Is there such thing as a truly selfless act?

[Schrodinger's Dog]

All actions have motivational considerations, but can you describe a truly selfless act that transcends motivation or gain? It's a simple question, but a difficult one to answer I think.

 

[baywax]

All actions have motivational considerations, but can you describe a truly selfless act that transcends motivation or gain? It's a simple question, but a difficult one to answer I think.

Devoting one's life to the study of physics(?)

Becoming a nun.

Consciously joining a suicide mission.

Going to work.

Saving a life through the loss of one's own.

Being a lab rat.

Being a lab assistant.

Coming up with things to write on PF.

 

[Gelsamel Epsilon]

There is another thread about this I believe which I discussed the topic with others heavily. Basically most people agree, it just comes down to the definition of Sefless (or Selfish), people have to realize when you're talking about this topic you don't mean "Selfish" in a negative fashion, and even "Concerning Self" usually invokes negative thoughts in people's minds, and with people's tendency to want to believe human nature is good they dismiss this.

I'll see if I can find the thread.



Edit: https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=129699

 

[AsianSensationK]

Saving the life of someone you just don't like. Theoretically, it is possible. No personal gain (in fact, significant personal risk is almost always involved), no real motivation, other than doing what duty tells you to do.

Sounds kind of robotic, you know?

 

[gabee]

Question inspired by the Friends episode? :P

 

[Gelsamel Epsilon]

doing what duty tells you to do.

You answered your own question.

 

[baywax]

Being in an accident.

 

[eaboujaoudeh]

well saving someone's life? There are 2 kinds of ppl in this situation
1. Ppl who won't move so not to put their own life at risk.
2. Ppl who would actually do something

But in both cases, who could live with himself if he knows that he could have done something but didn't? so even that has a slight selfish act, cause not doing anything for saving someone also has its consequences and no1 ever wishes to live them.

As for sacrificing one's life for a cause, i think that is probably the only unselfish act, but also if u think about it from a suiciders view pt, especially the palestinian side: Well someone takes ur land, ur dignity, ur freedom, ur family, and forces u to live in disgrace, and when u have nothing to fight back with, ur only choice is to die in honor. so ultimately i think this also has a selfish side, even though dying for a cause in my opinions is the most unselfish thing to do.
But ultimately everything we do we do for ourselves.

 

[Panda]

In extreme situations, accidents, natural disasters there are those who almost instinctively come to the aid of a stranger, only later do they think that it was possibly a stupid thing they did but as it all turned out well they get the reward of feeling they have done a good job. But I would argue that at the point of action there was no consious decision to act and therefore no opportunity to think of self.
I seem to be a freezer, but am quite good when I have an oppertunity to assess the situation, therefore I am no good at preventing an accident but calm in clearing up the devastation. Other people I know shout out/dive in as the event occurs so are great in preventing injuries but then fall apart when they see the bigger picture.
Therefore I can't commit a selfless act but I know people who could and infact have, although a totally insignificant selfless act.

 

[eaboujaoudeh]

panda just to get ur last comment straight. Do you think that giving money to the poor is selfish or not?

 

[Panda]

panda just to get ur last comment straight. Do you think that giving money to the poor is selfish or not?

Yes because you feel good about yourself for performing the act of charity.

Remember that the definition of selfish I am using here is that you get something in return for the act, not that you get more in return than you give.
Giving to charity is also usually good for the recipient as they are given the opportunity to move forwards. It is a win win situation and therefore fgood to be selfish.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

panda just to get ur last comment straight. Do you think that giving money to the poor is selfish or not?

It makes you feel good, you might argue that you do this in order to make yourself feel better, thus it's not purely selfless. The only really selfless act is one where no one knows you even did it, say you saved a thousand people and in doing so died in such a way that no one ever found your body and you were pronounced missing, your final whereabouts a complete mystery. And you would have to know that is what would happen. That way no one associated with you knows, and there are no knock on effects. There is obviously no possible gain to you personally, unless you consider dying a gain.

Other than this obviously unprovable situation? Is there something that could be construed as truly and absolutely selfless? I'm genuinely curious to see if anyone can think of something?

Question inspired by the Friends episode? :P

Not inspired by Friends, inspired by another thread AAMOF

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=158130

 

[Panda]

There is obviously no possible gain to you personally, unless you consider dying a gain.

