What do we owe to each other?

If it's hard and time-consuming and people often don't even appreciate help, so why do it? Why reach out?

Hi friends,

A few months ago, somebody asked why, given the negative reactions some people have, we should help anyway. I thought it would make a really good post, especially because it would let me dig into my deep love of philosophy in a way I don’t normally get to do, and do the type of deep research posts I haven’t been able to find time for recently. If you want more of this type of thing, I recommend reading:

Why help other people? Let’s start with the theoretical and philosophical. We help other people because we have a duty, too for one. Philosophy has multiple ways to view this question, but I think The Good Place frames the three main ones well: virtue ethics, utilitarianism, and deontology.

Let’s start with virtue ethics.

Virtue ethics is a broad term for theories that emphasize the role of character and virtue in moral philosophy rather than either doing one’s duty or acting in order to bring about good consequences. A virtue ethicist is likely to give you this kind of moral advice: “Act as a virtuous person would act in your situation.”

Most virtue ethics theories take their inspiration from Aristotle who declared that a virtuous person is someone who has ideal character traits. These traits derive from natural internal tendencies, but need to be nurtured; however, once established, they will become stable. For example,  a virtuous person is someone who is kind across many situations over a lifetime because that is her character and not because she wants to maximize utility or gain favors or simply do her duty. Unlike deontological and consequentialist theories, theories of virtue ethics do not aim primarily to identify universal principles that can be applied in any moral situation. And virtue ethics theories deal with wider questions—“How should I live?” and “What is the good life?” and “What are proper family and social values?” -Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

What would an Aristotelian philosopher say about helping others? Probably that part of living a virtuous life comes from honing virtuous habits like charity, gratitude, and kindness, and that living virtuous is the most, and only, noble pursuit. Thus, we help other people because we want to be virtuous, and helping people is an intrinsically virtuous act that helps develop our character.

But that’s only one branch of philosophy. What do utilitarians, or consequentialists, say?

Utilitarianism is an ethical theory that determines right from wrong by focusing on outcomes. It is a form of consequentialism.

Utilitarianism holds that the most ethical choice is the one that will produce the greatest good for the greatest number. It is the only moral framework that can be used to justify military force or war. It is also the most common approach to moral reasoning used in business because of the way in which it accounts for costs and benefits. -Ethics Unwrapped

They would probably say that the goal of a good life is to perform actions that result in the most good in the world and avoid performing actions that result in putting out negative in the world. Putting aside that you might be helping the next Hitler, on the whole helping people puts good out into the world, and counteracts any bad you might put out into the world, especially if you do it selflessly.

According to utilitarianism, all the consequences of actions, both short and long term, direct and indirect are relevant to decisions. Thus it may be relevant to consider not only the benefit to the person directly affected by an action (for example, by being placed on a ventilator), but also others. This can be called ‘social benefit’ or social worth. -Julian Savulescu, Ingmar Persson, and Dominic Wilkinson

Finally, what would a deontologist say about this?

Deontological ethics, in philosophy, ethical theories that place special emphasis on the relationship between duty and the morality of human actions. The term deontology is derived from the Greek deon, “duty,” and logos, “science.”

In deontological ethics an action is considered morally good because of some characteristic of the action itself, not because the product of the action is good. Deontological ethics holds that at least some acts are morally obligatory regardless of their consequences for human welfare. Descriptive of such ethics are such expressions as “Duty for duty’s sake,” “Virtue is its own reward,” and “Let justice be done though the heavens fall.” -Britannica

In simpler terms:

Deontological Ethics (aka Duty Ethics) focuses on actions; it holds that actions are moral if they abide by rules laid down by an external source, regardless of what the outcomes might be. This is good in the sense that it underscores equality and human rights (e.g., we’re all equal under the law). But it’s problematic in the sense that it can create tensions if and when people abide by different rules. -Andreas Holmer

It shouldn’t be hard to believe that a deontologist would consider helping a morally good action intrinsic to itself, and we should help because we want to do as many morally good actions as possible.

In all three main schools of ethics I’ve highlighted thus far, we help because the intrinsic good outweighs the bad, but I want to bring in contractualism, too, because it’s not as much about what we owe to society as what we owe to each other.

Moral contractualism is the view that the rightness and wrongness of our conduct is somehow to be understood in terms of some kind of actual or counterfactual agreement. This must be distinguished from political contractualism, which adduces agreements in order to account for the justice or authority or legitimacy of political institutions or decisions. -Oxford Bibliographies

Tim Scanlon wrote about what we owe each other a lot, and I highly recommend checking him out, even if I don’t love the effective altruism movement that blossomed from his teachings. He argues that it’s part of the social contract we all agree on for living in a society.

Contractualism focuses each person’s mind on the burdens imposed on himself or herself, and on other individuals—and invites us to withdraw our burdens if we see other individuals suffering much more under a competing principle. -Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

The idea is that we enter into a social contract by living in a society, and the things we owe each other are the things we can mutually agree on together. In that understanding, it’s generally agreed that helping people is a moral imperative to lead a good life and foster a profitable society, so we should help because we want to create a better society for everyone.

