The_Dean strolled closer to a large group that had gathered to watch two hobo's fight over a bottle of booze. Both men had a good grip on the bottle, and it seemed like this tug-o-war could go on for a while. The sharp retort of The_Dean's .38 drew everyones attention. He stood quietly for a moment with his pistol still pointing in the air...then slowly leveled it, not on the hobo's, but on the bottle they both seemed to have a death grip on.

Ok, if one of you gentlemen lets go of the bottle, the other may have it. On the other hand, if neither of you let go, I will then shoot it out of your hands. You have 5 seconds to make a decision.

5...4...The look on both mens face was priceless. Selfish feelings were most likely going through both of their minds as the count started, hoping the other would let go.

3...2...That quickly changed as the countdown continued, both men letting go of the bottle at the same time. The look changed to anger as they saw their precious bottle smash at their feet.

Two simultanious acts of selflessness just had the same result as two simultanious acts of selfishness. I'd love to hear everyones opinion as to what the moral of this story might be.

As The_Dean waited for responses from the crowd that had now grown substantialy larger by now, he slipped the hobo's a bill and told them to go share a new bottle on him.

Whether you are selfish or selfless, you still end up homeless?

The moral of the story? Carry something with more than 6 rounds if your are going to  piss off an entire mob of homeless drunks.

I am sure The_Dean could beat down these homeless alcoholics with one hand if that was the point he was trying to make.

I think the moral of the story here is there are two clear choices in every situation. The selfless path in which you enrich the lives of others, and the selfish path in which you enrich yourself. Sometimes it will pay off more to be selfless and hopefully get something from the person you have given to. There is no guarantee that you will get anything, but bore of a chance than if there is nothing left. On the other hand, you can be selfish and reap all the benefits, but there is that chance that others will not look upon your gluttony with pleasure.

This example merely shows that the world needs both kinds of people for their to be a give and a take. If both men had not given up, the bottle would have been shot. When they both gave up, neither of them was selfish enough to hold their grip, resulting in nothing still. The worlds needs givers and takers.

I guess what WildTurkey said was a little better than what I could come up with..

I do apologize Ed.  On first glance I too thought that The_Dean was just trying to harass some hobos our of sheer boredom.  Upon further reflection of the story I noticed a deeper meaning.  It's a gift and a curse sometimes.

The moral of this story is simple. If you are to carry around booze, choose a plastic container that looks like glass. That way, the other guy will think it will break and you just quickly grab it when it falls to the ground. So... moral is... always plan ahead for anything!

I think Wild Turkey hit the nail on the head. But let me throw a wrench into this thought process. If you take out the variable of the gun-toting man forcing the men to make a decision, what happens then? Theoretically, the two men would continue the futile effort of selfishness until one of them gives. So, the moral still holds true, yes? Or is there a difference once the variable is subtracted?

I personally think the variable just quickens the decision process. Weather or not their is a guy point a gun at them, the results would be the same. One of them would tire, their moral would weaken, their drive will falter. There is no timetable for when this will happen, but all men have their point of breaking. As I said, the gunman just sped up their decision making.

The likely outcome would have been one selfish person winning the bottle, while the selfless (by force or fatigue) will lose out of the precious liquor. You could apply this same equation to many instances found in mafia life on a day to day basis. We all have to make that choice, and it will likely change from situation to next. The important thing is that we don't lose sight of the big picture become so selfish that no one wants anything to do with you. That has been the downfall of many great men.

WildTurkey shows great insight with his answer, while BigDaddy also has a valid point. I will state where I was going with this moral first, then we can discuss removing myself as a variable.

My moral to this would be "Always know your competition." Doing the 'right thing' will not always come to the desired outcome, but knowing your competition gives you the added option of making a decision based on balance. It may sound funny, but knowing and understanding what a competitor might do or feel in a situation could in fact give you an edge; not to beat them everytime, but to keep your business balanced, and therefore more pleasurable and profitable for all.

Anthony listens to everyone's version of the moral of the story and realizes he might have discounted a much deeper meaning in favor of a simpler one. 

While I think my proposed moral valid and quite likely, I think I will explore the deeper implications of this story. First off we have WildTurkey's astute observation that only at first blush does is appear to be simple harassment of unpredictable drunks. One must look deeper into WHY would The_Dean be there to begin with. The idea that he had any interest in a single bottle of booze is ludicrous. This is a man with connections, he can move cases of the stuff. So it occured to me the booze is just a metaphor, but for what? Well it then occurred to me that since the homeless drunks were fighting over it, it must represent something valuable and needed by both. That being the case it struck me that in no way does that fit unless of course the drunks themselves are just metaphors. Then it hit me. The drunks were mobsters, the ones standing around  were other mobsters. The guy with the gun was a certain kind of leader, and that bottle? Money of course. And so it became clear to me. This is an indictment of those who would gather their wealth and power through fear. Threaten your members, demand their wealth be shared and everyone can end up with nothing except a gun. The moral is that you must treat your members with respect, or they may not hang on to whats valuable and instead turn to anger.

Perhaps another outcome would have been if one of the alcoholics had dropped the bottle, pulled out a gun and blasted The_Dean in the face.  A real possibility in the land of make believe I suppose.

Listens in on The Dean making his point

Valid, indeed. Knowing your competition is a huge advantage. But let me make sure I understand you correctly. You are saying that, by knowing your competition, you can make a conscious decision to commit a selfless act because it will then work to your advantage later? I may be inclined to disagree.

Based on the context of our lifestyle, I think it's a rare thing when someone has a selfless act. Not too many men or women would take the proverbial bullet with few exceptions. I imagine many would do so for their leader, and perhaps close friends. But it sounds like what you are saying is that "doing the right thing" i.e. taking the (fictional) bullet for someone other than family, is not advised; because while it is selfless, it is not to your advantage. Obviously that's correct. No man is rewarded for his own death.

However, when taken OUT of the mafia context, I think this is incorrect. Think Military, Police & fire forces. Not to mention doctors, nurses, etc. If we lived in an objective world where each individual only did what was solely best for themselves; while it may survive for a time, eventually it will crumble.

Lastly, I do partially disagree with the point about the gun only hastens the decision between the two men. It does, but how often are quick decisions always the right decision? So yes, it forces the two struggeling men to decide between the choice of selfless or selfish much faster, but where it may have been a quick tuffle before, now their adrenaline is pumping and their decision may not be one they would have chose if not forced at gun point.

The situation could have come to a much different conclusion had I given those men more time to think about it, but then my point may have been harder to make. If they had more time, one of the men could have said, "Ok, I'm gonna let go now, but I would hope that you remember this in future, and maybe shoot a couple drinks my way."

At this point we could argue the fact that the seemingly selfless act isn't so 'selfless'. Giving up something now for what you can receive later isn't selfish though, its just good business. If you conduct all business in a cutthrout manner, do you really think those people wil want to deal with you in the future?

As for them shooting me in the face; I just gave them money to go buy more booze, but you never know...maybe they will buy pistols and ambush me on the way home.