Should We Really 'Canonize' or Believe our politicians?

When French Philosopher, Auguste Comte, the father of Sociology coined the term altruism, he set the stage for much debate as to whether "true" altruism is possible. I will simply define altruism by giving its antithesis; Selfishness or technically, psychological egoism. You become or your actions are defined as altruistic if in performing them, you don’t expect to get anything in return. Altruism or selflessness is the principle or practice of concern for the welfare of the society.

Do you think, in relation to our politics and the key players therein, it is possible to single out an individual who we can describe as altruistic? That, in seeking to assume political power, it is purely for the good of the citizens and not a scintilla of his or her intentions is or can practically be linked to personal gratification. That, this individual will spend sleepless nights scheming how to outfox rivals and spend a great deal of personal fortune in order to win an elective post. That, the victory is predicated upon not his or her own benefits but only for the good of the citizens. Is there such a man or woman?

Ponder this difficulty. When I perform an altruistic task, I am happy about. Does this happiness constitute personal benefits. Could I have embarked on a selfless endeavor in order to to sit back in satisfaction and the the attendant benefits after the completion of such an altruistic task. Well, the theory of psychological egoism  suggests that no act of sharing, helping or sacrificing can be described as truly altruistic, as the actor may receive an intrinsic  reward in the form of personal gratification. The validity of this argument depends on whether intrinsic rewards qualify as "benefits." For instance, if you help someone, chances are you will get praised for that without prompting the praise. That is an intrinsic benefit.

Psychological egoism posits that, humans are always motivated by self-interest, even in what seem to be acts of altruism. It claims that, when people choose to help others, they do so ultimately because of the personal benefits that they themselves expect to obtain, directly or indirectly, from doing so. We have widely acclaimed global heroes and heroines reputed to have done monumental selfless deeds to humanity. Is there a chance that, behind the public veil of selflessness, lies greedy, cunning and selfish mortals who ably discern legend-making opportunities and takes them before anyone does. It could also be the case that the good born out of their actions is a pure accident that actually surprises even the doer of that action. Do you see sense in this?

One would argue that, the best way to judge the actions of our politicians is to first establish the intentions of their actions and plans. Is it possible? Or do we just vote them into power and wait to see what good comes out of their leadership. Or should we judge them for their past deeds which we have ‘established’ could have been accidental. As humans, we have something any other member of the animal kingdom lacks. The power of ratiocination, which is simply defined as methodical and logical reasoning. We must clearly be able to define terms. What is ‘good’, what constitutes a ‘hero or heroine’. Clear definations will give us a clear understanding of ethical matters. To effectively do this, we must be able to reason and rationalise. We must be driven by reason and not emotions which completely clouds the former. Probably when we do this, in future, the next big global weapon shall be rational arguments. Rationalization from its philosophical sense has never and will never fail humanity!