To think a good deed isn't selfless if you post it on social media?

[Edgeofthedesert]

Someone I know witnessed a car accident and stayed with the man until the emergency services arrived, she then took a photo of the accident and posted on Facebook what she had done to help.

Another person bought food for a homeless man. He filmed the entire thing, he bought him a McDonald's and was even telling the woman serving him it was for the homeless guy outside.

I just don't get it. You're doing a good thing, do people really need the recognition for it as well?

@Bossybitch

I do quite a lot of advertising of my 'good deeds' on social media - it's a good way to get people involved.

Mine are normally along the lines of '6h spent sorting and 1 van load full of donated goods for refugees in Greece ready for shipping. Also, 6h of laughing and bantering with some amazing people - join me next week?'. I then follow this up with a factual post explaining why stuff is needed and whom it benefits.

You may want people to help, and also spend all day 'bagging stuff up for refugees,' but you do sound like you're bragging and craving praise, whether you intend it this way or not.

@Trills

There is no such thing as true altruism.

That's incorrect. Altruism is not defined as 'doing something for someone else that doesn't make you feel good.'

Google it, and the meaning is basically the same everywhere, but this is from the Cambridge English Dictionary.

Altruism is when we act to promote someone else's welfare, even if it's at a risk or cost to ourselves.

And from wikipedia.

Altruism or selflessness is the principle or practice of concern for the welfare of others.

There is nothing whatsoever, about being altruistic, that means you can't feel good about the good deed you did.

I also fail to see how anyone can do a good deed and not feel good and happy that they did it! (Still no need to tell people about it, and brag though.)

No it's a show, a fake generosity. Not something I would appreciate. Do a good deed, keep it to yourself and treat it as something normal and not heroic...

Trills are you Cersei Lannister?

I'm less drunk than Cersei Lannister

The argument over whether "pure" altruism exists is not something that I made up, and it is relevant in this case because the OP is asking about whether seeking/getting positive attention nullifies the "selflessness" of an act.

Wikipedia says "Much debate exists as to whether "true" altruism is possible in human psychology."

BBC article on the subject

I think social media has helped people feel at ease with their self-obsessed nature.

You're not wrong OP.

We do get the same on here too. Usually in a form of a false aibu.
"Aibu to wrap my brand new £170 scarf round the child I saw shivering at the bus stop and give the homeless chap down the road a cup of tea".

Clearly looking for praise, not thinking there's any chance of being unreasonable.

It's known as washing your clean linen in public, I think.

Also telling people what you have done.

I agree with the OP.

I think BossyBitch it's referring specifically to I've spent 6 hours doing this that would have me rolling my eyes (as you're clapping yourself on the back), while something along the lines of "is anyone up for helping sorting through some stuff for refugees in Greece next week" wouldn't.

But well done you, anyway.

I hate it, a good deed should be quiet and discreet, posting it over social media, complete with photos, cancels it out. Its saying look at me, look how good I am. I help people out, buy food for homeless people when I can, but I would not dream of putting it on social media. It is different promoting a charity or Shelter, if you are helping out there and want people to give or help out. But buying a meal for a homeless person, and filming it and putting it on social media is tasteless. Did the person give you permission to put their photo on FAcebook, I doubt it.

Posting pictures of people or accidents without permission is gross in general.

Posting "I bought a cup of tea for a homeless person" or "I packed old clothes for refugees" does not cancel out what you have done. The homeless person still has a cup of tea. The refugees still have the old clothes.

Posting it also reminds other people that
a - this is a thing that people do
b - you could do this too

If you find what your friends are posting annoying, have you considered that you maybe just don't like them very much?

Pretty sure all religions advocate giving charity discreetly. The Quran says your left hand shouldn't know what your right hand is doing (I.e. When you give charity, hide it from others).

See, it depends, though, doesn't it?

What if keeping quiet about the things you're involved in actually makes them less effective? That's certainly the case for fundraising as well as for anything that needs large-ish numbers of volunteers.

I'm all pro-effectiveness when it comes to so-called good deeds. So, in some cases, large corporate citizenship programs produce more results than Jane down the road doing something on the quiet. But so what? This might make Jane a 'better person' than a CEO who sees an opportunity to brag about corporate responsibility - but at the end of the day, Jane will have ended up being the reason why someone has a pair of new shoes and the CEO will have given 2k people the chance to train in a useful skill. Motive is not a good predictive measure of outcome in this type of thing.

