Originally Posted by Mike Johnson
Doesn't the 'reward' and the 'filming for Youtube' sort of drain the sincerity from a good deed. Certainly the recipient of said deed will still benefit, but when the whole purpose for the good deed existing in the first place is a) potential financial gain for the deed performer b) self-promotion for the award giver(Jungleman) it seems a little off.
I never thought good samaritans plotted, strategized and filmed being good samaritan's, they just were. In fact, doesn't a 'good deed' by definition require sacrifice, not personal gain?
I'm probably wrong here but first thing that popped into my head.
While I totally understand your reaction, I think you're being a little overly-cynical. Many many good deeds are rewarded in one way or another, and it encourages people to continue (or start) performing them. People are rewarded with money (tax breaks for charitable donations), recognition (key to the city and a parade), sex (hot girl will think you're awesome if you save a cat from a burning building), happy feelings (seratonin release in the brain), quid pro quo good deeds ("you paid for lunch last time, I got this one, buddy."), friendship & an increased sense of community, and plenty more. It's these incentives that drive our desire to perform good deeds, even if we don't consciously realize why we're doing it.
I see absolutely nothing wrong with what JM is doing, and I applaud him for doing so. It's like if a big corporation offered a million dollar reward for anyone who can invent a better way to provide water to villages in dry climates. Do we say "How dare you! People should invent better ways to provide water to villages on their own!"? Of course not. Rewards incentivize people to perform good deeds creating a win-win-win-win situation. IMO rewarding a good deed does not diminish it.