There’s a ton of work on this topic (it kind of undergirds all of philosophy), but if you don’t wanna do all that work of reading, watch The Good Place, specifically seasons 3 and 4, which digs into this a lot.

Or, you can read How to Be Perfect, the creator’s excellent book on the philosophy behind the show.

When we apply Scanlon’s theory to the world we live in—the world comprising thousands of small moments and decisions and interactions—contractualism makes a pretty good divining rod for bad or unjust behavior. For example: If someone proposed a rule that said, “No driver should use the breakdown lanes on any highway unless there is an emergency,” no one could reasonably reject that rule. This rule, properly applied, would treat everyone the same[4] and serve public safety.

But if Wayne the Lamborghini Driver said, “Hey, I got a rule: no one can use the breakdown lanes except for Lamborghini drivers, who can drive wherever they want, because Lambos rule,” someone could (and likely would) reasonably reject that rule. Scanlon’s theory allows us to quickly identify behaviors that feel unjust or selfish, like when you’re stuck in heavy traffic and a rich dope in the obvious throes of a midlife crisis pulls his yellow Lamborghini into the breakdown lane and whizzes past you.

And when we apply contractualism to any of those little “free” decisions from earlier in this chapter, we’ll get the answers we’d expect: Would anyone veto a rule that says, “We should park our car, whenever we can, in a way that allows other people enough room to park”? No. Why would any reasonable person veto that? How about: “We can park wherever we want, and everyone else can go to hell”? Well, now, that’s definitely getting vetoed. Scanlon isn’t trying to turn us into flourishing, virtuous superpeople. He just wants us all—no matter our personalities or religious beliefs or political bents or pizza-topping preferences—to be able to look each other in the eye and justify our basic rules for how to live. -Michael Schur

In short, we should help people because, at the end of the day, we are a collective species that wins by winning together.

Now that we’ve talked about the philosophical, let’s talk about the biological. One of the main reasons we have been able to become the dominant species on the planet is from collective action and forming societies that interconnect us to each other. Just look at how we “beat” Neanderthals.

If you’re like most people, you imagined a hairy, hunched-over, dim-witted brute. And he’s probably carrying a giant club, right? That’s the popular depiction of neanderthals we grew up with—our close cousin who was just too dumb to survive.

But what if I told you that Neanderthals—our hominin cousins who we co-existed with in Europe for several thousand years— were superhuman? Research over the past few decades has revealed that Neanderthals were not only much stronger than homo sapiens, they were also smarter. Their brains were 15 percent larger. As Rutger Bregman explains in his book Humankind: “We may boast a superbrain, but they packed a gigabrain. We have a Macbook Air, and they got the Macbook Pro.”

The scientific consensus is that Neanderthals were incredibly intelligent—building fires, cooking food, making clothing, drawing cave paintings. Put another way, they were the prehistoric equivalent of the star football player who’s valedictorian and plays the guitar.

So how did humans become the dominant species on Earth? Did we win a giant, bloody hominin war against all odds?

The answer to that question is far less dramatic than a 300-style showdown, but far more meaningful. Humans became the dominant species thanks to two superpowers: teamwork and storytelling. -Joe Lazer

It’s baked into our very DNA to work with other people. It’s literally how we’re wired, but it’s also our competitive advantage as a species and as an individual business.

Competitive advantage refers to factors that allow a company to produce goods or services better or more cheaply than its rivals. These factors allow the productive entity to generate more sales or superior margins compared to its market rivals. -Investopedia

Additionally, by helping other people, we allow them to specialize in ways we can’t or won’t. In building multiple businesses, I have found that most of it is shoring up your deficiencies with other people who do the things you aren’t strong in to grow bigger.

Not only is it selfish to only help yourself, and goes against the organic code that makes us up, but it's also a terrible business decision.

If you’re focused on calculating profit margins, you will likely miss the nuance of what problems truly need solutions. You’re also less likely to connect with a base of customers so deeply that they spread the word on your behalf or stick with you after competition enters the market. You’re less likely to realize the real opportunities, because you are less likely to be solving a real problem. 

If you’re focused on high margins and high volume, this will often lead you to a market that is already peaking and nearing consolidation. Volume usually comes from the market having matured and high margins attract competition. One should be wary of this scenario-if it’s too good to be true, there’s a good chance you’re late to the party. This is the classic problem with chasing money: You’re one step too late and end up facing market consolidation before you’re ready to contend with it. Any value you may feel that you are contributing is likely redundant or inferior to others already entrenched in the market.

A similar challenge awaits if you limit yourself to looking for opportunities that fit your lifestyle. If you limit yourself to opportunities that you could pursue in your free time or while trekking the globe, for example, there’s a good chance you’ll land upon a thin business model that’s easy to setup and quick to generate cashflow, but never invests in building your value chain (better sourcing, delivery, customer service, etc). Affiliate marketing, drop-ship e-commerce websites, and “me too” mobile apps that add minimal new value to the market are examples that come to mind.  