I'm quite open about the fact that I a) do a lot of fundraising and volunteering but also that b) that there are some rather selfish motives involved alongside a desire to help: if it weren't for my guilt at being massively over-privileged needing to be dealt with, I wouldn't be doing half of it. But the thing is: it doesn't matter: a pound donated is a pound donated - regardless of whether it's the hard earned savings of someone struggling on minimum wage or a donation by someone trying to alleviate their MC guilt or your toxic uncle jack leaving everything to charity in order to make sure the family gets nothing.

To claim otherwise is putting a lot too much focus on the giver as opposed to those in need and is, ironically, quite sanctimonious, IMO. Surely if you're hungry and freezing and someone offers you a sandwich and a blanket, you're not going to fret about whether the person who paid for it was pure enough in their motives?

I find bragging distasteful and puts an unpleasant spin on your good deed. Taking pictures to accompany it is disrespectful!

But you still don't need to mention specifically I did 6 hours - because it comes over as I didn't just do one hour, or two hours, I did 6 whole hours, how great I am! The OP is nothing about large corporate citizenship programs or charities. Of course they need advertising.

As I said, if you'd just said "anyone interested in helping sorting through donations for refugees in Greece that would be great" it still flags up you're doing it and advertises the need for others to help without being seen to blow your own trumpet.

Or I am helping in the soup kitchen on X road at 6pm, we need volunteers and donations if anybody wants to help, is fine. Boasting is not, its distasteful.

annie, I have no issues with that criticism - at all.

I'm not in marketing, exactly, so I tend to wing it when trying to guilt-trip motivate people to contribute. I'm also quite numbers focussed (due to what I do for a living) and possibly default back to a figures based style for this reason. Feedback taken, happy to try a more invititation-like approach. Maybe it works

I hate it.

My niece filmed herself buying some soup and a sausage roll then giving it to a homeless man. She posted it on Fb and her friends were all "well done Hun!" 🙄

We were coming back from the Olympics when a small lorry clipped the back of a car in front spinning it right across the dual carriage way, into the barrier on the hard shoulder. Obviously we stopped, but DS2 (who was 15/16) jumped out of the car and ran to help the lady in the car. She was fine but very, very shaken. He sat with her (DH had joined him by now and I was calling 999) and talked to her calming her down. He was actually brilliant and she wrote a lovely letter to him thanking him for what he did. It never made it anywhere near Fb.

Why specify 6 hours anyway? If 6 hours is the minimum you'd want someone to do then surely you word it differently - i.e. "we're looking for volunteers but we would need you to commit to a minimum of 6 hours". What I'm saying is stating the time you spent is irrelevant in respect of getting people involved and just comes across as you patting yourself on the back - not just for doing the work but for the length of time you gave.

By taking the approach Aeroflotgirl mentions you can add something like "even a few hours would be a great help".

Perhaps it'll work more as people won't be put off thinking they also need to do 6 hours too to keep up with you.

Hate this shit too. Do the good deed, by all means that is lovely and human nature at its best. Why some feel the need to then broadcast how great they are on social media is cringe worthy and beyond me. Seen more than I care to remember of the "look at me feeding the homeless guy" pictures than I'd care to and always think how fucking exploitative and humiliating for the human being involved. Anything for a few 'likes' and "well done huns" for some egocentric tossers

At my previous work place I got 2-5 emails a week from people fundraising for a charity and every f......ing time it was one line or less about the charity, one line about how to pay and 20-40 lines about the person doing the fundraising "As I feel", "MY goal is, "MY experience with this". Oh, ffs if you want to collect money for this charity it would be better cost/benefit wise if you just gave them a weeks wages or you took extra work to give the extra money you earn for the charity or if you volunteered at a charity shop. It takes a really long time to train for a marathon which that person will run "for charity" . What if they had spent that time actually fundraising instead? And we were a lot of people at that work place. Those emails must cost them one years manpower a year in unproductive time.

Bit shocked that the person who was holding the hand of the child in the M1 accident put it on social media. That is in bad taste, surely.
I asked DS who has been fpos at several incidents and he said he wouldn't do it, but people do.

I was shocked at how inappropriate it was. What went through that mans head to think I need to start a Facebook live video?

I also didn't like the photographs of him posing with a scratch on his arm. A bloody scratch? Right well innocent people lost their lives. It detracted from the real tragedy in my opinion.