Does a selfless act really exist?

[Moriarty]

I'm of the opinion that there's no such thing as a truly selfless act. Think of any act of sacrifice you have ever made or ever heard of, and ask "why?". What motivated the action beyond a superficial level?

Example scenario:

Joe hears through the grapevine that Bob is having difficulty making ends meet and providing for his family of 4. Joe knows Bob would not accept outright charity, so late at night Joe slips some money into an envelope and puts it in Bob's mailbox. Nobody besides the giver will ever know who the anonymous giver of the gift was.

What motivated Joe to make this apparent act of selflessness? Was it really and truly selfless in the first place?

[Malotis]

I believe that (at least to a degree) Joe feels better about himself for helping out someone in need. It adds purpose to his life if Joe believes that through his actions he's making the world a "better place."

[Lights]

The example would not be selfless if Joe got some emotional gratification from the act.

The only way an act could truly be selfless is if it went against the self. In other words, it has to be an act for another person that completely contradicts the natural self preservation instinct of the ego. An example might be a soldier throwing himself on a grenade to save his comrades. As there is no guarantee he will survive and he is acting purely on an altruistic desire, the act could be considered purely selfless. However, not all acts of self sacrifice are inherently selfless since they are often associated with an instinctual desire to protect the genetic line, such as a mother sacrificing herself to save her child. Yet, some might consider that selfless since it isn't perpetrated by the ego, but an unconscious primal instinct, and may go against what the sacraficed may consciously choose to do.

Of course, the moment a person makes the concious choice to help someone else, they are acting on their own desires. That is why it is arguably only unconscious instinctual actions that go against self preservation that are truly selfless.

In other words, a person can never choose to be selfless, they would have to act without thinking in a way that would jeopardize their own life for the sake of another. But of course, it depends upon you definition of selflessness.

[Moriarty]

I don't think that any act could ultimately qualify as a purely altruistic act. Lights made some great examples, but even an act that appears to be completely contrary to survival instinct began as a thought or a desire that originated from the "martyr", so taking action on the thought/ desire ultimately fulfilled the martyr's desires.

I can't seem to come up with any act of personal sacrifice that does not ultimately point back to fulfilling the wishes or desires of the person who made the sacrifice.

[Vivid]

Sure, people can be selfless. I think only an N could believe otherwise. O_O

[Moriarty]

Sure, people can be selfless. I think only an N could believe otherwise. O_O


Ok, good! Can you describe an act or provide an example or scenario in which a person is behaving without regard to self but for the benefit of others?

[Lights]

I can't seem to come up with any act of personal sacrifice that does not ultimately point back to fulfilling the wishes or desires of the person who made the sacrifice.

That is why it would have to be an unconscious instinctual act. Protecting one's friends and family are arguably instincts, not desires. In other words, a mother might sacrifice her life for her child without thinking but had she been thinking, her actions may have been entirely different. The same with the a soldier jumping on a grenade to save his friends.

Of course, you could argue the "love thy enemy" philosophy for selflessness as well. One does not benefit from loving their enemy, and in fact can jeopardize themselves a great deal by doing so. The Christian concept of simply not judging others even if they judge you may be the closest means by which people can consciously choose to be selfless. In other words, "unconditional love" could be considered a selfless act as it requires people to love others regardless of how wrong their actions could be perceived or what effect those actions have. But of course, very few human beings are capable of loving others unconditionally and even fewer would choose to.

[azelismia]

That is why it would have to be an unconscious instinctual act. Protecting one's friends and family are arguably instincts, not desires. In other words, a mother might sacrifice her life for her child without thinking but had she been thinking, her actions may have been entirely different. The same with the a soldier jumping on a grenade to save his friends.

Of course, you could argue the "love thy enemy" philosophy for selflessness as well. One does not benefit from loving their enemy, and in fact can jeopardize themselves a great deal by doing so. The Christian concept of simply not judging others even if they judge you may be the closest means by which people can consciously choose to be selfless. In other words, "unconditional love" could be considered a selfless act as it requires people to love others regardless of how wrong their actions could be perceived or what effect those actions have. But of course, very few human beings are capable of loving others unconditionally and even fewer would choose to.


But why would they do that? isn't it generally for the reason that "they couldn't live with themselves if they did any differently" the whole Christian construct usually has the threat of hell looming if you don't act in these "selfless" sort of ways.. at root everything does have a "selfish" reason behind it.

[Vivid]

Ok, good! Can you describe an act or provide an example or scenario in which a person is behaving without regard to self but for the benefit of others?

The one you provided works well enough.
There are plenty of selfless acts that are not completely selfless. You're thinking in very black and white terms. The degree of selflessness in an act varies.

[Lights]

But why would they do that? isn't it generally for the reason that "they couldn't live with themselves if they did any differently" the whole Christian construct usually has the threat of hell looming if you don't act in these "selfless" sort of ways.. at root everything does have a "selfish" reason behind it.

Actually, most Christians believe they are saved if they turn to Christ. That is pretty much all that is needed to avoid going to hell. So there isn't really a strong incentive to unconditionally love their fellow human beings. A point you could probably observe by the massive amount of intolerance that is associated with the religion and the "Love the sinner, not the sin" philosophy adopted by the traditional Christians. If they were to actually follow the teachings of Christ and not the practically contradictory teachings of the old Hebrew code and Paul, then they would probably be seeking to love others unconditionally. But they are able to get around "judging others" by simply judging and hating an action that could be committed by others or "sin". So a Christian who chooses to unconditionally love others could actually be pitted against other Christians because they choose not condemn the sin of others. That is where the selflessness within the dogma exists. And of course, there are non Christians who adopt the "love thy enemy" philosophy.

Of course, there is one more alternative I can think of to the selfless ideal. One could argue that choosing to be selfish is selfless. Pretty much the "enlightened selfishness" idea established by Ayn Rand. If one decides to take care of themselves and live for their principles, despite the hard work and persecution involved in doing so, then they remove themselves as a burden to others and establish their true worth. Of course, there are many holes that could be punched into this philosophy as well. :p

[Antares]

Erm... I think my mother's done plenty of selfless acts for me... Doesn't make her any nicer though.

[Claptonian]

Of course, the moment a person makes the concious choice to help someone else, they are acting on their own desires. That is why it is arguably only unconscious instinctual actions that go against self preservation that are truly selfless.


I don't think "acting on instincts" is really "acting." To me, "acting" must be deliberate. I agree with your overall point, though.

And I agree with your premise, Moriarty. Personally, I've found that most "selfless acts" are done to avoid a feeling of guilt.

I'd like to point out that this subject is not good date material. I learned this the hard way. ;)

[mkay]

I've given money unasked when I knew someone was in a jam. For instance, I helped out a stranger and expected nothing in return. I'm not rich, but I have money enough that giving some unasked "costs" me little. Sure, I felt a bit of satisfaction in having done it afterward, but that's not the motivator. For me, it just didn't feel like a big deal. It even made me uncomfortable to be thanked. ... I liken it to seeing someone passed out on the sidewalk and wanting to help. I've done that in various instances. It wasn't like I expected reciprocity. I felt connected to them as fellow human beings. It's an involuntary reaction. ... I'm an atheist, so it's not like I'm expecting a reward in an afterlife. I just figure if I can help someone and I don't have to put myself out much to do it, then why not? Like I give anonymous Christmas presents to needy kids; I can imagine it being crappy to be a needy kid during the holidays, so why not give? ... It's not like I don't do things that are self-serving, but there's a distinction to me.

[Antares]

Well, now that I think about it, I would actually agree with the OP. All the things my mother's done, she's done it for me, sure. Her intents are pure; so that I can be a better person. But it's still her intent; her wishes. She's doing it for her wishes. This can't be completely selfless.

[xwalka]

I posted this essay I wrote on another thread, but it fits here even better. I wrote this in my English 101 class my first quarter of college. I kind of feel that the only true selflessness requires lack of sentience; robots work for the benefit of others while gaining nothing.


Selfishly Selfless

In his book Ethics for the New Millenium, the Dalai Lama, the spiritual leader of Tibet, asserts that, “Humility[...]is a species of modesty [...], while ambition [is] a quality which leads all too easily to self-centered thinking.”(114) How does one avoid self-centeredness? In order to truly apply what the Dalai Lama intends by this comment, we must understand the meaning of humility and ambition, which requires exploring the nature of humankind. If you really think about it, every intended action is essentially selfish in nature. The Dalai Lama writes of such things as restraint, compassion and empathy. These words, for the most part, denote selfless behavior, however, I think these words may simply be different, more acceptable forms of selfishness. As the Dalai Lama declares in numerous places, chapter 6 page 94 inclusive, we all want to avoid suffering and seek happiness; what could be more selfish than this all-consuming quest?

Used in this context, restraint is the repression of feelings or controlling the actions that our feelings lead to. While restraining negative desires may appear to be an act of suppressing selfish behavior, looking deeper at the motivation behind restraint reveals it’s true nature. Why do people restrain themselves? Take, for example, a man who is angry with a woman for cutting in front of him in a grocery store line. He may have the desire to yell at her, or even feel the impulse to initiate physical confrontation. Why might he refrain from acting on these negative impulses? Perhaps he doesn’t wish to look like a jerk to fellow citizens nearby. Maybe he is afraid that such negative actions could result in retaliation: physically, socially, by recourse of law etc. It could be he just finds her attractive and doesn’t want to ruin his chances, however infinitesimal they may be (yes ladies, men can often find hope in the most impossible situations and are reluctant to destroy chances they don’t really have or may not even want). There could be many other reasons, but each one will basically lead to less suffering for him.

Compassion can be described as awareness of others suffering, and desiring to relieve it; this seems like a pretty pure attribute. While compassion can result in positive actions, and improves the world in general, it too is rooted in concern for oneself. Consider the cognitive development of the human ability to feel compassion. When first born, a baby is aware of its own feelings and sensations. Soon it learns that others can affect those feelings. For quite some time, however, the only feelings that the child even considers to exist are its own; after all, it can’t feel anyone else’s experiences. Later comes the realization that others, like itself, have feelings. Then comes the capacity for empathy. Finally, with understanding what others suffer, comes the potential for sympathy and compassion. This compassion is solely derived from sentience, with the realization that what has happened to others could happen to oneself. There can, indeed, be many motivations for compassion. Wanting others not to suffer can be an insurace technique. If suffering is not the norm there is less of a chance of finding yourself in the same situation and, thus, a lessening of fear. Public knowledge of one’s compassion can lead to the comfortable social acceptance of being well thought of, and consoling others makes people feel good about themselves. Every action we perform, even those which we mean to benefit others (which is far from being a bad thing), derives from our desire to bring ourselves greater happiness.

It may seem that realization of mankind’s self-oriented nature mythicizes selflessness but it doesn’t; it merely redefines the word. It is important to note that humility isn’t possible without authority and confidence; though often seen as mere submission, in reality, humility is the act of bending one’s will to benefit a greater good. If you don’t have the ability to do otherwise, or are too frightened to assert yourself, you can only accede to anothers will, not humbly accept it. Conversely, ambition can be described as allowing one’s personal desires to take precedence over all else. This is how conventional society construes self-centeredness. It is generally a result of pride and conceit. Those who feel they are better than or more important than others and act on it, exercise ambition. As told me by a friend, “I believe what seperates selfless acts from benign self-serving acts is a certain level of awareness of one’s responses to the world.” Understanding the consequences of our actions on others, and the repercussions those consequences will have on ourselves, is what allows us to exercise humility. Through this understanding comes the realization that sacrificing some individual wants or needs can benefit a greater cause, allowing humble submission. The only time we support something we don’t want, is when it serves the purpose of a greater want. If benefitting others makes us happy, we will do things for others with no ulterior motive; this is what selflessness really is: conforming ourselves into beings who use collective happiness as a tool for personal happiness. We don’t have to ignore or reject our “self” in order to achieve selflessness; we must transform ourselves into beings which desire to make others happy.


Works Cited:
The Dalai Lama. Ethics for the New Millenium. Riverhead Books, New York: 1999.

[Moriarty]

There are plenty of selfless acts that are not completely selfless. You're thinking in very black and white terms. The degree of selflessness in an act varies.

Oh yeah, I agree completely with you. We all (well most of us) do nice things for other people from time to time. It's common and it's even more common for people to perceive those acts as kind, caring, giving or selfless.

It's actually the white side of the "grayscale" of selfish/ selfless that I'm interested in exploring here. Can anyone make an act of sacrifice that is 100% selfless? I don't personally think so, but I can perceive some acts approaching, say, the completely arbitrary 90 percentile. ;)

I just can't think of an example in which the giver does not receive and is not motivated at least to some degree by personal benefit, even if it's slight and entirely internal.

[Lights]

I don't think "acting on instincts" is really "acting." To me, "acting" must be deliberate. I agree with your overall point, though.

Interesting. So then what would you call non-deliberate acting? By definition, acting is "performing an action" but nonetheless, I see what you mean. I suppose acting on instincts could probably be considered, "reacting" rather than "acting" since it would be more of a process in response to certain cues than a choice to perform.

I agree with the idea of sentience. If you have the capacity to choose, then your actions can never be truly "selfless". Choice is the defining characteristic of self.

[Moriarty]

@ Xwalka, Claptonian, mkay...I think we're on the same page overall.





Moriarty added to this post, 2 minutes and 5 seconds later...

I agree with the idea of sentience. If you have the capacity to choose, then your actions can never be truly "selfless". Choice is the defining characteristic of self.

I agree with this statement.

[vaguely dissatisfied]

I think I agree with this also. Because we are a self aware being it is impossible for us to not be self-aware (except for some states like unconsciousness etc.). Since we make every choice within the confines of our self-awareness, then we are unable to choose any action without also considering ourselves.

[zoophilia]

All acts are selfless.

[sriv]

What about an old man? That old man might sacrafice his life for a child or other young person when considering that the other deserves to live or has more to look forward to in life than he does.

[Double Victory]

I don't think self-aware should be substituted for selfless. If you're analyzing the words, then sure. But there are a lot of words that could be broken down into different parts that have nothing to do with the actual meaning behind them. To go straight-up dictionary.... "having no concern for self" (Merriam-Webster). The examples given before of giving up your life for someone else, that would fall under that category. There could be underlying desires to become a martyr, but in a situation where a grenade lands next to all of your friends, you're hardly going to have the time to consider the all the future consequences other than life and death. In that case, by that definition, there are some acts that are selfless.

However, personally speaking, I tend to analyze everything into oblivion. I don't think I'm capable of acting completely selflessly. I could act with good intentions, but I would always be expecting to feel good about it, or I would be expecting something good to happen to me in return.

[catd]

Joe hears through the grapevine that Bob is having difficulty making ends meet and providing for his family of 4. Joe knows Bob would not accept outright charity, so late at night Joe slips some money into an envelope and puts it in Bob's mailbox. Nobody besides the giver will ever know who the anonymous giver of the gift was.


What if Joe needs surgery. Nothing life threatening but he is in pain and it will be a year before he can save up the money again to afford the surgery. Bob will lose his house and he and his family will be homeless if he doesn't get some money soon. Joe slips the money had saved for his surgery into an envelope and puts it in Bob's mailbox.

[Jakalwarrior]

Selfless act huh?

-------- Brain storm time!----------

There is a gameshow on which people die for the entertainment of others. You hate the show and you really dont want to die but you arbitrarily decide by flip of a coin to go on the show.

The deciding by flip of a coin to do something you dont like for the marginal gain of others you care nothing about can be used many ways....

Lets see if I can come up with something else...

A millionare about to commit suicide decides to give all of his money away. He gains no enjoyment by giving his money away. In fact it pains him to see it go. He realizes it wont matter after he is dead though and just does the deed out of a sense of duty. He realizes the act is dumb and ultimately doesnt matter.


