Loved for who you are, or what you do?

A friend of mine shared a reflection in the group chat that's had us debating nonstop for 3 days straight. It comes on the form of a very simple question:

There's nuance to the way he proposed the question, but it boils down to this:

"Do you want to be loved for who you are, or what do you?"

Ponder this question for a minute. How does it make you feel?

Being loved for who we are is appealing. It means we're gonna be loved even through all our fuckups, all our mistakes. We deserve love even in our worst days, when we're being our most chaotic, flawed selves. Love is an infinite resource, and we have no reason to withhold it from others.

But being loved as a result of our actions feels more deserving. It's a kind of love we have to earn, so we appreciate it more. Everything we work hard for we value more. It's more genuine and meaningful.

So let's take both options to the extreme:

On one hand, let's imagine the living embodiment of goodness. A being of pure light and love. This person IS good, but they're an erudite who lives far away in the mountains. They don't ever interact with anybody. They don't ever "do" good.

In a world where most people take more than they give, simply being neutral can be seen as a positive contribution. Having no carbon footprint means they don't affect the environment in a negative way. If their story ever got out, they might inspire other people to live the same way. That could have a positive impact in the rest of the world.

And let's get all mystical for a moment. If this being of pure love channeled al their energy into a deep meditation, they might shift the world's energy in a positive way.

In contrast, let's think of the opposite. Let's imagine a terrible, despicable person. They're a sociopath that hates everyone, and is hated by everyone. But they do great things. Their motivations might be terrible, like donating millions to charity, but only to avoid taxes. They might find the cure for cancer, but only to get the accolades and recognition. They may feed and house the homeless, but only to get likes on social media. The reasons behind the actions might be bad, but their actions are still good. They still have a huge positive impact.

Think of somebody like Mr. Beast. I know little of his motivations and personal life, but he has a long list of well-documented good deeds.

Things like donating 20,000 shoes, building 100 wells in Africa, or cleaning millions of pounds of trash from the beach, and a long list of etc.

Some people argue that he's only doing it for the clicks. That these might be stunts to secure his place as the world's most subscribed Youtuber. Or that he suffers from white savior complex.

But the man has still built 100 wells in Africa.

It is unquestionable that he has positively affected thousands of lives.

Good deeds with bad intentions, are still good deeds.

And yet, does it balance out?

Some billionaires amass their fortunes off exploiting their workers, and stomping out competition. They donate campaign money to corrupt politicians, in exchange of policy that benefits their bottom line. Can it be made right by donating a small percent of their fortune?

Is AirBnB good, for helping retirees make an extra income renting out unused rooms? Or is it bad for destroying the housing market and making it hard for so many people to find an affordable place to live?

Is Tesla good, for revolutionizing the electric car industry? Their viable alternative to fossil fuel-powered transportation helps slow down the climate disaster. Or is it bad, for selling carbon credits to other companies who continue to pollute?

So clearly, there's no absolutes here. It's not all good person, bad deeds, or bad person, good deeds. There's nuance there.

I propose a different, third option:

There's no difference about who you are, and what you do.

You can't be a virtuous monk, possessing all the secrets of the universe, but living in solitude and call yourself good. You're not contributing to the world, but rather being selfish. You can't claim to be good if you don't do good. On the other hand, it doesn't matter if you're burdened with guilt and regret. Ff you still perform good deeds and help others, there's goodness within you. Even if you're motivated by selfishness or ego, you're still making the world a better place.

We're all very good a justifying our actions to ourselves. We're all the heroes of our own story, after all. Some people convince themselves that stealing is ok because they're doing it for their family. They may tell themselves that "life isn't fair and that person doesn't deserve that much". Hitler justified to himself all the atrocities he committed, by telling himself he was saving the aryan race.

Actions are more objective in their impact. The egotistical pursuit of a Nobel Prize might lead someone to discover a medical breakthrough. These findings could improve millions of lives. Similarly, the selfish pursuit of wealth could drive someone to revolutionize an entire industry for the better.

And that's the thing: Who we are, and what we do, are one and the same. The quality of our character is determined by the actions we take. The narratives we create about ourselves are biased and subjective. The actions we take that others can observe are more objective. These are the reasons we are known for, and the character people attribute to us.

At the end of the day, you can't "be good" without "doing good". So get out there, and do the best you can.