Ahhh, if you are theist then dying to save a thousand souls would be a gain as you would be rewarded in heaven and therefore again there is a selfish factor to the act. I think you can only do something selflessly if you do it instinctively.

Of course what drives your instincts if not your mind and personality? it could be an unconscious selfish act, but as that is untestable it is beyond the scope of the post.

 

[radou]

But in both cases, who could live with himself if he knows that he could have done something but didn't? so even that has a slight selfish act, cause not doing anything for saving someone also has its consequences and no1 ever wishes to live them.

That's exactly what I wanted to say, too.

panda just to get ur last comment straight. Do you think that giving money to the poor is selfish or not?

Giving money to the poor is in general selfish, since today every piece of c**p which can afford to do so gives away money to the poor (as if it was a fashion craze) and feels better about itself. If some of them really had to help someone in trouble, they'd be too disgusted to even approach. Giving money away is an 'easy, remote-control-styled way' to help someone.

 

[eaboujaoudeh]

finally some ppl who feel the same way as i do..human beings are naturally forced to be selfish, but some in a good way, some in better ways then others, some selfish to the extreme

 

[radou]

finally some ppl who feel the same way as i do..human beings are naturally forced to be selfish, but some in a good way, some in better ways then others, some selfish to the extreme

The point is that the term 'selfish' is very elastic in this thread.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Ahhh, if you are theist then dying to save a thousand souls would be a gain as you would be rewarded in heaven and therefore again there is a selfish factor to the act. I think you can only do something selflessly if you do it instinctively.

Of course what drives your instincts if not your mind and personality? it could be an unconscious selfish act, but as that is untestable it is beyond the scope of the post.

Frankly theists are a rarity around here, but you read the subtext very proficiently

Instinctive actions are usually self preservational, to commit suicide for others for example is not likely to be based on instinct, more likely morality.

 

[baywax]

Being born.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Being born.

I think by act we mean something you have a choice about, I'm pretty sure all babies have no choice about this.

 

[baywax]

I think by act we mean something you have a choice about, I'm pretty sure all babies have no choice about this.

OK. But do you have a choice about doing what makes you feel good? Is there any other choice?

 

[Panda]

OK. But do you have a choice about doing what makes you feel good? Is there any other choice?

Naturally we do. Could glue thumb tacks to each of the keys of my keyboard, but that would make me feel bad whilst typing so I'll choose not to, equally I could design a keyboard made out of chocolate that would make be feel good whilst typing, but I'd then get fat(ter) and feel bad so again I'll choose not to.

Unless you are trying to swing this to an argument about the existence of free will, given the apparent prescence of free will we can choose to make ourselves happy or sad. I think that we will always make choices towards happiness in the long term.

 

[baywax]

Naturally we do. Could glue thumb tacks to each of the keys of my keyboard, but that would make me feel bad whilst typing so I'll choose not to, equally I could design a keyboard made out of chocolate that would make be feel good whilst typing, but I'd then get fat(ter) and feel bad so again I'll choose not to.

If pain makes you happy then you are going to put yourself in pain. If pain is all you know then that is what you will seek. It is not as cut and dried as you make it out to be.

What act is there that a person performs that doesn't gratify their conscious and/or subconscious desires?

 

[baywax]

All actions have motivational considerations, but can you describe a truly selfless act that transcends motivation or gain?

Probably not.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Naturally we do. Could glue thumb tacks to each of the keys of my keyboard, but that would make me feel bad whilst typing so I'll choose not to, equally I could design a keyboard made out of chocolate that would make be feel good whilst typing, but I'd then get fat(ter) and feel bad so again I'll choose not to.

Unless you are trying to swing this to an argument about the existence of free will, given the apparent prescence of free will we can choose to make ourselves happy or sad. I think that we will always make choices towards happiness in the long term.

I tihnk that brings us to the point, is there ever any action that will bring us nothing whatsoever happiness or whatever and has it ever been done? Is not morality tied up to some extent to utilatarianism? What's good for the person or the majority in other cases?

 

[Panda]

I have a theory that we have not really evolved since we lived in trees and we are fundamentally Anarchists.
We may live in complex societies with Democratic Principles but we only do so because it suits our own ends.

Deep down we want to eat, sleep and breed without being eaten.

Modern society does that better than ever before with the one down side that we have to be socially responsible and go off every day and earn money for the stronger ape at the top of the heap who provides us with financial protection in return for creaming off a profit for himself.