Now you guys try to be creative and pick those two apart :P

*note all of the above mentioned are atheist and gain no benefit from god.

One more thing to add, if there is a god, can any of his supposed actions be gauaged as anything more than extremely selfish?

[Claptonian]

There is a gameshow on which people die for the entertainment of others. You hate the show and you really dont want to die but you arbitrarily decide by flip of a coin to go on the show.

The deciding by flip of a coin to do something you dont like for the marginal gain of others you care nothing about can be used many ways....

Lets see if I can come up with something else...

A millionare about to commit suicide decides to give all of his money away. He gains no enjoyment by giving his money away. In fact it pains him to see it go. He realizes it wont matter after he is dead though and just does the deed out of a sense of duty. He realizes the act is dumb and ultimately doesnt matter.


Now you guys try to be creative and pick those two apart :P



The question of the thread is, "Does a selfless act really exist?", not "Can you come up with a hypothetical, fictional example of a selfless act?" ;)

[Moriarty]

What if Joe needs surgery. Nothing life threatening but he is in pain and it will be a year before he can save up the money again to afford the surgery. Bob will lose his house and he and his family will be homeless if he doesn't get some money soon. Joe slips the money had saved for his surgery into an envelope and puts it in Bob's mailbox.

I like this twist on my original scenario...it adds an element of choosing the temporary continuation of Bob's family over the death of the giver. Ultimate sacrifice? (And I'm assuming here that if Joe doesn't get his surgery, he's gonna die. Better drama that way.)

In your twist on my scenario, just ask yourself why Joe did what he did. After you've answered that question, ask why again. Keep asking why until the answer points back to Joe...and it will eventually point back at Joe.

[Scantilyclad]

I think some acts can be selfless. I feel that at the times i am doing a selfless act it is selfless at the time, even if it may have benefits for me later, i wasn't thinking about myself at the time.

[vaguely dissatisfied]

I don't think self-aware should be substituted for selfless. If you're analyzing the words, then sure. But there are a lot of words that could be broken down into different parts that have nothing to do with the actual meaning behind them. To go straight-up dictionary.... "having no concern for self" (Merriam-Webster). The examples given before of giving up your life for someone else, that would fall under that category. There could be underlying desires to become a martyr, but in a situation where a grenade lands next to all of your friends, you're hardly going to have the time to consider the all the future consequences other than life and death. In that case, by that definition, there are some acts that are selfless.

However, personally speaking, I tend to analyze everything into oblivion. I don't think I'm capable of acting completely selflessly. I could act with good intentions, but I would always be expecting to feel good about it, or I would be expecting something good to happen to me in return.
I wasn't trying to substitute the word self-aware for selfless. I was saying that we are self-aware (self-conscious) all of the time (exceptions of course...i.e. unconscious) and, because we are self-aware, whenever we consider an action we are unable to not consider ourselves. In other words, it is hard-wired into us to always think about how an action we will effect us. Because we are always thinking about ourselves (along with others) we cannot act in a completely selfless manner or in a way in which we are utterly without regard to ourselves.

[catd]

I like this twist on my original scenario...it adds an element of choosing the temporary continuation of Bob's family over the death of the giver. Ultimate sacrifice? (And I'm assuming here that if Joe doesn't get his surgery, he's gonna die. Better drama that way.)

In your twist on my scenario, just ask yourself why Joe did what he did. After you've answered that question, ask why again. Keep asking why until the answer points back to Joe...and it will eventually point back at Joe.


No, Joe will not die. He will suffer as a result of his choice. He knows this. He does it because he reasons that his suffering will be less than that of Bob and Bob's children. Bob and his children are in immediate need. Joe does it because he can but he would not have a problem living with himself if he didn't do it. Joe has compassion and is able to put aside he needs - and sacrifice - to help others. Joe doesn't expect any extra credit from God. Joe isn't even sure there is a God.

[mkay]

I wasn't trying to substitute the word self-aware for selfless. I was saying that we are self-aware (self-conscious) all of the time (exceptions of course...i.e. unconscious) and, because we are self-aware, whenever we consider an action we are unable to not consider ourselves. In other words, it is hard-wired into us to always think about how an action we will effect us. Because we are always thinking about ourselves (along with others) we cannot act in a completely selfless manner or in a way in which we are utterly without regard to ourselves.

For me, there's a moment when I feel the desire to help, before it goes through my thinking process (self-awareness in your reference). It depends on the situation, of course. But let's say I'm walking along the street and I see someone hurt. My immediate involuntary response is to help. I might then logically think through that it's risky to help in a given situation, but that follows the initial reaction. My initial instinct to help is not voluntary; my actions (whether to actually help or not) are. In such a situation, it might take only a second or two to think through whether to actually act, but it's separate from the initial response of wanting to help.

In a less-urgent situation, an example: Say I learn that someone is in a financial jam. I might immediately want to help (instinct), but then I think it through and figure out that I don't have XX dollars to give someone (logic).

But that's how I'm wired.

[vaguely dissatisfied]

For me, there's a moment when I feel the desire to help, before it goes through my thinking process (self-awareness in your reference). It depends on the situation, of course. But let's say I'm walking along the street and I see someone hurt. My immediate involuntary response is to help. I might then logically think through that it's risky to help in a given situation, but that follows the initial reaction. My initial instinct to help is not voluntary; my actions (whether to actually help or not) are. In such a situation, it might take only a second or two to think through whether to actually act, but it's separate from the initial response of wanting to help.

In a less-urgent situation, an example: Say I learn that someone is in a financial jam. I might immediately want to help (instinct), but then I think it through and figure out that I don't have XX dollars to give someone (logic).

But that's how I'm wired.
Yes. And I would go further and say that your 'thinking process' which occurs right after your 'instinct to help' is also an 'instinct' or hard-wired response. The reason you think of yourself second and the person in need first is because the situation dictates this order of instinct or thinking.

We should probably define instinct for this discussion and whether or not such a thing exists in humans.

[Democracy4ever]

Does a selfless act really exist?

No.

[Karamazov]

Perhaps Joe simply did it, without thinking too much. They needed help, he anonymously gave them the money. Nothing of the proverbial warm fuzzies to speak of. He just simply did it. That is what I do at least.

[Moriarty]

I don't think that "just doing it" would qualify as selfless, either. There is no decision involved, no consideration of benefit to others vs. self. I'd call that random.

[Karamazov]

But It's the actual act that counts. If it is beneficial, with no rewards or considerations.

[Moriarty]

If that's the standard by which we'll define selflessness, my computer is selfless. It's about to transmit the preceding electrons without consideration of any consequences, pro or con.

*transmit*

[Karamazov]

Well, suppose this is how I "transmit".

[JasonM]

I think it depends upon how you define "selfless." The dictionary defines selflessness as "having no concern for oneself." Under this definition, I don't think that there can be a truly selfless act. However, when we talk about selflessness in everyday matters, we often mean that someone has gone out of their way for others, not that they didn't, for example, have any motivation to be happy because of it. You could argue that being happy about helping someone out is what makes you a good person. Therefore, I think the definition is open to interpretation.

[Moriarty]

I think it depends upon how you define "selfless." The dictionary defines selflessness as "having no concern for oneself." Under this definition, I don't think that there can be a truly selfless act. However, when we talk about selflessness in everyday matters, we often mean that someone has gone out of their way for others, not that they didn't, for example, have any motivation to be happy because of it. You could argue that being happy about helping someone out is what makes you a good person. Therefore, I think the definition is open to interpretation.

I agree with you and the others who have echoed a more or less similar view. Some other folks think we're crazy. I think they're not being very objective.

[Elfrun]

Great thread. If been sitting back and enjoying the progress :wideeyed:

There are a number of good examples raised they have certainly made me think.

Stance: while some acts are more or less selfish then others, no act is purely selfless.

I believe people are inherently good, the reason for this is we get those wonderful feelings of generosity or guilt depending on our actions, this is the ultimate motivator behind our actions. Would we do good things if we did not get these feelings?

When we do a good act for another (mother/child, soldier, friend, inset other example here) we do it because of two thought processes, how we would feel if we did something and how we would feel if we didn’t. We then act accordingly.

I’m a good person, I am not capable of a truly selfless act.

[Monte314]

Only an act that is done for no reason can be devoid of self-interest. For if there is a motive involved, then there is *at least* self-interest in the sense that the actor has the satisfaction of accomplishing his purpose.

The Bible says that even Jesus, arguably the most altruistic man in history, rode into Jerusalem knowing execution awaited Him... and did it "for the joy set before Him": the joy of redeeming a people who would then be able spend eternity with Him.

So, no, I don't believe any action conciously chosen is devoid of self-interest.

[Sara27]

There is no such thing as a selfless act.

The only true point of view we have is our own self. Try as we might everything is self-ish.

When I help my friend with her bills, get her through a bad relationship, anything, I do it for myself. I want to keep that relationship going. I do for her and she does for me. That's the relationship agreement we all enter into. A bad relationship results when one person is getting an unbalanced amount of support/money/attention. In the case of a bad relationship, it's best to end it since I won't be getting what I want. This is the wonderful thing about good relationships. Both people get what they want and need and all they have to do is put out to keep the other satisfied an perpetuate the give-and-take.

The wonderful things my mom does for me is selfish. She wanted a child and she wants me to be healthy and happy. [I]She wants.[I] Just because I want the same things doesn't mean she is selfless. Plus, there's the selfish gene argument; I'm made up of half of my mom's genes. If she wants her genes to survive into the next generation it behooves her to help with my survival. This would also explain why some parents want grandkids so badly :).

[ScottH]

Funny thread.

Humans never, ever do things for others. We may delude ourselves differently so as to believe in our own wonder... but, as a general rule, every single human is--at any given moment--striving towards, or away from something, be it physical or in their own mind.

A soldier jumping on a grenade is either moving towards his self image as a great savior or a martyr, or he is moving away from the grisly image of his friends being shredded by the shrapnel.

That which we do "for others" is always, 100% of the time to make ourselves feel best.

Our character makes the decision for us. Shall I help the stranded motorist I see tonight? Shall I give freely to the beggar on the corner? The "right" answers are dependent upon the person--they are "right' for that person.

[Elfrun]

Aaagh. Moriarty, I'm taking this thread to a NF forum hope you don't mind but I want a debate damn it!

[Moriarty]

Aaagh. Moriarty, I'm taking this thread to a NF forum hope you don't mind but I want a debate damn it!

Feel free. Not enough of a fight here for ya? ;)

[Jakalwarrior]

Is it possible to do something without some sort of motivation. Even if the motivation is simply to do the actual action without a reason. At the smallest level arent you still fulfilling the desire to complete that action? Isn't that some sort of pre-requisite to completing any action commanded by our brain?

I have personally done seemingly random things that were to my own disadvantage because I decided too. I wrecked a bike as a kid just because I wanted to see if I could make myself. I fulfilled my desire to complete that action even though an outside observer would see absolutely no benefit to myself.

[Prometheosis]

I have long held that no selfless act is purely selfless but while at psuedo intellectual cocktail parties while mispronouncing words like insoucient and Otolaryngology, I bandie this one about:

The Recipe for Performing a Purely Selfless Act

1. Person A hires Person B

2. Person A instructs Person B that his or her job is to do something good or something bad, or nothing at all

3. Person B is forbidden from informing Person A, as to which of these actions is ultimately taken.

4. Person B performs the given directive complying with the terms of employment.

If person A does not know whether a good thing was done, a bad thing was done, or nothing was done at all, has not Person A performed a purely selfless act?

Prometheosis Jenkins

[SnakeFeather]

While waiting in line at a gas station, a person in front of me dropped their credit card. After staring at the card for a bit, I decided on telling the dude he dropped it instead of taking it. I've regretted the decision ever since.

What do you guys think?

Is informing someone that they dropped some money/wallet/credit card a selfless act or is there an underlying self interest here?

[Prometheosis]

My sense is that you acted out of Golden Rule logic, i.e., you notified him of his dropped money/ wallet/ credit card because you would have wanted him to do the same had you found yourself in his or a similar predicament. Your action, albeit noble, might still be characterized as self-interest.

Incidently SnakeFeather, why have you regretted it ever since?

[Cygnus]

I'm of the opinion that there's no such thing as a truly selfless act. Think of any act of sacrifice you have ever made or ever heard of, and ask "why?". What motivated the action beyond a superficial level?

Example scenario:

Joe hears through the grapevine that Bob is having difficulty making ends meet and providing for his family of 4. Joe knows Bob would not accept outright charity, so late at night Joe slips some money into an envelope and puts it in Bob's mailbox. Nobody besides the giver will ever know who the anonymous giver of the gift was.

What motivated Joe to make this apparent act of selflessness? Was it really and truly selfless in the first place?
I do not believe in selfless acts either. Even people that end up sacrifing their lives in the process feel they are validating their value system.

[SnakeFeather]

My sense is that you acted out of Golden Rule logic, i.e., you notified him of his dropped money/ wallet/ credit card because you would have wanted him to do the same had you found yourself in his or a similar predicament. Your action, albeit noble, might still be characterized as self-interest.

Incidently SnakeFeather, why have you regretted it ever since?

I thought maybe the golden rule thing, but if I dropped some money I wouldn't expect it to be returned to me. Also I would still respect someone if they kept the money I dropped, because of my affinity for opportunists. So I guess it would be the reverse Golden Rule for me. Take advantage of me as I take advantage of you? Oh and this act actually goes against what I believe by the way.

I regretted it because I could of used it at the time. I think it was a platinum card.

[Prometheosis]

I do not believe in selfless acts either. Even people that end up sacrifing their lives in the process feel they are validating their value system.


How is Person A's feelings or value system validations applicable in the scenario I posted above?

[Cygnus]

While waiting in line at a gas station, a person in front of me dropped their credit card. After staring at the card for a bit, I decided on telling the dude he dropped it instead of taking it. I've regretted the decision ever since.

What do you guys think?

Is informing someone that they dropped some money/wallet/credit card a selfless act or is there an underlying self interest here?
I point it out because I feel the world is a better place when we work together and help each other. It is no risk to me and it is the cool thing to do to help the guy out and say he dropped his card, of course I am assuming it is his card :) The ripples we send out with our actions have consequences we cannot fathom as they touch others and the world...I prefer to try and send out good vibes :)

[SnakeFeather]

Yeah it was his for sure, I saw it drop from the counter. The funny part is the cashier saw it too and I could see she waiting to see what I would do lol. I got the feeling that she would've went for it. Probably could of got a free tank and some snacks and smokes. lol.

[Prometheosis]

I thought maybe the golden rule thing, but if I dropped some money I wouldn't expect it to be returned to me. Also I would still respect someone if they kept the money I dropped, because of my affinity for opportunists. So I guess it would be the reverse Golden Rule for me. Take advantage of me as I take advantage of you? Oh and this act actually goes against what I believe by the way.

I regretted it because I could of used it at the time. I think it was a platinum card.

This intrigues me. Let us determine the limits of your affinity for the opportunist: You said you would not expect it to be returned. Society is such that I don't think any of us would but if you dropped your wallet/money clip/cash, walked 2 steps and turned around only to witness the opportunist looking through it and subsequently pocketing the things of value, would you consider that opportunism or theft?

Would you then reward the opportunistic behavior with by giving the perpetrator the thumbs up or would you go demand the wallet and call the police if he or she denied your request?

[SnakeFeather]

No, I would definitely attempt to get my wallet back but I wouldn't look down on the person on any moral grounds.

I'd empathize with choice. To me it's my fault for being negligent not his for taking advantage.

I think I see it in the spirit of sportsmanship. Sort of a ''touche'' or ''well-played sir'' sentiment.

[Cygnus]

How is Person A's feelings or value system validations applicable in the scenario I posted above?
We do not live in a bubble, Prometheosis :) You are assuming Person A will not find out what person B did..the only limitation is that person B did not related that information...Also...who's value system is good or bad weighed against? You also are using the term hired, which is...interesting..and has many implications with it, most importantly there was a reason behind hiring of person B in the first place...

