[Moriarty]

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

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

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]

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

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]

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

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]

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

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]

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

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


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

[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]

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

[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]

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

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.