If you could walk outside of your free house and pick an apple off the apple tree and a dvd player off the sony tree and then walk back inside and reproduce asexually, would you say "I must go to work today and get that budget report in"?

 

[Panda]

If pain makes you happy then you are going to put yourself in pain. If pain is all you know then that is what you will seek. It is not as cut and dried as you make it out to be.

What act is there that a person performs that doesn't gratify their conscious and/or subconscious desires?

I get the feeling that we are arguing the same point. There is nothing we do that does not gratify our desires. We could do something that does not gratify our desires but we choose not to.
It is difficult to proove though, because I could say "I'll show you, I'm putting my hand in the blender...<Brrrrr... Owwww... Brrrr>> See I didn't enjoy that" But I could be gaining satisfaction by proving to you that you can do things without gaining satisfaction.
As soon as you make a conscious decision, you are satisfying a desire. It is a bit like the free will debate you can only proove it from the outside.

p.s. I'm now off to the hospital now to have my hand put back on...

 

[out of whack]

What motivates a conscious decision is the desired and expected outcome of the decision. There is no way you can interpret a desired and expected outcome as something you do not actually want, something selfless. Any decision you make is necessarily selfish because every one of your conscious decisions is the result of what motivates you.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

What motivates a conscious decision is the desired and expected outcome of the decision. There is no way you can interpret a desired and expected outcome as something you do not actually want, something selfless. Any decision you make is necessarily selfish because every one of your conscious decisions is the result of what motivates you.

Let's talk about selflessness in holistic terms then, otherwise you cannot get a sensible answer.

OK so is it possible to have a truly selfless act given what you just typed, given the whole of humanity or x group?

If for example your conscious decision is to save 4000000 people and to die yourself and you are not religious and believe you will get no reward for your action nor will anyone else benefit ever except obviously the 400000 people but all of them will be totally unaware your action saved them and you will die in such a way that no one even knew you were there, and thus you will be reported missing and no one will tie in your act with you, etc, etc is this truly selfless?

 

[whatta]

no real motivation, other than doing what duty tells you to do.

that's very real motivation. if soldier disobey, he's going to jail.

 

[whatta]

If for example your conscious decision is to save 4000000 people and to die yourself and you are not religious and believe you will get no reward for your action nor will anyone else benefit ever except obviously the 400000 people but all of them will be totally unaware your action saved them and you will die in such a way that no one even knew you were there, and thus you will be reported missing and no one will tie in your act with you, etc, etc is this truly selfless?

Not really, you will have short moments of increased self-respect.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Not really, you will have short moments of increased self-respect.

There will be a lot of benefit in those short moments when you are dead won't there I think more likely you'll be afraid of dying, self respect will be the last thing on your mind.

 

[whatta]

if I will be "afraid of dying" and "self respect will be the last thing on [my] mind", I will not do what you suggested.

 

[out of whack]

OK so is it possible to have a truly selfless act given what you just typed, given the whole of humanity or x group?

I don't believe so for the reason I gave in my previous post.

If for example your conscious decision is to save 4000000 people and to die yourself and you are not religious and believe you will get no reward for your action nor will anyone else benefit ever except obviously the 400000 people but all of them will be totally unaware your action saved them and you will die in such a way that no one even knew you were there, and thus you will be reported missing and no one will tie in your act with you, etc, etc is this truly selfless?

I think you can formulate any dilemma in any manner you wish and it would still not matter. In your example, if you are motivated to make this decision then clearly your expect that the outcome will be to save these people and clearly you desire this outcome. The exact reason why you desire this outcome are personal. It could be that you would not want to keep on living with the knowledge that you sacrificed four million people. It could be that failure to act would violate your self-respect. Or anything along these lines. A motivator can be avoidance of a negative as well as desire of a positive. Regardless of the specific motive, the motive exists and it is what you personally want. The fact that different people would make different decisions simply reflects different personal motivators.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

I don't believe so for the reason I gave in my previous post.
I think you can formulate any dilemma in any manner you wish and it would still not matter. In your example, if you are motivated to make this decision then clearly your expect that the outcome will be to save these people and clearly you desire this outcome. The exact reason why you desire this outcome are personal. It could be that you would not want to keep on living with the knowledge that you sacrificed four million people. It could be that failure to act would violate your self-respect. Or anything along these lines. A motivator can be avoidance of a negative as well as desire of a positive. Regardless of the specific motive, the motive exists and it is what you personally want. The fact that different people would make different decisions simply reflects different personal motivators.