No judgement can be made on Person A's feelings or value system. Though stab in the dark, Person A got the satisfaction of Person B playing his or her little game....and a sense of power, since participation was the goal..not whatever Person B actually did or did not do.

[Prometheosis]

Quite right, Cygnus. We do not live in a bubble. However for the sake of our philisophical self-gratification, this forum is a bubble, or as I refer to it, an idea laboratory.

It is in that strictly clinical sense I posed the scenerio with the hope of fufilling the original poster's challenge to find a circumstance whereby a selfless act is truly selfless.



I suspected the good and bad thing would illicit some inquiry but trusted that with the other option and the choice of either, this would further illustrate the complete independence between Person A and Person B's actions.

Cygnus also said :
You also are using the term hired, which is...interesting..and has many implications with it

I am not emotionally committed to the employer/employee aspect of this scenario. Person B could just as easily be a contractor for Person A whereby ther terms of the contract strictly forbib Person B from disclosing what action had been taken.

And Finally Cygnus said:

...reason behind hiring of person B in the first place...

Person A was asked to hire Person B by an aquaintance whom he despised, let us call that person Person C.

[Cygnus]

Prometheosis, heheh..I constantly edited...I added a bit more..saying the goal could have simply been Person B's participation...whatever Person B did or did not, not being a factor at all.. Simply empowering someone with a chance, can give a sense of satisfaction, power, or other emotions.

[PHS Philip]

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. Last 2 paragraphs of page 2.

"The most intriguing results were the ones from two of the experimental subjects, students whose brain scans made them definite egoists yet who were also among the most generous in donating. You could dismiss them as statistical outliers, but I like to think we have finally spotted the creature dismissed by so many scholars as myth.

These two women enjoyed no neural reward from charity — their brains didn’t get enough of a warm glow to compensate for the pain of parting with their money — yet they made anonymous donations anyway. Diogenes, we may not have found an honest man, but we do seem to have located a couple of true altruists. Either that or two determined masochists. "

I guess you could argue that they avoided some sort of guilt for violating an internal value, but it's certainly interesting.

[Cygnus]

Certain is interesting PHSphilip :) Some people also have religious convictions that drive them..so giving of this life ensures happiness ever after...so many possible feelings and motivations!

[athenian200]

I'm of the opinion that there's no such thing as a truly selfless act. Think of any act of sacrifice you have ever made or ever heard of, and ask "why?". What motivated the action beyond a superficial level?

Example scenario:

Joe hears through the grapevine that Bob is having difficulty making ends meet and providing for his family of 4. Joe knows Bob would not accept outright charity, so late at night Joe slips some money into an envelope and puts it in Bob's mailbox. Nobody besides the giver will ever know who the anonymous giver of the gift was.

What motivated Joe to make this apparent act of selflessness? Was it really and truly selfless in the first place?

We are all trapped inside motivation. The more we try to escape it, the deeper it retreats into the recesses of our psyche. There is no selfless act. Everything we do is on some level, to gratify a desire. Even looking for and performing a selfless act is based on the desire to do something selfless. The desire to exemplify an ideal is still a desire.

I think some desires are less destructive than others, though. People should try to act on their desires as long as they don't harm others in the process. That's what I think, ultimately.

Just because we benefit from everything we do, doesn't mean we can't feel empathy, and care about the other person as well as ourselves on some level. It may be selfish, but sometimes selfish acts help more people than the one who performed them. The fact that everything is selfish does not mean that nothing is good. Something doesn't have to be selfless to be good.

I'm actually surprised that there are enough people who think otherwise at this point, for you to even think of creating this thread. I would have thought it was common knowledge.

[Sara27]

There's also the Social Contract.

I want people to deal honestly with me, so I try to do the same. Returning a credit card, waiting my turn in line, not cutting people off on the freeway. It's my selfishness that drives me to do all these things. I want to live in a civilized society where I feel relatively safe and am free to do as I please (I don't please to do harm).

[lancelot]

Ok, good! Can you describe an act or provide an example or scenario in which a person is behaving without regard to self but for the benefit of others?

Yeah that's easy Moriarty, just ask someone who works in education!

[psuedoluminary]

It depends on the model you are looking at it from.

Evolutionarily = No, all acts are inherently selfish even if the actor is unaware. Afterall, all are trying to spread or proliferate there genes.

Behaviorally = it depends, if the actor is dysfunctioned they may THINK the action is selfish but the behavior is really inherently destructive. For example, alcoholics or drug addicts. Or Yes, all actors are fulfilling a conditioned response which has a neutral value.

Cognitively = No, by sheer virtue of being aware of the action the actor chooses the action that they best want to do, so all actions are selfish.

Mechanically = yes, thought is just a random byproduct, all things are really just random and NOTHING is selfish at all, things were set in motion a long time ago and they are just happening now.

Predestine = like mechanically, but things are really out of anyone's control and thus never selfish but always selfless, or helping to fulfill the universes master plan.

Humanitarian = Things might have a positive byproduct, by the motivation behind the action determines if the action is selfish or selfless.

"God Loves Me" = Selfless things feel RIGHT while selfish things feel PLEASURABLE, the RIGHT feeling is how you know you are doing the selfless thing, duh!? So OF COURSE it feels good but that doesn't determine the motivation...

want more?

[nexustential]

yes. i believe the world should be a balanced place, and that there is a lack of selfless acts. the real question is the degree of separation between acting in one's self interest and acting in the interest of others. just as when someone performs an act with a personal motive or benefit in mind, the absence of it or the length of how far you'd have to stretch to justify how it is in one's self interest should determine whether the act itself is selfless. there are selfless acts, there's just a fine line. the fact that there is a benefit doesn't necessarily mean that it was intentional.

[Evil Eye]

The theory that "There is no selfless act" could never be falsified. Whether or not that makes it wrong/invalid is a another matter.

[blueback]

Yeah, you can't ever know what someone's true motivation is so you can never answer that question.

I suggest moving on. Does the answer to that question even matter? What possible effect could it have on your life?

[TheLastMohican]

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. Last 2 paragraphs of page 2.

"The most intriguing results were the ones from two of the experimental subjects, students whose brain scans made them definite egoists yet who were also among the most generous in donating. You could dismiss them as statistical outliers, but I like to think we have finally spotted the creature dismissed by so many scholars as myth.

These two women enjoyed no neural reward from charity — their brains didn’t get enough of a warm glow to compensate for the pain of parting with their money — yet they made anonymous donations anyway. Diogenes, we may not have found an honest man, but we do seem to have located a couple of true altruists. Either that or two determined masochists. "

I guess you could argue that they avoided some sort of guilt for violating an internal value, but it's certainly interesting.

I was just reminded of this thread by a post in another (where further discussion on the topic would be inappropriate). So I came to post a thought, and I came upon this post, which provides the perfect springboard.
The definition of "selfless" thus far seems to have been limited to the "self" - that is, the person, and only that one person. But in evolutionary terms, we are a species, made up of tribes, which are made up of families, which share almost all of our DNA, which is what we strive to pass on. Therefore people can and do perform "altruistic acts," but those are not really "selfless" by a careful definition, because they are subjective. Even within the whole species, we help each other at our own expense, but for the benefit of our shared genes. We do not only work for our specific DNA, but also for those similar to us (though when they are in direct conflict, we prefer our own).

In short, the "self" extends beyond the individual, so we have "selfless" acts that are only called selfless because they are not exactly selfish.

[Karamazov]

Yeah, you can't ever know what someone's true motivation is so you can never answer that question.

I suggest moving on. Does the answer to that question even matter? What possible effect could it have on your life?

I would assume it's just curiosity. I do recall you saying, though correct me if I'm wrong, that you question someone's stability for being altruistic when they had no real reason for doing so. If you did say that or If it wasn't in exactly in the words, could you qualify on that?

I'm curious myself, after all biologists, haven't found anything definitive on what exactly predisposes many people to help total strangers. So far as I know.

[PHS Philip]

I would assume it's just curiosity. I do recall you saying, though correct me if I'm wrong, that you question someone's stability for being altruistic when they had no real reason for doing so. If you did say that or If it wasn't in exactly in the words, could you qualify on that?

I'm curious myself, after all biologists, haven't found anything definitive on what exactly predisposes many people to help total strangers. So far as I know.

I think the common hypothesis is that, for the last few million years of our evolution, we stayed within our tribes enough that we simply help people we see in need, because it would have been likely we were related. And if you encountered a stranger, they were likely to move with your group for a time or indefinitely, so your altruism would be repaid.

[dogwoodlover]

I'm of the opinion that there's no such thing as a truly selfless act. Think of any act of sacrifice you have ever made or ever heard of, and ask "why?". What motivated the action beyond a superficial level?

Example scenario:

Joe hears through the grapevine that Bob is having difficulty making ends meet and providing for his family of 4. Joe knows Bob would not accept outright charity, so late at night Joe slips some money into an envelope and puts it in Bob's mailbox. Nobody besides the giver will ever know who the anonymous giver of the gift was.

What motivated Joe to make this apparent act of selflessness? Was it really and truly selfless in the first place?

Allow me first to apologize if I am being redundant--I don't have the time to read through all previous posts.

Let me ask a question in return: Can we "actually" know the motivation of another individual? Better yet, can an individual truly know his own motivations?

The obvious answer to your question is--if an individual believes an act that he committed to have been selfless, then it is selfless.

Arguing anything to the contrary is postulating "unconscious" motivations, which is not a very good argument, because you have absolutely no way of getting into the subjective mind of an individual's unconscious to verify your claim (unless of course if hypnosis is used... but even this is questionable).

Hobbes made a psychological egoist argument to this effect, saying that he could provide an argument as to how any action of an individual is actually a self-interested one. The problem is that's not a falsifiable claim, so in fact Hobbes is saying nothing of value about the world or human beings. He's making speculations he simply cannot back up.

[Moriarty]

I don't disagree with this:
Arguing anything to the contrary is postulating "unconscious" motivations, which is not a very good argument, because you have absolutely no way of getting into the subjective mind of an individual's unconscious to verify your claim (unless of course if hypnosis is used... but even this is questionable).

But This?
The obvious answer to your question is--if an individual believes an act that he committed to have been selfless, then it is selfless.

I believe, therefore?

[Nikita]

What is your take on a selfless act that leaves the perpetrator of the act in a worse position than that he started in and in fact causes the selfless one misery?

[TheLastMohican]

I believe, therefore?

Well, the "selfless" concept is necessarily subjectively defined...but I think that in many cases the selfish nature of an act is in the subconscious or the instinct, and is not comprehended by the intellect.

What is your take on a selfless act that leaves the perpetrator of the act in a worse position than that he started in and in fact causes the selfless one misery?

It is not only the effect on the perpetrator that matters. The perpetrator can be positively affected indirectly while being negatively affected directly.

[dogwoodlover]

I believe, therefore?

If you discard references to "unconscious" motivations then you're left with conscious ones. Therefore, if an individual consciously believes he committed a selfless act, then it is selfless for him.

Outsiders can speculate whether or not the act was "selfless", but they have no real way of verifying this. Talking about the positive and negative consequences of an act, regardless of motivation, is the alternative.

[Moriarty]

That's the point. Is there a case where there will not be some benefit involved for the selfless one, either direct or indirect?

Even a martyr is dying for a cause they want to see perpetuated and believe their death may benefit it.

I should clarify: a willing martyr.

[Maarten]

I think acts can definitely be selfless (or altruistic). Actions like that harm the self-interest of the actor and further some other value instead (i.e. people sacrificing their self-interest for that of strangers, for example).

I don't think it is sufficient to look at whether or not a person derives some emotional gratification from the act, or even wanted to do it. In order to determine if an act is selfish or selfless, all we need to do is determine whether it in fact made their life better or worse. That is not an easy thing to do, surely, but that is what matter. Not what any individual claims is the reason for doing it. Plenty of people act against their self-interest even when they think they are being very selfish because they make certain errors of judgment or start from mistaken premises.

Feeling good about something is a value, to some extent, but by itself it's not enough to offset the costs that come with more significant sacrifices.

As far as the soldier goes who saves his comrades by giving up his life. I do not think that is actually a truly selfless act. He probably chose to be in the army in the first place because he believed defending his country was a very important good. Sometimes it can be very much worth it to die for a cause if the alternative would not be worth living. Can you imagine how guilty that person might feel if they knew they could have prevented many people they cared about from dying? I'm not saying that that is by itself enough of a reason, but for that soldier the alternative of not saving them could very well have made their life unlivable. In that context I do think they made a rational and selfish choice.

I do want to stress that within certain contexts I consider being selfish a good thing; I'm definitely not trying to demean certain acts like I described above =)

[enWTFp]

Cases like this one lead me to be sceptical about applying the scientific approach to everything in life. Yes, using hard logic, you can "prove" that every selfless act, and essentially every notion of good and evil, is simply the shared weakness of people. If they were stronger, they wouldn't do it.

However, there is fallacy in this reasoning. It is the assumption, in the first place, that one, like you, is following the same hard logic, and if not, then either they are crazy, or they are awful fakers. Following this way of thinking leaves you blind for anything else in life except power. You will soon find yourself disgusted with anybody who's weaker than you, no matter what they do, and at the same time, attracted to the powerful ones, no matter what they do.

I find this to be the trickiest way of thinking to disprove, which doesn't mean it is anything more than intimidating lack of complete understanding.

I love science, and I use logical arguments in almost any aspects of my life. And yet, I realize it is a flawed system. The perfect system is right before your eyes - it runs smoothly whether you understand it, or not. The scientific system is a rough, edgy, unstable approximation of the smooth reality. Why unstable - because you better always keep in mind that even the hardest undisputed theory (like Newton before) can suddenly be revolutionized. If you do not, then you are not a real scientist, and just a battle droid.

And the simplest way to see the difference, is to compare the way machines implement functions that biological species can do naturally. It's definitely awkward, and inefficient on many levels.

So we have to accept, in the first place, that it is our logic that is a tool to approach reality, and not the other way around. A scientist is the one, who cannot understand. If he understood, if he wasn't blind, he wouldn't need the thick edgy glasses of science to explain to him what somebody else can see and use effortlessly. That's fine, the danger comes when we extend this tool onto the judging mode - claiming that systems do not operate as they think they do, and "proving" to them they are not what they look like.

This is nothing else, but lack of understanding, I'm afraid. I imagine it as someone who is born blind, claiming to me that there is no sunlight, because he isn't able to find the proof that it exists. Then this person forcing me to denounce the fact that I see and use sunlight in my life, by just being too convinced of the self-righteousness of their own vision.

I'm afraid sacrifice is one such topic. Forcing logic down the throat of a perfectly functioning system (just to understand how the hell it works), sometimes only makes it dysfunctional. If you "prove" to all the people that their selfless acts are not what they think they are, they won't do them anymore, from which everybody, including themselves, will lose, a lot. Moreover, this is not a proof. This is the failure to understand something more complex than your thinking, and breaking it with the hard force of your analysis.

I am not emotional or anything, I'm just trying to be objective. Since Internet is increasing the intensity of the same tendency, society as a whole is suffering the loss of substantial part of its ability, because of similar effects.

[Vagrant]

There is such a thing as a selfless act.

It's called apoptosis. Programmed cell death to help the rest of the organism. Apoptosis is the process that creates fingers.

[blueback]

Selfless: having little or no concern for oneself, devoted to others' welfare or interest and not one's own

There doesn't seem to be any requirement in the definition that a person receive no benefit from their actions for it to be selfless. By way of example, it doesn't matter whether or not someone helps other people accidentally when they were trying to help themselves, their act was still selfish. So why would it matter that they accidentally help themselves, when they are trying to help others? If they were motivated by a desire to help someone else, then the act was selfless. If a side-effect of helping someone else is to help themselves that doesn't change that the act was selfless; just like accidentally helping someone else doesn't change that an act was selfish.

