In 433BC, just before the Peloponnesian War, the island of Corcyra (later called Corfu) and the Greek city-state of Corinth stood at the brink of conflict.

Both cities were trying to win over the Athenians to their side. Whoever could convince Athens to their side were likely to win the war. The stakes were very high. Ambassadors were sent from both parties to negotiate with Athens.

When the ambassador for Corcyra spoke, he spoke with great honesty and bluntness. He admitted the island never helped Athens before, and in fact even allied itself with Athens enemies. There were no ties of friendship or gratitude between Corcyra and Athens. The ambassador admitted he had come to Athens out of fear and concern for Corcyra’s safety. The only thing he could offer was an alliance of shared mutual interest. Corcyra had a navy only surpassed in size and strength by Athens own. Thus an alliance between the two states would create a formidable force that could intimidate the rival state of Sparta. That was all Corcyra had to offer.

The ambassador for Corinth now spoke. He spoke in a manner that was much more lively and passionate — a sharp contrast to the dry colorless approach of the Corcyran. Corinth and Athens had a strong relationship in the past, he had talked about all Corinth had done for Athens in the past. He asked how it would look to Athens other allies if the city put an agreement with a former enemy over one with a present friend, one that had served Athens interest loyally. He referred to the ‘Hellenic law’, and the need to repay Corinth for all it’s good deeds. He finally continued to list the many services Corinth had performed for Athens and the importance of showing gratitude to one’s friends. In essence, the Corinth ambassador was attempting to guilt Athens.

The Athenian’s debated and voted on the issue. They voted overwhelmingly to ally with the first city, Corcyra over Corinth.

So why would they choose a former enemy that had not done anything previously for Athens over an ally state that had?

Corcyra’s ambassador understood the type of people they were talking to. They essentially reverse-engineered the individual’s character values and philosophies in order to speak ‘Athens language’ — in terms of what’s valuable to them.

They understood the Athenian’s were realists. All the rhetoric and emotional appeals in the world (Corinth) could not match a good pragmatic argument, especially one that added to their power. What the Corinthian ambassador didn’t realise was that his references to Corinth’s previous generosity only irritated the Athenian’s. Subtly asking them to feel guilty and putting them under obligation — people don’t want to feel like their being pressured and controlled by guilt. Additionally, the Athenian’s couldn’t care less about past favors and friendly favors. The lesson is, there’s going to be many who don’t care about what you did for them yesterday. They’re going to ask, what are you going to do for them today

Most action and behaviour can be linked in some form to our own self-interest. There may not be any completely selfless action that one can take. It’s easy to get confused by the superficiality of a selfless act often forgetting the pleasure and benefit it brings our psyche.

While volunteering or donating to a charity may be really positive acts that bring value to many people’s lives. There are many who act under the moral guise of being completely selfless in order to feel superior to those who do not act similarly to them in an effort to trick themselves into thinking they are not acting in their own self-interest. The irony is that feeling of superiority they gain from appearing to act selflessly is placating their psyche, in turn feeding their own self-interest.