What if you had no time at all to think about the consequences, ie it was pure instinct that made you act one way or another, so there is no conscious thought gone into your action, only a decision act or not act, with no provisos placed on either or time to analyse the outcomes of inaction or action, what then? In other words you know to not act means life and to act means death but the saving of 400000 people, but you have no time to ponder the implications either way, in fact the decision must be made practically instantaneously and instinctively, and then of course what I said above also follows.

In essence is this a selfless act?

Ie it is not motivational exactly, it is just reflexive action.

 

[whatta]

when your instincts fail you and for that reason you die, that's not a selfless act, that's an act of natural selection.

 

[baywax]

In other words you know to not act means life and to act means death but the saving of 400000 people, but you have no time to ponder the implications either way, in fact the decision must be made practically instantaneously and instinctively, and then of course what I said above also follows.

In essence is this a selfless act?

Ie it is not motivational exactly, it is just reflexive action.

You still have the notion of consequence of action here. The consequence seems to be driving the action and thus appears to be motivated by the perceived consequence of saving400,000 people. So, it is still a matter of motive ie: how good it feels to save 400,000 over how unknown and scary death is going to be.

The motivation of a fear of the unknown (death) cannot overrule the immediate motivation of knowing (known, [primarily examplified in Bruce Willis movies]) how good it will feel to save 400,000 lives.

How can a person be so selfish as to save 400,000 lives then die as a result of their actions?

 

[out of whack]

pure instinct [...]
Ie it is not motivational exactly, it is just reflexive action.

If you don't have any conscious input in your action then does the concept of selflessness (or selfishness) even apply? I think this would go outside the intent of a discussion on value theory. You may as well be talking about plants turning towards the sun: no value judgement, just a reaction.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

You still have the notion of consequence of action here. The consequence seems to be driving the action and thus appears to be motivated by the perceived consequence of saving400,000 people. So, it is still a matter of motive ie: how good it feels to save 400,000 over how unknown and scary death is going to be.

The motivation of a fear of the unknown (death) cannot overrule the immediate motivation of knowing (known, [primarily examplified in Bruce Willis movies]) how good it will feel to save 400,000 lives.

How can a person be so selfish as to save 400,000 lives then die as a result of their actions?

What if someone had lived in a cave for twenty years and upon coming out into the world had no idea of that such an idea was acceptable or not? They then had a decision to make instantly whether to save ten men like them and die or whether to live, they have no example of what is good and bad moral conduct or indeed any understanding of whether either decision would make them feel good or bad, they only know that if they let ten men live they die and vice a versa, no choice has any gratification prospects. The choice is a virgin choice, without preconceived morality or ideas, in fact said person would only know how he would feel after the decision was made either way.

If you don't have any conscious input in your action then does the concept of selflessness (or selfishness) even apply? I think this would go outside the intent of a discussion on value theory. You may as well be talking about plants turning towards the sun: no value judgement, just a reaction.

It might at a subconscious level.

 

[baywax]

What if someone had lived in a cave for twenty years and upon coming out into the world had no idea of that such an idea was acceptable or not? They then had a decision to make instantly whether to save ten men like them and die or whether to live, they have no example of what is good and bad moral conduct or indeed any understanding of whether either decision would make them feel good or bad, they only know that if they let ten men live they die and vice a versa, no choice has any gratification prospects. The choice is a virgin choice, without preconceived morality or ideas, in fact said person would only know how he would feel after the decision was made either way.

This person, with no understanding of the social net or compassion or other social graces, would watch in surprize as the 10 lives ended. Then he'd try to find some food and water and try to avoid the same consequence, using what he'd seen as a lesson in survival.

Maybe what your looking for is the morality or compassion gene. I don't think these traits have been around long enough to have become encoded in the (human) genome.

 

[out of whack]

It might at a subconscious level.

Subconscious selflessness? Even if you assume that selflessness is not a matter of conscience, and you do all sorts of things you are not conscious of (digesting for example), what do subconscious actions have to do with values?

If you really want a selfless act then you must look at an act that the actor cannot control: a Parkinson shake would be a good example of a selfless act. Silly and probably not what you were looking for, but technically it qualifies.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Actually I'm of the position that there is no such thing as a selfless act myself, I'm just seeing if anyone else can think of one. I tend to agree that selflessness by it's definition denotes an act of morality. An morality requires a framework for a decision without it you might as well be a robot.