There also doesn't seem to be a stipulation that a person actively harm themselves to do something selfless. They don't have to sacrifice anything, all they have to do is try to help someone not them.

I think this stuff most directly tracks back to Kant, who said that the only way to do something moral is to do something which is right, but that you really don't want to do. If you do something right, that you wanted to do anyway, the best you can get is amoral.

[Zhen]

Does a selfless act really exist?

YES

You see it everyday in the papers...heroes etc who rescue people they don't even know and end up losing their life for it etc-admittedly it's impulse rather than thought that goes into it but it's still a selfless act.

In terms of a thoughtful selfless act...humans beings are innately selfish...so the best way you're going to see this is when the foundation is...LOVE.

[Vagrant]

Or from something that has no consciousness -- a cell undergoing apoptosis. :D

Seriously.

[Moriarty]

I appreciate the insightful replies. I may be the only person who thinks a suicide bomber is the ultimate narcissist.

Wait..how narcissistic of me! I'm so confused.

[TheLastMohican]

I may be the only person who thinks a suicide bomber is the ultimate narcissist.


Shoot, thanks a lot for giving me another tidbit to mull over in my overcrowded brain.

[Tocsin]

I suppose it would be pedantic to add that you all must be talking about volitional selfless acts, as opposed to merely incidental, thoughtless, or accidentally selfless acts.

If not, then the guy who dropped the ten dollar bill I found in the parking lot once qualifies as someone who engaged in a selfless act.

The idea of eliminating every notion of peripheral personal benefit in the consideration of an act seems unduly strict. Obviously, if a person chooses to engage in an action they must perceive some benefit to someone; if they didn't, they would have no reason to engage in it at all, even if in the end they choose to act in a way which benefits someone else more than it apparently benefits them.

There may be situations where people engage in acts that have no material benefit to themselves, but assist others that they care for or value, does the emotional benefit they may receive from "doing good" for another person negate it's consideration as a "selfless" act?

If a person votes to support expanding civil rights to a group of people, which they themselves are not themselves a part of, would that be considered a selfless act?

If selflessness is an absolute condition of not having any reference to self, then isn't a selfless act necessarily impossible, since everyone is connected to the world only through the portal of themselves?

[SeaCzar]

Moriarty....

I see what you are saying here, but this somehow does not click with me. Two weeks ago, I helped an elderly lady with groceries in a parking lot. This was not something I thought about; it was something I just did. I got no pleasure from it, but its not something I would not do. I guess it was the way I was raised: courtesy, respect, dignity, honour. It was reflexive action, nothing more, nothing less. Like closing your eyes when you sneeze, or hitting the brakes when you are coming upon a red light.

[Moriarty]

SeaCzar, I do the same thing and it's largely a product of the environment I was raised in. I was taught to do be considerate and helpful. I know I may be thinking too hard about simple things, but when I hold the door for a lady with her arms full or help an elderly person it makes me feel like I did the right thing, even though it also appears reflexive for me like it does for you.

My real question is how much that sense of self-satisfaction influences my decision making process, even when it moves at reflex speed.

[Gekko]

Yep no selfless act. Its not possible. Because the second you think about doing something its now been rationalised and decided on and now becomes an act generated by "self"

[Jgib5328]

Everyone acts in their own self-interest, even if it's a good and productive action. You help people because it makes you feel better inside, otherwise you wouldn't help the person. You don't do things without some kind of motivation behind your actions, it's not how we function.

[zibber]

I see what you are saying here, but this somehow does not click with me. Two weeks ago, I helped an elderly lady with groceries in a parking lot. This was not something I thought about; it was something I just did. I got no pleasure from it, but its not something I would not do. I guess it was the way I was raised: courtesy, respect, dignity, honour.

But not having done so would have gone against your instinct; doing so was the most viable option to you, personally. Would you not have felt bad and in violation of your own principles, had you walked past this lady?

[melon]

If a "selfless act" is defined as "an act which is made with absolutely no regard to the self," then this would entail the act not being motivated by one's own mind, thus defining "selfless act" out of existence. In this sense, it isn't possible for a selfless act to exist, and the term itself is meaningless. On the other hand, if it's defined as "an act more concerned with the well-being of others than the well-being of oneself," then I don't see any problem with them existing. The argument, I think, is largely a quarrel over a definition.

[Maarten]

If a "selfless act" is defined as "an act which is made with absolutely no regard to the self," then this would entail the act not being motivated by one's own mind, thus defining "selfless act" out of existence. In this sense, it isn't possible for a selfless act to exist, and the term itself is meaningless. On the other hand, if it's defined as "an act more concerned with the well-being of others than the well-being of oneself," then I don't see any problem with them existing. The argument, I think, is largely a quarrel over a definition.
I think Kant is the one who posited that selfless acts should have absolutely no positives attached to them for the person acting in order to be considered moral. I think it is more interesting, though, to see which acts are against the self-interest of the person acting (and in that sense self-negating, or selfless). I think it is obvious that many people act in ways that hurt them. Their motivations are secondary, really. Just because someone is convinced that an act is good for them, doesn't make it so. Reality usually has a thing or two to say to those people ;)

Also, if someone wanted to be TRULY selfless according to above definition, they would have to seek out the least deserving people to sacrifice for. Helping out someone who is in no way a productive member of society (like a murderer) would be truly selfless (and moral?!?), because it is pretty clear that there is no value to be had from that whatsoever.

[mkaye1986]

If a "selfless act" is defined as "an act which is made with absolutely no regard to the self," then this would entail the act not being motivated by one's own mind, thus defining "selfless act" out of existence. In this sense, it isn't possible for a selfless act to exist, and the term itself is meaningless. On the other hand, if it's defined as "an act more concerned with the well-being of others than the well-being of oneself," then I don't see any problem with them existing. The argument, I think, is largely a quarrel over a definition.
I absolutely agree with you, I don't believe that "selfless act" exists and I think when someone says it does what they mean is that a person is capable of doing something good for someone without getting anything in return and they ignore to look a little deeper.
believing that "selfless act" doesn't exist requires a certain level of comprehension.

[vertex]

i didnt read through the whole thread yet but i have something to add to this topic.

to become selfless, and good to others people have to first become selfish.
when a beta person wants to transform to alpha, he has to gain first before he knows how to give.

if you want to give knowledge out you have to gather it first.
same goes with materials, money, favors.

[Franklin71]

The example would not be selfless if Joe got some emotional gratification from the act.

Then nothing is a selfless act because every action we take is designed to get some gratification, even if in a very contextual and roundabout way: e.g., I don't want to exercise, but I also don't want to be fat six months from now, or, I'd rather not die, but I'd feel even worse if my loved one died, so I'll step in front of the bullet.

I'd say that there are no truly selfless or altruistic motivations, but there is such a thing as altruistic behavior, insofar as others might benefit from your actions more than you do.

[Olympics2010]

There are selfless acts, although not all of them are desirable, and so sometimes a less than fully selfless act is preferable. Joe probably enjoys the wonderful feeling, or relief, from doing such good acts for other people. Hence, his act of giving is not selfless, because it is partially about satisfying his own need of giving to the world so that he can feel more content, or whatever. I'd argue this is also the case for most martyrs in this world - they have a cause that serves a purpose for them, too. On the other hand, I can think of no other truly selfless act than hate crimes! When Person A goes to Person B, and kills Person B with an axe, because Person A just hates Person B, then the act of Person A is almost all selfless, because the act of hatred is not about Person A at all, but almost entirely about Person B - since it's all about Person A's hatred about Person B. Not all acts of evil are selfless, because there may be a little more vested self-interest for evil people than just pure hatred for something else besides themselves. Another possibility is acts of genuine love. When people do things out of love for another person, they are capable of performing deeds that are almost entirely for the sake of the person that they care about. For example, Person A knows that Person B will get hurt if they eat that apple, because the apple is poisonous, and so Person A stops person B from eating the apple, simply because Person A loves person B, and is thereby seeking fully the interests of another person outside of themselves. It's true that, in both the case of hatred, and the case of love, there is still an emotion that each selfless person acts on inside themselves, yet strangely these are emotions that lead us to do things for the sake of others, not for ourselves.

So, maybe, selfless acts exist after all. I am all for the selfless acts of love. Clearly, selfless acts of hatred are not permitted. And, clearly, most of the acts in our world are not selfless, but maybe a combination of selflessness, and selfishness. More significantly - this is not necessarily bad! It's good for most of our purposes in this world to take into consideration both our own interests, and the interests of others. Being this wise is actually ultimately the new version of selflessness, because if we acted as if in love with a world that is mostly not in love with us, then we would feel like the world owes us something, when really it doesn't, which creates more tension, than positive outcomes.

Selflessness = Hatred, Love, or "New Selflessness" (Selfishness + Selflessness)

[blueback]

Then nothing is a selfless act because every action we take is designed to get some gratification, even if in a very contextual and roundabout way:

Maybe we can divide the outcomes of the act into two categories:

1) what you were trying to do
2) side effects

So, if a person is trying to accomplish something which benefits someone else then the act is selfless no matter what the side effects are. If what they are trying to accomplish benefits theirself then the act is selfish no matter what the side effects are.

I'm not really happy with that idea, but it seems worth considering. It seems to me that a definition which depends on information that we can't get is pretty useless. How could we ever know what a person was trying to do? Since we can't, then the only person qualified to judge whether or not an action was selfish or selfless would be the person who acted.

Ultimately I think that all actions are motivated by pain and pleasure. When you help an old lady with her groceries it's because either it gives you pleasure or it allows you to avoid pain. In that sense all acts are inherently selfish because they can only be motivated by self. Any consideration of effects on another has to be filtered through how that effects self before it can become a motivation. The closest we can get to a selfless act is to be motivated to feel good when we benefit others above and beyond ourself.

Oh, maybe that's it. Could we say a selfless act is one which is motivated only by how we feel about helping other people? What I mean is that whether or not we feel good or bad is only affected by the effect our action has on another person. If a person was indifferent to the effect on themselves then ultimately the act would be selfless even though it was motivated by a desire to avoid pain or find pleasure. Yes, the initial motivation would be purely selfish (pain & pleasure) but the things that made the self feel good or bad was only influenced by whether or not we had helped someone else, so that would make the act selfless. On the other hand, if the triggers for pain and pleasure were unaffected by how our acts help or hurt other people then the act would be selfish.

[Olympics2010]

There are selfless acts, although not all of them are desirable, .....

I wanted to add another instance of a selfless act that I thought of: what about when one person stands up for another innocent person that is being harmed? This is another good example, besides the emotions of love, and hatred, which is a selfless act.

[Nexus]

For an action to be selfless is entirely contingent on the intent of the person carrying out the action. If one does something without regard for himself for the benefit of another, then it is a selfless act. It is irrelevant whether or not the person carrying out the action benefited in some way as a consequence. If the intention was entirely to benefit the other person and not himself, then it is selfless.

Of course it could be argued that all actions in some way have a selfish motivation behind them. It could be as simple as not wanting to live with yourself if you do not take action. For example, a parent who sacrifices herself so that her children would live. What kind of mother would want to live with herself knowing she allowed her children to die when she could have done something to save them? Less cynically though, this very feeling is driven by the selfless concern (or love) the mother has for her children.

[Godzilla]

Wow, I was just thinking about this. No, I don't believe in selfless acts, because when it comes down to it, the only feelings you'll ever have are you're own, so even if you die to save someone else, it's still selfish because if you didn't die in their place you would have to live with your guilt, and YOU would feel horrible. Even feeding your family over yourself isn't selfless because it's also guilt motivated.

[lamplighter]

They say ‘Not a drop of blood has ever been shed in the name of Buddhism’, but there's been at least one time where a Buddhist has sacrificed himself for his beliefs even though martyrdom doesn't seem to exist in Buddhism. The instance was Thich Quang Duc who burned himself to death in an intersection in South Vietnam to protest the inequality and ill treatment Buddhists suffered under the Catholic Diem that was controlling the government at the time. He wasn't saving anyone's life in the act, if he was aware that such an act might have accomplished nothing, how did he do it for himself, if he did not know the results of the act?

[nowandzen]

By definition, a selfless act is not possible. As long as one is alive in the physical body, there will always be some combination of acts of will or activity of the autonomic nervous system. For every action there is a reaction. To be selfless one must be disengaged from free will, the brain and from the nervous system. This may arguably happen at death.

[Nexus]

It sounds like a lot of you don't know what selfless means, so here you go.

Selfless: having little or no concern for oneself, esp. with regard to fame, position, money, etc.; unselfish.

That's it.

[FreeFall]

Selfless act, is it really possible to ever act without motive. What ever that may be, good, bad or indifferent????????????

[Antimotive]

I know this is an older thread, but when I read it, I had to wonder.....Why do all of our attempts to define selflessness always seem to assume that reward must follow the act? It seems to me that a truly selfless act would be something done out of gratitude. There is no expectation in that case, as the reward preceeds the act, and there is nothing more to be gained by acting. Of course, it would need to be true gratitude and not merely a sense of duty.

[gwilendiel]

re: OP (sorry for not reading the rest of the thread)

I think most if not all acts are selfish in some way. I do believe a selfless act is possible, especially if it involves one's own death, but that does not make it probable or likely (or actual). Even before death one may be selfish.

I think this comes down to introspection, which in some regards we cannot do.
If I may quote Wikipedia:

Psychological research on cognition and attribution has asked people to report on their mental processes, for instance to say why they made a particular choice or how they arrived at a judgement. In some situations, these reports are clearly confabulated. For example, people justify choices they have not in fact made. Such results undermine the idea that those verbal reports are based on direct introspective access to mental content. Instead, judgements about one's own mind seem to be inferences from overt behavior, similar to judgements made about another person. However, it is hard to assess whether these results only apply to unusual experimental situations, or if they reveal something about everyday introspection. The theory of the adaptive unconscious suggests that a very large proportion of mental processes, even "high-level" processes like goal-setting and decision-making, are inaccessible to introspection.

Even when their introspections are uninformative, people still give confident descriptions of their mental processes, being "unaware of their unawareness". This phenomenon has been termed the introspection illusion and has been used to explain some cognitive biases and belief in some paranormal phenomena. When making judgements about themselves, subjects treat their own introspections as reliable, whereas they judge other people based on their behavior. This can lead to illusions of superiority. For example, people generally see themselves as less conformist than others, and this seems to be because they do not introspect any urge to conform. Another reliable finding is that people generally see themselves as less biased than everyone else, because they do not introspect any biased thought processes. These introspections are misleading, however, because biases work sub-consciously. One experiment tried to give their subjects access to others' introspections. They made audio recordings of subjects who had been told to say whatever came into their heads as they answered a question about their own bias. Although subjects persuaded themselves they were unlikely to be biased, their introspective reports did not sway the assessments of observers. When subjects were explicitly told to avoid relying on introspection, their assessments of their own bias became more realistic.

[Lagawrd]

What satisfies the criteria for a selfless-act?

Because any act, no matter how unproductive it is to the doer, can be considered or 'perceived' as a selfish act. Heck, even an act with the intention to destroy yourself or strip yourself out of all your belongings, even suicide would be a selfish act, you did it for a reason (eg. prove something to yourself or what not, or not happy with something in particular).

So, does it mean that the selfless act you speak of is an act which has no cause? That doesn't exist.

A selfless act is agreed upon to be an act that serves the other more so than it serves the doer, and the act was prompted by no one but yourself (eg. choosing, yourself, to give Timmy money even though you know you won't be buying that Flat screen TV for another week, and knowing that he would be very happy and won't be able to pay it back.)

