Error Of Category

Relationships often suffer from poor communication and through the use of our faculties of reason we can figure out where we go wrong.  One area that is often misunderstood is the realm of categories.  We discuss ideas relative to an understanding of the category that contains them.  If we say someone is acting altruistically, then we are signifying that they possess certain qualities associated with the category of altruism.  Granted, altruism has a specific definition, but there is an interpretation of behaviors and actions that goes along with that definition.  There is space for judgment as to whether someone has acted in accordance with the altruistic archetype.  People run amok when they describe their actions using inaccurate language.

Let’s look at an example that shows how errors in categories can cause confusion. A man, we’ll call him John, has fallen on hard times—losing his job.  After several months of unemployment he is evicted from his apartment and calls on a family member, we’ll call him Peter.  Peter says, “Sure, you can stay with me as long as you need.”  About a week later both people attend church, where Peter tells a friend that poor John has fallen on hard times and will be staying with him for a while. A few weeks go by and Peter asks John to help him remodel his bathroom, since John is staying there rent free.  A few more weeks go by and Peter begins charging John rent, saying, “You can pay me back when you land a job.”  Still, more time goes by and John finally lands a job, he now owes Peter $2,000 in back rent.  

Did Peter behave altruistically, charitably, or was it something else?  Altruism is an unselfish concern for the well-being of others.  This means that you help others even if there is no direct benefit to you.  Charity is very similar to altruism in the sense that it is a benevolent act, but it can have motivating factors that provide a benefit to the person performing the act.  An example would be donating some furniture and getting an itemized receipt for your taxes.  

In the case of Peter, the situation started out as an altruistic endeavor.  John did not have adequate shelter, which is considered a basic human need and Peter provided it, no questions asked.  Peter then chose to start telling people about how he was helping John.  This elevates Peter’s status in the eyes of other people in his church community.  This shifts his act from one with a purely altruistic nature to one with a more charitable nature, since Peter is benefiting with regards to reputation.  

As time goes by perhaps Peter doesn’t think John is trying hard enough to find a job or maybe he sees an opportunity to get some extra help.  Regardless of the reasoning, the act of benevolence starts to resemble a type of employment.  I’ll give you room and board if you help me remodel this bathroom becomes a tacit agreement.  Except, John isn’t really a free agent.  He has fallen on hard times, so he can not afford to tell Peter no.  Of course Peter knows this.  Now, this doesn’t mean Peter is being nefarious.  What it means is that whatever initially motivated Peter to help John is no longer enough to “compensate” him for his kindness.  Maybe John is more than willing to help with the job (and it has become a job due to the exchange of value and compensation) or maybe he would rather continue filling out applications, visiting employment agencies, and going on interviews.  After the remodel job is complete, Peter decides that the relationship should shift again to one of tenancy.  After all, he reasons that he has spent money on utilities, food, and other supplies that John has used.  It is only justified to expect repayment of some kind for the troubles.  The only problem is John has no money and Peter doesn’t want to give him the boot because he doesn’t want John going around telling people that he kicked him out.  So, Peter calculates what the rough estimate of costs would be and then tells John you can pay me back when you get on your feet.  This creates a kind of informal contract between the two (formal if written down).  

Once John has found a job he is left feeling confused about the whole experience.  On the one hand he is grateful he didn’t have to sleep on the street or live at a shelter.  On the other hand, he feels like Peter sought to profit from the situation after promising to help without specific conditions.  Profit isn’t really compatible with charity, as John sees it.  While this example may be somewhat absurd, I think we can all agree that we have experienced these kinds of situations and we ask ourselves where did things go wrong?  Why do we feel badly about a situation that we should feel good about?

I would argue that a great deal of disagreements come from poor communication that results from an error of category.  We say we are going to act a certain way that has a universal definition, but we realize after the fact that we don’t actually want to act that way or can’t afford to act that way.  The situation would have been made a lot better if Peter had said, “Sure you can stay with me.  I’ve got a project I need help with and when you can I’ll need some rent.  Are you OK with that?” By being upfront about the situation all parties are on the same page.  Most of our interactions are conditional, so it makes sense to clearly outline the conditions from the beginning.  

When we think about acting virtuously we need to remember to only promise what we can deliver and to be authentic in our actions, regardless of whether we are in a position of power or not.  This is what it means to act in a magnanimous way.