others without receiving a material benefit in return (“a good deed is its own reward”). But there are also many social entrepreneurs who have found a middle ground by operating successful businesses that help others. Isn’t this better than running a successful business that degrades the environment, exploits workers, or causes some other kind of harm?
A few months ago, New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof wrote an essay on this very topic. He mentioned a businessperson who turned a profit by providing fee-for-use public toilets in Nigeria. Kristof claimed that this business has done more to provide basic sanitation than the charity groups operating in that country. Another businessperson cited by Kristof argued that people needlessly die because donors who are troubled by high salaries paid to some of the staff at aid organizations have reduced or eliminated their contributions. This is food for thought.
I know a group of nurses who spend a week of their vacation volunteering at a summer camp for kids with muscular dystrophy. The term muscular dystrophy refers to a group of terrible diseases that result in a person’s muscles wasting away, often causing an early death. It’s especially sad to see this happen to young children. Yet the nurses come back to the camp year after year, without any financial compensation. And the work at the summer camp is hard. These volunteers often go without sleep in order to deal with medical emergencies. They will tell you that treating severe constipation in these kids is not exactly their idea of fun. But overall they find the unpaid work both very exhausting… and very rewarding. This is about as pure as altruism gets.
As a thought experiment, what if the nurses did this kind of work all year long and drew a small salary that allowed them to pay their rent and put food on the table? Would their motives be any less pure? Perhaps. But I think most reasonable people would agree that this difference is trivial. It would still be hard work that benefits others and they wouldn’t be getting rich.
Where do we draw the line between real and counterfeit altruism? I am certainly not convinced that joining a group like AmeriCorps should count as profiteering! I know folks who have worked for AmeriCorps and I’m quite sure that they didn’t join for the money. It’s hard (but rewarding) work, with plenty of opportunities to give and glow.
I have interviewed many people who are involved in a vocation that helps others. They draw a salary while also feeling the glow that comes from truly making a difference in the world. They also tend to volunteer. They find value in both kinds of activities. Think about what it means to have a vocation, to respond to a higher call to serve others. This is different than having a “career” (where the goal is simply to advance oneself in terms of wealth and status) or an “occupation” (where one simply takes up space). If the salary is the same for all three, clearly the vocation is of more value.
From my perspective, paid volunteerism does qualify as giving and glowing. Will you get the same benefits compared to volunteering for free? That is more difficult to answer. But my guess is that if you joined AmeriCorps you would experience the joy of giving and glowing in a way that would translate into unpaid volunteering later in life, while also doing important work for others in the meantime. My advice is to go for it! The cynics among your friends might spend their time questioning your motives. But you can always ask what benefit their cynicism has brought to others.
AOL Health