Otherwise, if we are going to dig any deeper, we might as well question a whole bunch of other stuff such as the nature of good and bad, like what is an act of good? Freewill? Are we even acting at all?, etc

[gwilendiel]

A selfless act is agreed upon to be an act that serves the other more so than it serves the doer, and the act was prompted by no one but yourself (eg. choosing, yourself, to give Timmy money even though you know you won't be buying that Flat screen TV for another week, and knowing that he would be very happy and won't be able to pay it back.)

I'd say this is really the only way you can call something selfless.
I think the confusion comes along in the fact that there is a 'self' that is doing the act in the first place. If they just want recognition, or perhaps only don't want to deal with guilt, then they are acting for themselves (selfish) but it can still end up being selfless. The question is, do the two contradict each other? It would seem not, because they can both happen at the same time. So the next question would be, which do you use to identify it? We call people who are selfish as selfish. Even if they are selfless, they still might be selfish.

I believe the distinction comes down to this, we will believe whichever one pleases our opinion, both are accurate and a paradox isn't particularly useful. So calling the way to be selfless as selfless is still selfish, so all acts could still be selfish, because selfishness is actual behavior, and selflessness appears to be more a social construct.

[EuroCrimeFan]

Richard Dawkins "The Selfish Gene" is a good book to read about this.

[gwilendiel]

They say ‘Not a drop of blood has ever been shed in the name of Buddhism’, but there's been at least one time where a Buddhist has sacrificed himself for his beliefs even though martyrdom doesn't seem to exist in Buddhism. The instance was Thich Quang Duc who burned himself to death in an intersection in South Vietnam to protest the inequality and ill treatment Buddhists suffered under the Catholic Diem that was controlling the government at the time. He wasn't saving anyone's life in the act, if he was aware that such an act might have accomplished nothing, how did he do it for himself, if he did not know the results of the act?

Just saw this.

I think we still have the connotation that selfishness is always bad. It can be bad, but not always.

And I'm not about to try and throw out morality or ethics either, but it would seem that we all are our own selves. We are part of a society, and do things to benefit our society, either because it reciprocates or we empathize.

So one may die in protest because it is what their self feels driven to do. In this way, selfishness is actually good. I believe we all reflect others through our selves in some way. I don't think it is half as rational or nearly as complicated as we are trying to make it out to be.

Belief, morality, etc. exist because we are selfish yet have to get along with society because we need each other (again selfish)

[Antimotive]

I say it is our environment that has trained us to believe that selfless acts are impossible. We are offered rewards (some fake) for every action, in order to motivate us to act in certain ways. We have motivational books, speakers, tapes, etc. all designed to make us think this way, because it makes us easier to control.
We are taught, even in a discussion like this, to think only in terms of a motivated act. What about unmotivated acts? I mentioned acts of Gratitude earlier, but I think most of us have become so jaded that we cannot see ourselves acting purely out of gratitude, let alone others. Nevertheless, it does happen.
I also agree that we shouldn't assume that selfish and selfless should be ascribed to other values such as good or evil. All of us can most likely think of actions we have taken for "no particular reason". Just because these actions may have no noticable results or intent does not disqualify them from being classified as "Selfless".
Perpetuating the belief that selflessness is impossible only serves to diminish our belief in the possibilities of morality and virtue, reducing our self image to that of a common animal; with no ability to react to anything beyond external stimuli.

[dmouth11]

Wasn't this the subject of an episode of Friends?

Sorry if that was already mentioned previously on this thread

[Antimotive]

Yes, the subject was discussed on Freinds. The conversation was between Phoebe and Joey, though. Not the most intellectually portrayed characters on the show, their argument adds very little to the actual debate.

The episode in question does, however, demonstrate a very basic understanding of the topic, which is the most that can be expected of the public at large. It essentially explains the nature of the question, but does not actually answer it, cutting the debate short with an answer that can only serve as an excuse to discontinue the conversation - Very disappointing.

Comedy has been a socially accepted way of expressing profound thought without fear of retribution for centuries. Of course, to truly explore the topic would have required at least a full season of ongoing references to the subject, so I guess I can't blame them.

[LordCorbin]

I say it is our environment that has trained us to believe that selfless acts are impossible. We are offered rewards (some fake) for every action, in order to motivate us to act in certain ways. We have motivational books, speakers, tapes, etc. all designed to make us think this way, because it makes us easier to control.
We are taught, even in a discussion like this, to think only in terms of a motivated act. What about unmotivated acts? I mentioned acts of Gratitude earlier, but I think most of us have become so jaded that we cannot see ourselves acting purely out of gratitude, let alone others. Nevertheless, it does happen.
I also agree that we shouldn't assume that selfish and selfless should be ascribed to other values such as good or evil. All of us can most likely think of actions we have taken for "no particular reason". Just because these actions may have no noticable results or intent does not disqualify them from being classified as "Selfless".
Perpetuating the belief that selflessness is impossible only serves to diminish our belief in the possibilities of morality and virtue, reducing our self image to that of a common animal; with no ability to react to anything beyond external stimuli.

Acts of gratitude are not selfless. They are born out of a desire for reciprocity, it makes you feel good to let others know you appreciate what they do. Even in situations where there is no external reward, we reward ourselves. We give to charity because it makes us feel good, if it made us feel badly we wouldnt do it, unless we were masochists who got pleasure from pain. Every action is done to further our own agendas, sometimes it is detrimental and sometimes it is positive, but they are still selfish.

[gwilendiel]

I say it is our environment that has trained us to believe that selfless acts are impossible. We are offered rewards (some fake) for every action, in order to motivate us to act in certain ways. We have motivational books, speakers, tapes, etc. all designed to make us think this way, because it makes us easier to control.
We are taught, even in a discussion like this, to think only in terms of a motivated act. What about unmotivated acts? I mentioned acts of Gratitude earlier, but I think most of us have become so jaded that we cannot see ourselves acting purely out of gratitude, let alone others. Nevertheless, it does happen.
I also agree that we shouldn't assume that selfish and selfless should be ascribed to other values such as good or evil. All of us can most likely think of actions we have taken for "no particular reason". Just because these actions may have no noticable results or intent does not disqualify them from being classified as "Selfless".
Perpetuating the belief that selflessness is impossible only serves to diminish our belief in the possibilities of morality and virtue, reducing our self image to that of a common animal; with no ability to react to anything beyond external stimuli.

I'd say acts which are not motivated could be frightening. They would be impulse or reflex acts, which would mean the person is not thinking much at all.

We are selfish BECAUSE we think. Which is a great thing! It's an awesome thing!

We also have no ability to react beyond external stimuli either. We must have stimuli to react, unless psychics are proven to exist? I know reality is really real, but don't forget we are trapped in a meat body. Everything you see, hear, do, think about, comes from external stimuli because that's the only way to get information to your brain.

But then again, this leads me to believe we label things far too much.

[cannotseethe]

We are selfish BECAUSE we think. Which is a great thing! It's an awesome thing!

Eek, I don't know about that. Haven't you seen animals fighting over food? It strikes me that our ability to think is what keeps every meal from being a battle.

We recognize we are selfish because we think. That sounds more like it to me.


We also have no ability to react beyond external stimuli either. We must have stimuli to react, unless psychics are proven to exist? I know reality is really real, but don't forget we are trapped in a meat body. Everything you see, hear, do, think about, comes from external stimuli because that's the only way to get information to your brain.

It's quite possible that I'm misinterpreting you here. However, I definitely want to say that we do not need external stimuli to act. We are decidedly not just stimulus/response engines. Our brains have an internal dynamics that runs somewhat independently of sensory input; sensory input modulates that dynamics, but the dynamics exists on its own. Putting aside that people go mad after too much sensory deprivation, it's quite possible to think, and act, in the total absence of external stimuli.

It's like the difference between a push car and a wind-up car. A push car won't move unless you...uh...push it. A wind-up car can move on its own (provided it's wound up). The brain's more like the wind-up car than it is the push car.

[gwilendiel]

Eek, I don't know about that. Haven't you seen animals fighting over food? It strikes me that our ability to think is what keeps every meal from being a battle.

We recognize we are selfish because we think. That sounds more like it to me.

There is subconscious thought, desire. Selfish implies a self, in the psychological sense (to me). So animals are selfish too. (and animals also think, they just think differently perhaps)


It's like the difference between a push car and a wind-up car. A push car won't move unless you...uh...push it. A wind-up car can move on its own (provided it's wound up). The brain's more like the wind-up car than it is the push car.


You have to be able to know either car is there to do anything at al. You cannot act upon nothing (or nothing perceived at least) And I'm referring to conscious acts. I suppose if a meteor crashed into the earth, the meteor would be performing an act, but it would be physics. You eat because you are hungry, talk to share information or entertain.

Even if you were locked away in an isolation unit, you still have stimulus, the stimulus of isolation. But if you have no information on the environment outside, you cannot have an informed or meaningful act on the environment outside.

[cannotseethe]

There is subconscious thought, desire. Selfish implies a self, in the psychological sense (to me). So animals are selfish too. (and animals also think, they just think differently perhaps)

I don't think self-ness requires psychological self. There is a sense in which any object, like a pencil, is a self (we use words like "itself" to describe such things).

Regarding thought, we could of course push down the animal kingdom to fruit flies or below. Tell me how far down we have to go before you'll grant that those entities aren't thinking, and I'll give you an example of them behaving selfishly. :)


You have to be able to know either car is there to do anything at al. You cannot act upon nothing (or nothing perceived at least) And I'm referring to conscious acts. I suppose if a meteor crashed into the earth, the meteor would be performing an act, but it would be physics. You eat because you are hungry, talk to share information or entertain.

This feels slippery when you put it back into context: On the one hand, we have conscious acts. On the other we have what you said previously:

We also have no ability to react beyond external stimuli either.

But conscious acts, to the extent that they're deliberative, involve quite a bit more than mere external stimuli.


Even if you were locked away in an isolation unit, you still have stimulus, the stimulus of isolation. But if you have no information on the environment outside, you cannot have an informed or meaningful act on the environment outside.

This also feels slippery. You're essentially turning the word "stimuli" into a catch-all term. Even in the total absence of sensory input, you're still "stimulated by the absence." The word stimulus hardly means anything at that point, in my opinion.

Furthermore, of course you're free to act on the external world. The fact that you're not able to perceive that you're screaming at the top of your lungs does not mean you aren't doing it.

[gwilendiel]

I don't think self-ness requires psychological self. There is a sense in which any object, like a pencil, is a self (we use words like "itself" to describe such things).

Regarding thought, we could of course push down the animal kingdom to fruit flies or below. Tell me how far down we have to go before you'll grant that those entities aren't thinking, and I'll give you an example of them behaving selfishly. :)


If you remove desire, you remove voluntary behavior. It would still be behavior I suppose. The wind has behaviors, but not because it feels like it. There is also instinct. If you are a being, you are alive, no matter how rudimentary, I posit that you have desires. Otherwise actions would be entirely random, or not done at all.


But conscious acts, to the extent that they're deliberative, involve quite a bit more than mere external stimuli.

They involve more but stimuli is still the catalyst. Your brain also stimulates itself too, but that is internal stimulation. So it can operate in isolation, yes. But it can not have an informed effect. Plus there is prior knowledge, too, if you learned something before being isolated, that still counts as external stimuli after the fact. If you had not received that information from a source, you would not have it, and therefore could not act on it.


This also feels slippery. You're essentially turning the word "stimuli" into a catch-all term. Even in the total absence of sensory input, you're still "stimulated by the absence." The word stimulus hardly means anything at that point, in my opinion.

Furthermore, of course you're free to act on the external world. The fact that you're not able to perceive that you're screaming at the top of your lungs does not mean you aren't doing it.

You're misinterpreting me I think. Yes, you can scream, you can scream in hopes that somebody would hear you, also. If you know somebody is outside, you would know that by stimulus, or perception.
A complex act involving thought requires stimulus. Stimulus is something that incites activity. An act upon no information, or no stimulus, would be a random act, and all I was saying earlier is that random acts are bad for a society.

[cannotseethe]

If you remove desire, you remove voluntary behavior. It would still be behavior I suppose. The wind has behaviors, but not because it feels like it. There is also instinct. If you are a being, you are alive, no matter how rudimentary, I posit that you have desires. Otherwise actions would be entirely random, or not done at all.

Does a candle desire to draw air from below its flame and heat it?

I ask because you can look at things like candles as self sustaining. The heat of the flame melts the wax, exposes the wick, burns the wick, and draws colder air from below up into the flame, where it is heated and vents out the top. If you squint at it really hard, you can almost convince yourself that the candle "desires" fuel and air to keep itself "alive."

That may be weird, except when you look at the most primitive of organisms, they're doing similar things when it comes to obtaining and using fuel to live.

Does a virus have desires?


They involve more but stimuli is still the catalyst.

This is simply not so. Spontaneous acts are well documented, the mainstay of cognitive science even. In fact, this very statement could be made to resemble the core of the debate between B.F. Skinner (behaviorism) and Noam Chomsky (cognitive science) back in the 1950s.


But it can not have an informed effect.

Tautology. Informed == "informed by external stimulus," to your way of thinking, right?

Yet sometimes actions are informed by pain, or dreams.


Plus there is prior knowledge, too, if you learned something before being isolated, that still counts as external stimuli after the fact.

This feels like a definitional trap that turns everything into stimulus. It's somewhat radical to refer to learned things as "after the fact stimulus," besides divesting the word "stimulus" of meaning by making it mean everything.


If you had not received that information from a source, you would not have it, and therefore could not act on it.

The source could be my own body.

Also, "act on it" feels confining, as "on" implies external, but we're discussing the source and target of actions. What's at issue here, it seems to me, is whether stimulus, thought, and action can take place entirely internally. When you use phrases like "act on," which imply an outside target, you're slanting the debate towards a particular conclusion.


A complex act involving thought requires stimulus.

No, it does not. You assert this, but it is not universally so.


Stimulus is something that incites activity.

Sometimes, perhaps, but not always. Stimulus can incite no activity, and activity can be incited by something that is not external stimulus.

An act upon no information, or no stimulus, would be a random act

Random like a coin flip, or "random" in the colloquial sense of "not deliberative"?

[Antimotive]

At this point, I feel it is appropriate to state the following: Anyone who believes that every voluntary human action has been motivated (directly or indirectly) by external stimuli, has never raised a child.

While we pay a great deal of attention to the proper use of external stimuli in order to motivate the behavior of children, a great number of their actions are ultimately stimulated from within, many times with no discernable cause or purpose, and no useful outcome (selfless?). Despite this, many would agree that a small child, especially an infant, is the most self-ish creature on earth.

Ultimately, if we were not self-aware, no action we took could be considered deliberately selfless. It is only because we are self-aware that any action we take can be considered deliberately selfish. The only way to prove that human selflessness does not exist is to prove that we are not self aware, which would instantly remove the possibility of human selfishness. It seems then, that if selfishness is possible, selflessness must also be possible, otherwise neither can exist.

[gwilendiel]

interesting stuff
Sorry if I am rude for not addressing each of your points directly, I'll just attempt to address them all in one go.

Let's look at Newton's third law:
III. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

Reaction is stimulus. It is catalyst for action. When you push a ball and make it roll down the hill, that is stimulus. If the ball is a being it may decide to try to roll down the hill itself.

But for the ball to do that spontaneously, and have it be a conscious, planned act, it mist first know that it is on the hill and that it could roll down in the first place. It might still do it anyway without knowing, but it would be both spontaneous and random i.e. Having no definite aim or purpose; not sent or guided in a particular direction; made, done, occurring, etc., without method or conscious choice; haphazard.

[cannotseethe]

Ultimately, if we were not self-aware, no action we took could be considered deliberately selfless. It is only because we are self-aware that any action we take can be considered deliberately selfish. The only way to prove that human selflessness does not exist is to prove that we are not self aware, which would instantly remove the possibility of human selfishness. It seems then, that if selfishness is possible, selflessness must also be possible, otherwise neither can exist.

