Fighting Over the Check
You’re at a restaurant, having a great time with a couple friends or colleagues over dinner. The meal comes to a close, and the check is dropped off at your table. Two of your friends/colleagues reach for it, which sparks a short debate over who pays. Isn’t it interesting that the ensuing debate isn’t who has to pay, but who gets to pay? Isn’t it even more interesting that this does not surprise you?
I go out of my way to pay attention to little things which display the general good nature of humanity. Penn Jillette (a personal hero of mine) mentioned on this episode of Penn Point that some Hasidic Jews he was eating dinner with insisted on paying the check. It was tangent to the main story, just an offhand comment, but it was one of those cases where I’m struck by the oddness of two people competing for the honor of being generous to the other.
Some will argue that they’re not doing it due to selflessness. They merely value the feeling they get from appearing generous to others, or perhaps that they use it to gain standing with another person which in turn will benefit them later. Either of these might be true, but I submit that neither negates the generosity. One does not have to be selfless to be a good person, and in fact being selfish can lead to great things.
Let me explain something important about the distinction I make between selfish as opposed to greedy, as I define them. I use the word selfish as meaning something closer to enlightened self-interest: people do good because it is in their long term best interests to do so. This is as opposed to simple greed, which entirely disregards long term effects for short term gain.
For example, a greedy person might steal an expensive watch from a friend or relative, but a selfish person would not. A greedy person wouldn’t share his bon bons with a friend, while a selfish person would. A greedy person wouldn’t pick up a check he wasn’t forced to, while a selfish person will fight for the right to pay it. In every case, the selfish person is recognizing that there are either positive or negative consequences to each situation: if he steals he might get put in jail; if he won’t share he will damage his reputation with his friend; if he picks up the check he will gain respect.
In a broader sense, the self-interested person can even do the right thing because what’s good for the society at large because it is also good for him. If he manages a toy company, maybe he could save a few bucks by using crappy (but cheap) lead paint. Even in a lawless, non-regulated society it’s not in his best interests to do so. Harm your customers and pretty quickly you will have none. So he buys the safer, more expensive paint not just because he’s a good guy, but it’s good for business.
Let’s stop demonizing this kind of selfishness. Everyone acts in their own self-interest, it’s just a matter of recognizing how best to serve that interest. If you ask me, what’s best for the individual is almost always also what’s best for everyone.
Posted by wobbles on Wednesday, July 07, 2010