With these businesses, you are only contributing a thin layer of value over the top of other businesses who have made the necessary investments and own the entire value chain; you are putting a metaphoric cherry on top of someone else’s ice cream sundae and pretending it your own. But this won’t last for long. Businesses that  facilitate your profit margins will eventually capture the inefficiency you’re exploiting, particularly if you do not make significant investments to reinforce your long-term value and capability to stand on your own as a business.  

Neither chasing money nor chasing a lifestyle gives you the opportunity to build a lasting or meaningful business. They are temporary opportunities that only exist because of a gap between market demand and what suppliers are yet able to provide. Once the inefficiency of the market is corrected and there’s no longer that temporarily gap between supply and demand, the jig is up. And if you are focused on enriching yourself rather than helping others, this is the sort of opportunity you will most naturally align yourself with. -Neal Cabage

Every good thing in my career came from collaborators, ex-students, friends, fans, etc, helping me out. I’ve met all my best collaborators through giving and made hundreds of thousands of dollars from the “free help” I’ve given over the years. Not just from charging people for information, either. From co-writing books, and consulting on projects, and from selling lines of business to people that returned more than I ever made by myself.

When you help others grow, that growth is reflected back on you. If you level up your network, you level up too. Every good network pulls each other up when they get to the next network, and that allows you to introduce with increasingly more lucrative behaviors with more successful collaborators.

There’s no way you can collect all the lucky breaks, and by having other people out there watching your back, you give yourself even more chances to win.

That doesn’t mean you can help everyone the same way. I talk about strategic helpfulness in How to Become a Successful Author.

There is a difference between being helpful and being strategically helpful.

Being helpful to everyone means that you expend the same energy to help everyone an equal amount. If you find yourself helping everybody equally, then you will find you have no energy left for yourself.

A trick I have used for years is to be strategically helpful. This means that while you help everyone, you do not help everybody at the same level, or expend the same energy helping everybody. That way you retain some energy for yourself.

I will give you a few examples from my own life.

Many, many people ask me questions about how to be successful, as you can imagine, and giving each one thirty minutes would eat away at my ability to function at a high level. So, in my attempt to be strategically helpful, I created a database of answers on The Complete Creative, along with courses, which I can reference to anybody that wants advice. The advice is still just as good, but instead of me retyping it every time somebody asked, I created a resource which doesn't zap all my time.

Another way to be strategically helpful is to create a platform which you can use to help other people, while still helping yourself.

When I was a much younger creator, I knew even less than I know now, and I wanted to meet with people who knew more than me so I could learn. I didn’t have any money, though, and busy creators weren't willing to just give me their time for free. That’s why I started my podcast, where I interviewed creators about how they built their business.

This helped the people I interviewed sell more books and reach a bigger audience. In return, I got to meet and learn from people who were further along the journey than me. In fact, my courses and books are made up of things I learned from those interviews. This is another example of being strategically helpful. Yes, I gave people exposure to my audience, but in return, I grew my audience and was able to align myself with successful creators.

Then there are people with huge audiences, and I will bend over backward for them. A big brand sent an email and backer update to their huge list during my Cthulhu is Hard to Spell Kickstarter campaign, which led to over $1,000.00 in direct sales. However, before they did so, I made sure to have my team create fan art they could use and gave them as much promotion as possible to ensure they had a good experience with me.

It helped that we were friends, and I would have helped them even if they weren’t helping me out. When they decided to help me, though, I made sure to go into overdrive. That is another example of being strategically helpful. I saw a brand that was way further along than me, and I bent over backward to help them so that they could pull me along. Even though it took a lot of time and I was only helping one brand instead of many, the audience they helped me reach was massive, and perfectly aligned with my brand, so it was more than worth it.

Those are all ways to be helpful, but not necessarily equally helpful to everybody, so that you can retain energy for yourself. You’re still being helpful to lot of people, just not all in the same way.

Or as I like to call it, being strategically helpful.

Helpful people really want to give all of themselves, and it's amazing, but they don't protect themselves so they can move their own projects forward. If you are strategically helpful, you can help everybody and still keep energy in the tank for your own projects.

So what do you do? Still help people, is my answer. I don’t really care if other people hate me, or like me. That’s their karma.

What I put out into the universe is mine, and I choose to help people anyway, even if they don’t appreciate it. Even if they hate it. Even if they scorn me for it.

Because some people don’t, and there’s enough of those people to more than make up for those that wish me ill.

Even if they didn’t, I want this industry to be better, and the world to be better, whether people appreciate me for it or not. I don’t care about getting back what I put into something. I care about planting trees that will outlive me.

Life isn’t a function of X inputs leading to Y outputs, and I would not care to live in it for very long if it was like that, either. Life is more interesting and complex than that and doing this work is how I contribute my little bit.

How did you like that one?

• How do you think about helping people?

• How do you deal with negative pushback to your helpfulness?

• Do you ever get fed up with it and wonder why you even try?

Let us know in the comments.

If you saw value here, I hope you’ll consider becoming a paid member to help foster more of this type of thing. As a member, you’ll get access to over 725 exclusive posts, including books, courses, lessons, lectures, fiction books, and more, or you can give us a one-time tip to show your support.

Photo by nikko macaspac on Unsplash