Fantastic point. ;D The bit about deliberation is spot on, I think.

Are (deliberate) selfishness and selflessness two sides of the same coin, then?


Reaction is stimulus. It is catalyst for action. When you push a ball and make it roll down the hill, that is stimulus. If the ball is a being it may decide to try to roll down the hill itself.

But for the ball to do that spontaneously, and have it be a conscious, planned act, it mist first know that it is on the hill and that it could roll down in the first place. It might still do it anyway without knowing, but it would be both spontaneous and random i.e.

Sorry if I seem obtuse. I'm just poking at these ideas, and this is how I tend to go about it. :)

Do you know those hollow balls that have a little ball inside? You can shake them so that the little ball starts rolling around inside the hollow one, and then roll it across the floor. The ball, since it has this little ball inside it jiggling around, takes a wobbly path, and kids giggle.

The action of the ball is controlled by two factors: the external stimulus that causes it to roll across the floor; and, the internal stimulus of that little ball inside it rolling around. You need to know about both to fully explain the motion of the ball.

It doesn't help to say "well, you supplied an external stimulus to set that little ball rolling!" because maybe all that happened at the time of the Big Bang. Maybe it was just physics. We get into an insoluble chicken-and-egg problem, in other words, and start arguing about what, exactly, "internal" and "external" mean.

I personally do not believe there is a hard line between conscious and not-conscious, nor between living and not-living. I think these are continua. As an example of the latter, viruses or prions stand as examples of what are usually regarded as life forms that are nevertheless extremely simple, virtually molecules. As you ascend the ladder of (behavioral) complexity you end up with things that think talk and walk, but I don't think there's a hard line to draw. I don't think it makes sense to predicate words like "desired" or "planned" on the ability to draw a hard line.

That said, there's a sense, however primitive, in which a candle "desires" fuel, and the wobbly ball "plans" its wobbly course. If not, why not? What's the categorical difference between those sorts of desires and plans, and the sorts that human beings exhibit?

[gwilendiel]

Sorry if I seem obtuse. I'm just poking at these ideas, and this is how I tend to go about it. :)
That's fine, I tend to do the same haha

Do you know those hollow balls that have a little ball inside? You can shake them so that the little ball starts rolling around inside the hollow one, and then roll it across the floor. The ball, since it has this little ball inside it jiggling around, takes a wobbly path, and kids giggle.

The action of the ball is controlled by two factors: the external stimulus that causes it to roll across the floor; and, the internal stimulus of that little ball inside it rolling around. You need to know about both to fully explain the motion of the ball.

It doesn't help to say "well, you supplied an external stimulus to set that little ball rolling!" because maybe all that happened at the time of the Big Bang. Maybe it was just physics. We get into an insoluble chicken-and-egg problem, in other words, and start arguing about what, exactly, "internal" and "external" mean.

I personally do not believe there is a hard line between conscious and not-conscious, nor between living and not-living. I think these are continua. As an example of the latter, viruses or prions stand as examples of what are usually regarded as life forms that are nevertheless extremely simple, virtually molecules. As you ascend the ladder of (behavioral) complexity you end up with things that think talk and walk, but I don't think there's a hard line to draw. I don't think it makes sense to predicate words like "desired" or "planned" on the ability to draw a hard line.

That said, there's a sense, however primitive, in which a candle "desires" fuel, and the wobbly ball "plans" its wobbly course. If not, why not? What's the categorical difference between those sorts of desires and plans, and the sorts that human beings exhibit?

Remember, stimulus is stimulus, and internal and external are human cognitive constructs. So yes, a ball moving a ball from the inside could be 'internal stimulus' but for all intents and purposes, that is a semantics problem. What counts as inside or outside? Are the two different objects or one complex object?

Also remember, things are either spontaneous or not, planned or random, acting or not acting. These are absolute. If you are halfway between inaction and action, you are acting, and are therefore not halfway between... that would be paradoxical.

[NoOne]

The question implies that people are aware of what they are doing to begin with. Human action is effected by both rational and irrational processes. As Plato tried to point out in Gorgias, this means that much of what passes for human will is nothing of the kind.

And since irrational action is not a benifit to the actor, one can call it "self-less".

[gwilendiel]

The question implies that people are aware of what they are doing to begin with. Human action is effected by both rational and irrational processes. As Plato tried to point out in Gorgias, this means that much of what passes for human will is nothing of the kind.

And since irrational action is not a benifit to the actor, one can call it "self-less".

Right. Or to put it more specifically, it would be self-less because it is irrational. It could accidentally have a benefit, but that would not have been planned, it would be a consequence of randomness, therefore not intentional, therefore self-less.

---------- Post added 11-24-2009 at 02:05 PM ----------

Furthermore, the fact we recognize this makes us at least partly rational, which would preclude us from total irrationality, and diametrically, total irrationality would preclude us from both thinking and knowing it.

It would also preclude us from being entirely spontaneous, unless we are all just observers along for the ride. But I say we are not, because we at least have the illusion of action, and for all intents we must take that as real because we cannot know it (or think about it) otherwise.

So therefore I conclude we do because we think. In the not-random sense of do.

[Antimotive]

So now that we seem to have established that "Selflessness" is possible in some sense, let's further examine the possibilities.

If a random undeliberate act can be selfless, is there any scenario in which an intentional one can be? Could a person be described as performing an act deliberately without any awareness (on any level) of the motivation for doing so, and if so, is such an act selfless?

Could a person be self-aware but dissociated from the self? Would a hive-mind mentality necessarily remove one's ability to be aware of self, or can one person simultaneously be aware of self and of existance as an indescernable whole? If the latter is possible, would it then be possible for such a person to act for the good of the whole without personal motivation, or does the motivation become selfish on behalf of the hive? Thoughts?

[gwilendiel]

So now that we seem to have established that "Selflessness" is possible in some sense, let's further examine the possibilities.

If a random undeliberate act can be selfless, is there any scenario in which an intentional one can be? Could a person be described as performing an act deliberately without any awareness (on any level) of the motivation for doing so, and if so, is such an act selfless?

Could a person be self-aware but dissociated from the self? Would a hive-mind mentality necessarily remove one's ability to be aware of self, or can one person simultaneously be aware of self and of existance as an indescernable whole? If the latter is possible, would it then be possible for such a person to act for the good of the whole without personal motivation, or does the motivation become selfish on behalf of the hive? Thoughts?

I say it is possible, which is why I alluded to that fact earlier.
I strongly believe that people with Down's syndrome for example have more a "quality of innocence", yet they are rational in some regard. I'd say if somebody could be consciously selfless, it would be somebody like that, but I don't know how to prove it.

[NoOne]

So now that we seem to have established that "Selflessness" is possible in some sense, let's further examine the possibilities.

If a random undeliberate act can be selfless, is there any scenario in which an intentional one can be? Could a person be described as performing an act deliberately without any awareness (on any level) of the motivation for doing so, and if so, is such an act selfless?

Could a person be self-aware but dissociated from the self? Would a hive-mind mentality necessarily remove one's ability to be aware of self, or can one person simultaneously be aware of self and of existance as an indescernable whole? If the latter is possible, would it then be possible for such a person to act for the good of the whole without personal motivation, or does the motivation become selfish on behalf of the hive? Thoughts?

If one defines the mind like any other human body acquisition system, then no. When we breath, we breath for our own body. When we eat, we eat for our own body. When we will, therefore, we will for our own life. --However, if one take it to the extreme, A = A. then if we allow ourselves to die so that someone else may live, it is because one sees themselves in all humanity, and the answer therefore remains, no.

There are only two outputs possible for the human mind, it either sustains and promotes life, or it does not. When it does not, one can call it "self-less" and when it does, "self".

[Antimotive]

There are only two outputs possible for the human mind, it either sustains and promotes life, or it does not. When it does not, one can call it "self-less" and when it does, "self".

This seems a very binary view of human existance. I might point out that occasions when the human mind "does not" sustain and promote life, could include inaction - which would indicate at least 3 possibilities, and stray from the original question; "Is there any such thing as a selfless act?".

The question, though, seems to me to have less to do with semantics or definitions than with motivation. Despite the fact that I believe that self-awareness is necessary for the existance of deliberate selfless action (or for that matter selfish action), I do not believe that the existance of self-awareness necessarily proves the existance of either. It is the motivation of an action that is the determining factor.

I have often wondered why some religeons teach that bliss (a selfish desire) can only be aquired through the deliberate denial of self. If one was able to deny the self to the point of choosing no longer to serve it, the motivation (achieving bliss) would no longer be valid. I think this may be why such religeons so often teach that "life is a journey, not a destination".

If there was anything that could motivate a person to choose to act with absolutely no reference to self (not even to consider the benefit of the act) that did not require the absence of awareness of the existance of the individual as self, such motivation could produce 100% selfless acts.

If such motivation required denial of self, then we have removed self-awareness and therefore removed the possibility of deliberately selfless and deliberatelyselfish acts. Therefore, in order to determine whether a human being, fully self aware, is capable of performing a deliberate selfless act, we would need to know whether any such motivation can exist without the prerequisite denial of self.

Of course, this is purely academic. In reality, one could consider an act selfless in terms of relative selflessness, a measure based on the level of concern for self on which the descision to act was based. We have also determined that a selfless act can imply an act that is not deliberate (incidental selflessness, not to be confused with random acts of kindness).

Since it is impossible to prove a negative without first proving a positive that eliminates other possibilities, the only way to answer this question definitively would be to state a fact that is undeniably true which makes the possibility of the existance of such a motivation impossible, or prove that such a motivation does in fact exist. The latter seems less of a stretch, so my money is on deliberate selfless acts being possible.

[gwilendiel]

If such motivation required denial of self, then we have removed self-awareness and therefore removed the possibility of deliberately selfless and deliberatelyselfish acts. Therefore, in order to determine whether a human being, fully self aware, is capable of performing a deliberate selfless act, we would need to know whether any such motivation can exist without the prerequisite denial of self.

Which is begging the question. Everything we see which we know is self aware, does something. If there is something which is self aware and does nothing, we do not know it, because it does nothing. Which makes it moot and not very useful, IMO. (no offense intended with that)

[gwilendiel]

And also, as I said before, the motivation could exist, possibly. But as it stands now, we have no way of knowing it other than logical analysis.

I think the only proof would be already knowing it, i.e. we would have to be able to read another's thoughts directly.

[Antimotive]

Which is begging the question. Everything we see which we know is self aware, does something. If there is something which is self aware and does nothing, we do not know it, because it does nothing. Which makes it moot and not very useful, IMO. (no offense intended with that)

No offense taken, however you have assumed the requirement of a perpetual state. A thing (or person) could be self aware and do nothing in a given moment. This would not require that it always does nothing. A better question here might be "can it remain self-aware during a period of absolutely no activity?".

[gwilendiel]

No offense taken, however you have assumed the requirement of a perpetual state. A thing (or person) could be self aware and do nothing in a given moment. This would not require that it always does nothing. A better question here might be "can it remain self-aware during a period of absolutely no activity?".

I don't think that's a question, I think it's a given.
My point was, if the state were perpetual, we would not know it. If it were not perpetual, we eventually could know it, but we do not, as of yet.

I use perpetuality as a control for the test, because as soon as something does something, the prior state is no longer perpetual, and in which case if we observe it, we would know. But we have not, it would seem.

[Antimotive]

So therein lies my question; Has anyone observed such a motivation? I have not, as yet, but I believe that if such a motivation does exist, it is entirely possible that someone else has. I am not prepared to relinquish this question to future generations just yet...

[gwilendiel]

So therein lies my question; Has anyone observed such a motivation? I have not, as yet, but I believe that if such a motivation does exist, it is entirely possible that someone else has. I am not prepared to relinquish this question to future generations just yet...

Oh, me either. Which is why I fully acknowledge the possibility of selfless motivation. Just with the workings of the human mind, it seems unlikely. That doesn't make it 100% impossible, however.

[Antimotive]

And also, as I said before, the motivation could exist, possibly. But as it stands now, we have no way of knowing it other than logical analysis.

I think the only proof would be already knowing it, i.e. we would have to be able to read another's thoughts directly.

So, is it possible then that such a motivation can only be percieved by those who experience it?

[gwilendiel]

So, is it possible then that such a motivation can only be percieved by those who experience it?

That could be possible.
Or it could be a requirement that you do not perceive it yourself, for all we know.

[hubcap]

What about the guy in the military who jumps on a grenade to save his buddies and is killed as a result?

Would you consider that a "selfless act"?

[Moriarty]

What about the guy in the military who jumps on a grenade to save his buddies and is killed?

Would you consider that a "selfless act"?

Why did he jump on the grenade?

[hubcap]

Why did he jump on the grenade?


What about the guy in the military who jumps on a grenade to save his buddies and is killed as a result?

[Moriarty]

What about the guy in the military who jumps on a grenade to save his buddies and is killed as a result?

To save his buddies? Hmm. Why was this important to him? Was he possibly moving towards one outcome and away from another?

[hubcap]

To save his buddies? Hmm. Why was this important to him? Was he possibly moving towards one outcome and away from another?
Don't know, can't ask him..............he's dead.

[Moriarty]

Don't know, can't ask him..............he's dead.

How unfortunate, that in a hypothetical scenario, the actor is hypothetically dead and exempt from questioning. I guess we'll never know. ;)

[hubcap]

How unfortunate, that in a hypothetical scenario, the actor is hypothetically dead and exempt from questioning. I guess we'll never know. ;)
Personally, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and classify it as a "selfless act".

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Moriarty]

Personally, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and classify it as a "selfless act".

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


The benefit of the doubt? What does that mean, exactly? It seems on the surface to mean we shouldn't question martyrdom. Correct me if I'm wrong (specifically, please).

[Sk8ordude]

Any deliberate act requires the individual to first think of what to do and decide if they want to do it. If they do what they want to do at some level it is done for the self.

However I think that is pretty obvious. Doing selfless things for others gives a person a sense of knowing they did the right thing, that they made the world or another persons life better, or that they were being the best person they could be at that point in time given their circumstances.

I think doing things for others just to do the right thing is a normal human behavior (as long as basic needs are met, but that isn't always the case). Those who don't see the point in it if it doesn't benefit them, could be sociopathic at some level as empathy could be part of this "selfless" behavior.

[hubcap]

The benefit of the doubt? What does that mean, exactly? It seems on the surface to mean we shouldn't question martyrdom. Correct me if I'm wrong (specifically, please).

It seems that you are having a hard time understanding the ideas I am attempting to convey. So, I will attempt to clarify in as simple a fashion as possible:

Given - I can't ask the guy what his intentions were
Therefore - I can't be absolutely certain that his act was done for selfless reasons
Therefore - There is at least a tiny bit of doubt whether his act was done for selfless

Hence - The least tiny bit of doubt is far outweighed by the thought that it was done for selfless reasons.

[Moriarty]

It seems that you are having a hard time understanding the ideas I am attempting to convey.

No. I understand you perfectly well. What I'm trying to understand is why your process seems to stop at that point. Keep going.

[hubcap]

No. I understand you perfectly well. What I'm trying to understand is why your process seems to stop at that point. Keep going.
No additional information is available upon which to deduce any further conclusions.........Hence - concluded.

I would be interested to understand your further reasoning.

[Moriarty]

I would be interested to understand your further reasoning.

I did some mental meandering on the subject back when I started the thread. It's still there.

No additional information is available upon which to deduce any further conclusions.........Hence - concluded.


Not everyone (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) who jumps on grenades dies. There's still plenty of information to chew on.

[gwilendiel]

What about the guy in the military who jumps on a grenade to save his buddies and is killed as a result?

Would you consider that a "selfless act"?

I'd consider that it could be considered a selfless act, yet the fact remains we will never know.
He could be both selfless and selfish.

Here's how I look at it:
We consider selfish to be 0, selfless to be 1.
0+0=0
0+1=1

So selfish is selfish, and selfless is selfless, even though it's still selfish.
i.e. we apply extra conditions to make a distinction which would not be there without those conditions.

[hubcap]

I did some mental meandering on the subject back when I started the thread. It's still there.



Not everyone (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) who jumps on grenades dies. There's still plenty of information to chew on.
The problem with the example of jumping on a grenade is the possibility that everyone who jumps on a grenade to save their buddies could be doing it for different reasons.

Most of the people who jump on grenades are dead so we can't ask them what their motives were.

[gwilendiel]

The problem with the example of jumping on a grenade is the possibility that everyone who jumps on a grenade to save their buddies could be doing it for different reasons.

Most of the people who jump on grenades are dead so we can't ask them what their motives were.

Well, right, but "different reasons" is not the problem (or maybe it is?) because we are trying to condense all reasons into one of two definitions.

If "different reasons" is a true factor then it blows things out to the point we would need a super computer to 'discuss' it. But really the opposite is what is taking place, we are reducing a set of possibilities down into one or two. (or perhaps one that consists of two by definition)

[Alienhated]

You questions is the answer in itself. SELF + LESS ACT is only possible if you don't do it yourself, you have to subtract the self. The self implies awareness of yourself, so an unconscious act can be selfless, but since it's without you, you can't say that you made it, or that your self made it.

[gwilendiel]

You questions is the answer in itself. SELF + LESS ACT is only possible if you don't do it yourself, you have to subtract the self. The self implies awareness of yourself, so an unconscious act can be selfless, but since it's without you, you can't say that you made it, or that your self made it.

I tend to agree, and hold the position that we know other people exist because we know we exist.

I feel this is how most healthy people distinguish what they perceive as real actions from other people, and why empathy is so important. I really do like to take a concept all the way, and I feel that some axioms should not be simply discarded.

We reflect ourselves in other people, and reflect ourselves in ourselves as well. It is theorized that we do not see our own thought process directly, but we judge ourselves based on our own perceived behaviors in a similar way we do with other people. I feel this is evidenced in the apparent correlation between perceived empathy and perceived understanding. Less empathic people understand others less, and believe to understand themselves more because they aren't using any gauge but themselves.

I see this pretty clearly in my own behavior, and I consider myself to be empathic....

[scotty]

You guys are thinking about this in the wrong way, of course there is such a thing as a self-less act. Where do you get your theories from - an episode of Friends???

Let me give you a very simple example. You own a dog, and return from work tired. You would rather sit and relax watching tv and have a cup of tea, but you know you should take your dog out for a walk. The selfish thing to do would be to sit and watch tv, the self-less thing would be to take the dog out for a walk.

Now you could argue that you still feel some satisfaction with walknig the dog, but that is not your motivation for your action. Your motivation is doing the right thing - facing up to your responsibilities even if you would rather not.

So to sum up; if your motivation for your actions is to benefit you then it is selfish. If it is to do the right thing, then it is self-less - regardless if you benefit in any way as a by-product.

Simples.

[Yardy]

^
Attempting in earnest to be selfless, while retaining knowledge of the fact that it should be impossible is the most selfless act.

[Quintessence]

Selfless acts do not exist. Only selfish acts exist. Yet, what is the self? I argue that the self is the original reality, the original subject from which all objective reality is issued and returned as experience. My position is nothing new, but I reached it by my own path, so I feel it holds weight because many of the reasons which brought me to it as well as many implications I derived from it are very similar to those of others in religion and philosophy who have held this position, from Zartosht to Epictetus to Leibniz. Reality is generated by a self, a magnificent, generous, glorious and gloriously happy self. It was a selfish act to do this by definition. There can be no other "type" of reality, therefore no other type of action (as this is the primordial action). Therefore "selfless" actions do not exist.

Looks like I sidestepped your issue until you see that I am saying that this question has sidestepped reality. The real question is what, if anything, is meant by "selfless"? I would say it is not a categorical meaning, so we may as well drop "self" vs. "selfless". All actions proceed from an agent referred to as a "self". If what is meant is "generous" with no strings attached, I would say "no" as well. There is no sense to being generous with "no strings attached". The primordial self has bequeathed our own selfhoods to us as a gift of great generosity, but what is the value of generosity if it does not reach its end in view, which is beneficence? What is the beneficence if the benefit is not realized? How can such a grand benefit of being a chip of the old block of the Original Self be realized if we don't appreciate the origin of this gift? Why would that not matter to the giver of the gift since it is the essence of the very meaning of giving it that it does matter? Therefore, there is always a string attached, even to the most generous actions.

[Olympics2010]

Did I already answer this question in this thread... I don't remember. But, yeah, I think that there most defintely is such thing as a truly selfless act.

[scotty]

Selfless acts do not exist. Only selfish acts exist. Yet, what is the self? I argue that the self is the original reality, the original subject from which all objective reality is issued and returned as experience. My position is nothing new, but I reached it by my own path, so I feel it holds weight because many of the reasons which brought me to it as well as many implications I derived from it are very similar to those of others in religion and philosophy who have held this position, from Zartosht to Epictetus to Leibniz. Reality is generated by a self, a magnificent, generous, glorious and gloriously happy self. It was a selfish act to do this by definition. There can be no other "type" of reality, therefore no other type of action (as this is the primordial action). Therefore "selfless" actions do not exist.

Looks like I sidestepped your issue until you see that I am saying that this question has sidestepped reality. The real question is what, if anything, is meant by "selfless"? I would say it is not a categorical meaning, so we may as well drop "self" vs. "selfless". All actions proceed from an agent referred to as a "self". If what is meant is "generous" with no strings attached, I would say "no" as well. There is no sense to being generous with "no strings attached". The primordial self has bequeathed our own selfhoods to us as a gift of great generosity, but what is the value of generosity if it does not reach its end in view, which is beneficence? What is the beneficence if the benefit is not realized? How can such a grand benefit of being a chip of the old block of the Original Self be realized if we don't appreciate the origin of this gift? Why would that not matter to the giver of the gift since it is the essence of the very meaning of giving it that it does matter? Therefore, there is always a string attached, even to the most generous actions.

---------- Post added 08-27-2010 at 02:15 AM ----------

You are right in one thing - you completely sidestepped the issue. The question was about selfishish and selfless acts and you have instead focussed too deeply on the meaning of a particular word. "Yet, what is the self?" - you may as well have wasted a paragraph or two on the question "Yet, what does the word 'really' really mean". This is a question of philosophy not linguistics, and we all know what the question means. For an answer, i refer you to my earlier post. Let's try not to make the conversation more difficult than it needs to be, hey...

[Zsych]

How about this:

A selfless act is an action that benefits another person than yourself, where the conscious intention is no immediate return on investment, on the part of the person committing the act.

Like I feel an emotion that I think of as 'good will' or 'caring' towards others. Those actions have no expected return. Sure I'm somewhat displeased at some people who won't even say Thank You, but I think if you're not looking for return, it should be considered selfless.

All actions have to come from a decision based within a person, so obviously, they all serve some purpose he believes is worth it. He could well feel that other people being happier is worth it and is an achievement that he should be happy with.

[Quintessence]

---------- Post added 08-27-2010 at 02:15 AM ----------

You are right in one thing - you completely sidestepped the issue. The question was about selfishish and selfless acts and you have instead focussed too deeply on the meaning of a particular word. "Yet, what is the self?" - you may as well have wasted a paragraph or two on the question "Yet, what does the word 'really' really mean". This is a question of philosophy not linguistics, and we all know what the question means. For an answer, i refer you to my earlier post. Let's try not to make the conversation more difficult than it needs to be, hey...

I couldn't agree with your assessment less. :)

[tehinternetsgam]

I didn't read the whole thread, just popped in to say I agree with the OP, there is no truly selfless (or altruistic) act.

And if it hasn't been mentioned already, this is called psychological egoism.

This doesn't mean that a persons self-interest can't be of benefit to others (IE: giving money to the poor to feel good about themselves) or that the benefit to others can't outweigh (to the external observer) the benefit to the deliverer. Nor does it mean that a persons self-interest will always be rational (to the external observer) (IE: jumping on a grenade to save comrades).

The main problem is that this is strictly the realm of philosophy - it is impossible to prove or disprove it objectively as it is entirely dependent on subjective interpretation.

I think the reason that NT's may be more inclined to view things this way is because of our level of detachment. We like to observe everything externally, even our own actions. Given that I do believe pyschological egoism is correct, my theory is that the stronger the SF someone is, the less inclined they will be to identify or admit self-interest because we are all taught from a young age that selfishness is bad, so admitting "selfish" self-interest would bring up a negative emotional response, something that an SF would usually try to avoid (And when I say SF, this doesn't necessarily mean a person identifies as SF on tests - they may be borderline).

I think a good (but anecdotal) test would be to ask "Is a psychological egoist any less capable of or likely to perform (so-called) selfless acts"? To which I believe the response is "No, but they will do so accepting that they have their own stake in their actions".

[scotty]

I couldn't agree with your assessment less. :)

I appreciate that we are unlikely to agree on this point. However, whilst you can convince me that all of your actions are selfish, you cannot tell me that mine also are. So i'll concede the point that you are selfish but that doesn't apply to everyone. I am not selfish.

[TheHmmmm]

"Selfless" is a misnomer. It's a coincidence in the sense that, in a reductionist point of view, one party's best interest is the other party's best interest. This is also made possible by the existence of empathy, where the harm of one party causes pain to the other. In simple terms, one gets their jollies when others are happy and, to an extent, vicariously experiences pain.

Take a look at the contrast, the sociopath, who feels no vicarious experience with those in pain and gets no enjoyment from helping people. They are far less likely to help someone, if at all. This only furthers the idea that helping people is only done by those who experience pleasure and pain in direct relationship to that of others.

So no, no act is not done without consideration of the self. A "selfish" person is someone who does not derive pleasure from making others happy and there's certainly nothing wrong with that. Of course, out of selfish interest, everyone loves the "selfless" person more because, well, they're more willing to help them further their goals.

Moral of the story, if someone tells you to be more selfless, tell them to stop being so selfish.

[Delarge]

It's useful to separate intentions and motives from acts themselves. An act that was intended to increase one's level of pleasure could, in some cases, fail to produce the desired effect and benefit another party. Likewise, an act could benefit the agent, in the form of pleasure, as well another party in the form of money (charity). I'd be inclined to refer to both acts as selfless, in that they served to benefit another party.

[meowbaggins]

I was thinking...how selfless is selfless?

I mean..the instance you described can be used more as an act of humanity than an act of selflessness

I would say that a selfless act would be if someone were to help someone else at the cost of their own well being (materialistically or otherwise)

That being said, I am too cynical to think truly selfless acts have ever happened...no one ever does anything without paying some thought to the consequences of his action

actually let me rephrase that...I just remembered Mother Teresa

So perhaps what I would like to say is : it requires a very high personality and unbargaining charitable nature to be truly selfless...normal people are not capable of that due to whatever reasons. The people that do manage to overcome the circle of their own personal interest and limitations to do such acts are the handful everyone already knows of.

[Night Runner]

I've suddenly realized that I have a pretty good example of a perfectly selfless act right here in front of me. :)

I have a rare blood type, and my plasma can be given to anybody regardless of their type. As a result, it's incredibly valuable. There are two types of plasma donation centers: those that pay you and those that don't. The ones that pay their donors sell the plasma to pharmaceutical companies which, in turn, use it for research and development. The ones that don't pay their donors pass the plasma on to local hospitals, where it's used to save people's lives.

An economist would argue that it'd be in my self-interest to donate plasma for money: if you donate every 2-3 days, those ~$35 payments can add up to a nice chunk of change. Instead, I donate at a free center, where there's no compensation whatsoever - because I know hospitals rarely have enough blood and plasma supplies, and I want to help the people of my community. Every time I donate, I feel weak and have to recuperate for about a day, so there's nothing pleasant about the process itself. It takes about two hours of my time, I don't get any recognition for donating, and I never get to meet the people who end up receiving my plasma. My only motivation in this case is Spock's "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few": my rare plasma is a renewable resource and whatever discomfort I may experience is greatly outweighed by the outcome - saved lives.

So, skeptics: take this post apart and tell me why and how this isn't a perfectly selfless, altruistic act. ;)

[Dru]

i like to think that there is, but it's hard to tell. people often gild their selfish motivations with altruism. they like the praise it awards them when others find out about it, or they expect something in return for the "favor".

---------- Post added 09-24-2010 at 03:44 PM ----------

So, skeptics: take this post apart and tell me why and how this isn't a perfectly selfless, altruistic act. ;)

one could argue that you're not really losing anything in the bargain, but unless you factored that into your decision i hardly think it matters.

[Night Runner]

one could argue that you're not really losing anything in the bargain, but unless you factored that into your decision i hardly think it matters.
Time and health, if only for a day or two.

[Nisan Ace Two]

So, skeptics: take this post apart and tell me why and how this isn't a perfectly selfless, altruistic act. ;)

How do you feel when you think about this act? Does it make you proud of yourself? Or do you feel satisfaction? Do you take comfort in knowing people are helped by your donation? Anything? I am pretty sure it gives you some kind of positive feeling. That is why you are doing it, and that is not selfless. Or even if you don't get a positive feeling, think about how you would feel if you DIDN'T do it. Would you feel bad? Then, that is why you do it.

[Dru]

well, duh, it makes you feel good. people who don't like doing things for others are the ones we call "selfish".

[Night Runner]

How do you feel when you think about this act? Does it make you proud of yourself? Or do you feel satisfaction? Do you take comfort in knowing people are helped by your donation? Anything?
Nothing. I view it as a burden, something to get out of the way until my body regenerates enough for the next donation. I didn't choose to be in the 3% of the population who have this type of plasma, but I have it and others need it. I feel neither satisfaction nor comfort - it's more of a chore.

Or even if you don't get a positive feeling, think about how you would feel if you DIDN'T do it. Would you feel bad? Then, that is why you do it.
No, not really. I don't have any emotional attachment to my body fluids. :p In a perfect world, where all the hospitals would have endless supplies of blood and plasma, I would just move on with my life. In this world, people are dying because there isn't enough plasma. I hate the donation process, I hate the giant needle and the way it feels inside my arm, I hate looking and feeling like a zombie the morning after, I hate giving up the little free time I have after a 75-hour workweek, but it's something that has to be done.

[Charmed Pop]

How do you feel when you think about this act? Does it make you proud of yourself? Or do you feel satisfaction? Do you take comfort in knowing people are helped by your donation? Anything? I am pretty sure it gives you some kind of positive feeling. That is why you are doing it, and that is not selfless. Or even if you don't get a positive feeling, think about how you would feel if you DIDN'T do it. Would you feel bad? Then, that is why you do it.
This is why I don't think there is such a thing as a selfless act.

It's just how we go about receiving our pleasure. The things seen as "selfish" are those that don't benefit others but all actions are selfish, if they weren't, why would we do them?

In this world, people are dying because there isn't enough plasma
You get gratification from knowing that less people might be dying because of your plasma.

[Nisan Ace Two]

Nothing. I view it as a burden, something to get out of the way until my body regenerates enough for the next donation. I didn't choose to be in the 3% of the population who have this type of plasma, but I have it and others need it. I feel neither satisfaction nor comfort - it's more of a chore.

No, not really. I don't have any emotional attachment to my body fluids. :p In a perfect world, where all the hospitals would have endless supplies of blood and plasma, I would just move on with my life. In this world, people are dying because there isn't enough plasma. I hate the donation process, I hate the giant needle and the way it feels inside my arm, I hate looking and feeling like a zombie the morning after, I hate giving up the little free time I have after a 75-hour workweek, but it's something that has to be done.
Well, there you have it. "It is something that has to be done". The world would be worse if it wasn't done. People would die. You view it as a duty or responsibility to do it. It is necessary, in your eyes. In other words, if you didn't do it, you would disobey this obligation. That would be against your own inner principles. This is the reason you do it.

[Night Runner]

Perhaps so. But that doesn't mean it's not selfless, does it? I gain neither material compensation nor a warm fuzzy feeling from the act, and it's detrimental to my (admittedly short-term) health and freedom (=time).

Edited to add: everybody has reasons for the things they choose to do. Some of those reasons are more selfish than others, but can't there be a selfless reason?

[Nisan Ace Two]

Perhaps so. But that doesn't mean it's not selfless, does it? I gain neither material compensation nor a warm fuzzy feeling from the act, and it's detrimental to my (admittedly short-term) health and freedom (=time).
Well, if you ask me, that does not make it selfless. You think it is the right thing to do and thus you do it. Not doing so would make you think you acted incorrectly. You want to do the right things so you do it. The detrimental aspect is there but it is not as important as the feeling of "acting correctly". Again, I believe if you didn't do it, you would have some kind of negative feeling or thought about it. If you think I am wrong, then just don't do it for a few weeks. It should not matter to you then. It would be the same as if you did it. Or actually, you would feel better overall (considering the health and time aspects, too). And if you truly felt better not doing it, then why do you do it now? The only reason would be you are a masochist because you would like to cause yourself harm. But that is not it. The truth is, you feel better doing it, because you feel it is right. And that is not selfless, it is simply in your own interest. Feel free to disagree but I hope I made my point. I am sleepy now so maybe I talked some rubbish, I will notice tomorrow.

Edited to add: everybody has reasons for the things they choose to do. Some of those reasons are more selfish than others, but can't there be a selfless reason?
About that. I think a truly selfless act exists. In theory; It would be one that helps others but you do not know of it before, while or after you do it, so it does not affect you. For you, it is like it never happened. And neither will anyone else ever know of it. It is like it never happened in the first place except that someone was helped. That is a truly selfless act. However, can you call it a real act of your own if you did not choose to do it? Because every act you choose to do, you choose so for a reason and I believe this reason is eventually always in your favour.

[Night Runner]

Well, if you ask me, that does not make it selfless. You think it is the right thing to do and thus you do it.
Yes.
Not doing so would make you think you acted incorrectly. You want to do the right things so you do it. The detrimental aspect is there but it is not as important as the feeling of "acting correctly". Again, I believe if you didn't do it, you would have some kind of negative feeling or thought about it.
Not quite.
If you think I am wrong, then just don't do it for a few weeks. It should not matter to you then. It would be the same as if you did it. Or actually, you would feel better overall (considering the health and time aspects, too).
No, it really wouldn't matter. As anybody who reads my posts knows, I'm not exactly a peace-loving humanist. Like I said, there are no emotional attachments involved here. In a perfect world, I wouldn't have to donate. In this world, my needs are outweighed by the needs of the many.
And if you truly felt better not doing it, then why do you do it now? The only reason would be you are a masochist because you would like to cause yourself harm.
No, that's the only reason you can come up with, from your (presumably) American standpoint. I was born in the Soviet Union and somewhere along the way a rather fatalistic national motto was embedded in my consciousness: "If not me, then who?" Sometimes you just have to suck it up and take one (or 10, or 100...) for the team.

[Nisan Ace Two]

No, that's the only reason you can come up with, from your (presumably) American standpoint.
I am not American but you're still correct that I can't come up with anything else. However, I still believe to be right with my assumption from what you wrote.

I didn't quite understand if you agree with me now or not as you said both Yes and No :thinking:

[Condo]

Everyone who has a god cannot commit a selfless act - If you believe your god is watching and everything in life impacts, even an anonymous act will benefit you in the long run.

Every other incident can be attributed to emotional warmth, or the feeling of "duty" to society - Doing it to benefit your group as a whole.

[Night Runner]

I didn't quite understand if you agree with me now or not as you said both Yes and No :thinking:
I meant "yes" in that I think it's the right thing to do, and "no" because the "you want to do the right things so you do it" reasoning does not apply. (Yes, it's complicated. :) ) I view the whole donation process as a chore. An unpleasant, time-consuming chore. But chores need to be done in order for the system to function. I do this not because I'm a humanist or want to do right and noble things, but simply because my local community needs my plasma, and I see no rational reason not to donate. Yes, I think I'm doing a right thing, but I'm doing it because I am almost obliged to, and not because I'm a bleeding heart hippie.

In a fatalistic sort of way, I am destined to keep donating for the rest of my life. Only one in 33 people has this type of plasma, and I can't justify withholding this valuable resource from those whose lives may depend on it. I was born with it, and until they find a way to create plasma in a lab, I shall keep donating. As they say in Japan, shikata ga nai: there is no choice. :blank:

[Nisan Ace Two]

I don't know, I don't really want to repeat myself for the third or fourth time now :) So I just got to the conclusion that we seem to have a different understanding of this situation.
We both agree that you do this because you realize that it needs to be done.
I conclude from this that you get an inner satisfaction of some kind by following what you believe to be right, maybe even unconsciously.
You seem to have a different approach that.. well I don't really get it. I will ponder a bit about this and maybe understand what you mean later.
Anyway, have you been to Japan before? :)

[RinehJM]

There is no such thing as a completely selfless act.

[stiletto]

What if one doesn't see the 'self' as extant, or at least not existing as any intrinsic part of our awareness or experience. Usually when you get to the deeper or more subtle layers of one's psyche, awareness is found to be wholly undifferentiated and 'identity-less'. Basically 'ego-loss' or 'ego-death', or that is to say, 'egolessness' does seem to be a natural component of our awareness at a pretty profound level, and certainly a common theme in all kinds of ASC. One could argue that at the core of self-hood there is really nothing, or no-self. Buddhists do. Then, a "selfless act" should be possible, right?

[Moniker9]

I've done good deeds when I really didn't want to and I got no joy from it. But I did it anyway because I knew I wouldn't be able to live with myself if i didn't. So no, I don't think there are selfless acts.

[Light]

Of course there are selfless acts. Human sometimes do irrational thing that bring no benifit to them.

[matthew412]

The question of the thread is, "Does a selfless act really exist?", not "Can you come up with a hypothetical, fictional example of a selfless act?" ;)

Yes, but coming up with an example would answer the question if the example is deemed selfless.
Also, to bring up a related question, Why do you think it is that people are so selfish (assuming they are)? I think it is a result of either the simple fact that "self" is the only perspective they have ever had and have no natural reason to care for others, or it could be the brain releasing dopamine when you help yourself, so your brain tells you to do more selfish acts.

---------- Post added 10-24-2010 at 09:06 PM ----------

Of course there are selfless acts. Human sometimes do irrational thing that bring no benifit to them.
except feeling that they're a better person for helping someone else, whcih ultimately helps themself. That's kind of the point people have been talking about.

[Night Runner]

except feeling that they're a better person for helping someone else, whcih ultimately helps themself. That's kind of the point people have been talking about.
Except when people do irrational things that wouldn't benefit them and don't feel that they're a better person in the process. That's kind of the counterpoint around here. ;)

[dvsblack]

First, yes I know this is an old post but I'm just now interested in the debate.

I see a lot of people here talking as though "reason" or "motive" are inherently tied to "desire" or "emotions". I would argue that instinct is a reason in itself.

A computer, lets say an android to make it seemingly more human, could be programmed for self sacrifice. This wouldn't be a selfless act performed by something biological.. yet it's still selfless.

Anything done out of a desire is selfish.
Yet something done instinctually is more like programming. (atleast that's how I see it.)

Take an example of a mother bear fighting to the death to protect her cubs, Is it instinct? or does the mother bear subconsciously know that the alternative is that it won't be able to live with itself? has/can anyone here really prove one way or the other?

Back to the android example, its "reason" or "motive" is simply because it's what it is programmed to do... If you want to disprove the possibility of selflessness, then I say you should prove that it is IMPOSSIBLE for a human to simply (WITHOUT desire or emotion)react, based on how they learned / their instinct (essentially their programming)...

How much do we still not know about the human brain? and how much if at all does it differ from a biological computer?

[donkeybals]

My definition of selflessness is contributing and not expecting thing back. It happens all the time imo. I've been hearing the arguement we do this for emotional gratification, but sometimes people are selfless without thinking about it. We are basically are our feelings and emotions. Do we do anything without feeling something?

[IotaNull]

A selfless act is possible, but not when someone is attempting to prove it.

[kosh]

A person's act is selfless when their motive is to respectfully help another with no true expectation of help in return, even at the cost of something they value intrinsically.

OP's example scenario doesn't fit this definition. Giving money doesn't necessarily mean Joe cares, the feeling of having done something 'good' may be more valuable to him than the money. Joe's acts are not selfless, he disrespects Bob's beliefs. Joe must die.

An extreme, almost symbolic, example of selfless act would be a monk burning himself in protest of something. The monk isn't acting to test anyone's beliefs, he's not giving anyone incentive to think his way, he's showing how much he believes in whatever he's trying to get across. They can chose to ignore him, or look at why he's done something so dramatic and final as to remove his own existence. There's no pressure.

There's a subtle but important distinction between Joe and the monk, Joe believes he's helping but his motives are actually self-centered and so he must perceive things superficially for them to make sense, the monk actually cares and respects others and so has no reason to box others thinking into a corner when helping them (Joe does this by testing, pressuring, Bob's beliefs).

[rbc]

No, there are no selfless acts.

Certain acts may appear selfless, but the truth is only that people value things differently -- what looks like an irrational transaction to some observers is actually a rational one to the actor, because they are using a different utility function to assess rationality.

[Abgrund]

In a sense, of course, there are no "selfless" acts, but this doesn't mean that I or anyone else is morally indifferent to whether someone is "selfishly" kind and charitable or "selfishly" rapes and kills. Sometimes atheists say of religious people who are good people that they aren't "really" moral because they're just scared of hell and would otherwise be psychopaths. That's a dubious supposition in the first place, but the point is that good behavior is preferable, however tangled the motive.

The problem here is that the question has been posed in such a way that the answer cannot be anything but meaningless. So people do things for reasons - this is undeniable but hardly interesting.

[Disillusioned]

I'm of the opinion that there's no such thing as a truly selfless act. Think of any act of sacrifice you have ever made or ever heard of, and ask "why?". What motivated the action beyond a superficial level?

Example scenario:

Joe hears through the grapevine that Bob is having difficulty making ends meet and providing for his family of 4. Joe knows Bob would not accept outright charity, so late at night Joe slips some money into an envelope and puts it in Bob's mailbox. Nobody besides the giver will ever know who the anonymous giver of the gift was.

What motivated Joe to make this apparent act of selflessness? Was it really and truly selfless in the first place?

I've heard such arguments before but I have never really given it much thought myself. It has occurred to me that such a claim may be true but vacuous or that it may be altogether false. I'll play devils advocate here for a bit and make the argument that there is such thing as a selfless act. I would argue, for your consideration, that many people make the argument that any act you do benefits you in some way (if only to make you 'feel better'). I think that kind of logic becomes circular and fallacious and in it's semantical context misses what is really meant by a 'selfless act'.

Take for example, the argument given in support of such a position. According to many, one who seemingly acts for others without thought of individual profit or reward is still acting selfishly because he is acting out of a personal desire to be 'good'. Though such is faulty logic, as shown by Aristotle's quote on virtue:

We do not act rightly because we have virtue or excellence, but we rather have those because we have acted rightly. We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act but a habit. - Aristotle

In essence, many assume that a person will either act out of concern for others because he is altruistic or because he desires to be altruistic. But one does not act out of concern for others because he is altruistic, rather he is altruistic because he has acted out of concern for others. Who you are is not the cause of your actions; rather, your actions define who you are.

Furthermore, to proclaim that one acts out of concern for others because of a personal desire to be altruistic is paradoxical. If you are acting out of a selfless concern for the welfare of others, you are necessarily not giving concern to yourself when acting in such a way. That you may take personal comfort in acting in such a way, is merely a result of acting in that way. It was not a deciding factor when considering to help the other person. Thus, when choosing to do the act, you were acting selflessly in that you were acting without concern for your own welfare.

Aristotle defines a virtuous person as someone who acts right out of habit. To act as to better the welfare of others by habit or out of impulse implies that one acts in such a way automatically, meaning without making consideration of personal benefits a priority when contriving the act.

And so you cannot take the consequences of an event and apply them to a persons reasons for making such a decision. For instance, say someone saw another person drowning off the side of a peer and jumped in to save the drowning woman. Later, the woman he saved was revealed to be the wife of the CEO of a multi-billion dollar company who insisted on giving the man $100,000 for saving his wife. You cannot say that he jumped in to save the woman out of a desire for a $100,000 reward. Similarly, a truly altruistic action is one that is done out of selfless concern for the welfare of others. So whether or not the individual gains happiness or self-respect as a result of that action, it cannot be said that such a consequence was his reason for acting in such a way. The reason was a desire to help another person, the consequence may or may not be an improved self image for acting in such a way. The two are separate and distinct and in the moment of taking the action, it was a selfless act, thus it cannot be called anything else, even after the consequences of the act are found to benefit the individual.

In the example you gave of the man who anonymously sends money to the other man, we do not know the ultimate intention of Joe so we cannot say with certainty that such was a selfless act. He could have known that Bob's receiving that money would benefit him personally down the road or he could have been told earlier that week by his church that he needed to do one kind act before the next service; if either of those were the case then he would be acting out of selfish desires and personal gain. If he acted with the sole intention of helping another person who was in financial trouble then it was selfless. He is physically diminishing his own monetary wealth to help another who needs the money and he is not doing it to improve others outlook of him or for the personal praise of others. The mistake many make in their logic of such situations is that they assume that such a person must have acted that way because he seeks to be 'good' to a greater extent than to have such monetary funds in his possession. However, this is not necessarily the case. Such a person can be acting in a way, such that he knows he will personally suffer for an act taken for the sake of another. In this situation he is consciously making the decision to make such a personal sacrifice and is therefore necessarily choosing to do an unselfish act (i.e. without concern for his own well being).

And furthermore, what does it mean to be good? The achievement of this for the individual is ambiguous. Could the man who anonymously sent the money have done x number of other acts that would have been equally good? If so, why did he choose to do this one? The only explanation I can see is that he acted out of an intention to help another person rather than out of an intention to do good. As I have stated, being a good person is reliant on the actions you take. You can not intend to be good without intending to do a good action. Likewise, you cannot intend to be altruistic without intended to act as with concern for the welfare of others. Goodness is the consequence, not the cause. And thus, feeling good about an action can not be a selfish reason for that action, it is rather the consequence of actually taking that action.

[Tactical Panda]

Yeah, they exist, but selflessness isn't or rarely is an absolute in practice.

[dvsblack]

No, there are no selfless acts.

Certain acts may appear selfless, but the truth is only that people value things differently -- what looks like an irrational transaction to some observers is actually a rational one to the actor, because they are using a different utility function to assess rationality.

If a computer executes something simply because that is how it's programmed is it not a selfless act?

Can you prove that a brain is not capable of something similar? To me something you do instinctively, especially something inherent since birth.. is like a natural programming of the brain.

[Anza]

1. One always acts in a way that either one later condemns and feels bad about or views as right and feels good about. Or neutral.

2. Feeling good (before, during or after the action) is a benefit to oneself.

If we accept both 1,2 as true a selfless act does not exist. Except maybe in the case of the doer dying (never getting any "reward"). Dvsblack has a point, but he assumes the "reward" (feeling as you did/do the right thing) can't come after the action itself. Of course one could then argue that the action itself is not motivated by any interest in self, and is thus selfless.