 

[baywax]

Actually I'm of the position that there is no such thing as a selfless act myself, I'm just seeing if anyone else can think of one. I tend to agree that selflessness by it's definition denotes an act of morality. An morality requires a framework for a decision without it you might as well be a robot.

I'm joining the position. But, what makes you think we're not organic robots with moral and/or empathic programing?

 

[Gelsamel Epsilon]

Blarrrrgh, just read the other thread.

 

[baywax]

A truly selfless act.

Lets try to calm our extremism when it comes to seeking out this truly selfless act.

Lets try to see that there is an act that has a dual purpose that has both selfless and selfish motives simultanieously. Considering this possibility, there truly are acts of selflessness but they are acts with a dual purpose where the same act "in the same breath" satisfys both purposes.

For instance, the doctor who has just finished 23 hours on duty and stays another 8 hours because of an emergency surgery may be satisfying his ego or sense of duty but, there is an overwhelming percentage of selflessness to her/his actions as well.

He may derive some selfish pleasure from attempting to save a person's life during that 8 hours but, when you weigh how much he'd rather be sleeping or at home in a purely selfish manner against his actual actions, there is a huge element of selflessness keeping him at his station.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Blarrrrgh, just read the other thread.

What turned me off reading that is that it sounded like it was one of those Wigtenstinian games of how do we define x. And not a discussion, so I didn't bother; I can't stand playing define the word games, what is the ontology of ontology?If there are no words do we exist, blah,blah,blah zzzzzzzzzzzz, it's perhaps the most boring and unfruitful area of philosophy since Plato stood up and said "I'm more pissed than you! Prove I'm not!"

However I am willing to admit that since I haven't read it and since I wouldn't touch it given a ten foot barge pole as it is described, I may well be wrong.

A truly selfless act.

Lets try to calm our extremism when it comes to seeking out this truly selfless act.

Lets try to see that there is an act that has a dual purpose that has both selfless and selfish motives simultanieously. Considering this possibility, there truly are acts of selflessness but they are acts with a dual purpose where the same act "in the same breath" satisfys both purposes.

For instance, the doctor who has just finished 23 hours on duty and stays another 8 hours because of an emergency surgery may be satisfying his ego or sense of duty but, there is an overwhelming percentage of selflessness to her/his actions as well.

He may derive some selfish pleasure from attempting to save a person's life during that 8 hours but, when you weigh how much he'd rather be sleeping or at home in a purely selfish manner against his actual actions, there is a huge element of selflessness keeping him at his station.

It's a good point but your assuming there isn't some sort of mathematical duality here;in other words that increasing x cancels out decreasing y or they are somehow totally dependant, when in reality they are both x and y and increasing or decreasing independently with some interplay.

I realize a mathematical model isn't really apt but it will simplify what I mean:-

A truly selfish act would be say 100 on a scale 1 to 100 with y at 0 ie no redeeming features.

And conversely a truly selfless act would be 100 with x at 0 or no selfish motivational issues.

I'm joining the position. But, what makes you think we're not organic robots with moral and/or empathic programing?

I don't think we are robots either, but then we'd have to establish that free will exists and we are not just a part of our materialist programming to really prove that.

 

[baywax]

What turned me off reading that is that it sounded like it was one of those Wigtenstinian games of how do we define x. And not a discussion, so I didn't bother; I can't stand playing define the word games, what is the ontology of ontology?If there are no words do we exist, blah,blah,blah zzzzzzzzzzzz, it's perhaps the most boring and unfruitful area of philosophy since Plato stood up and said "I'm more pissed than you! Prove I'm not!"

However I am willing to admit that since I haven't read it and since I wouldn't touch it given a ten foot barge pole as it is described, I may well be wrong.
It's a good point but your assuming there isn't some sort of mathematical duality here;in other words that increasing x cancels out decreasing y or they are somehow totally dependant, when in reality they are both x and y and increasing or decreasing independently with some interplay.

I realize a mathematical model isn't really apt but it will simplify what I mean:-

A truly selfish act would be say 100 on a scale 1 to 100 with y at 0 ie no redeeming features.

And conversely a truly selfless act would be 100 with x at 0 or no selfish motivational issues.
I don't think we are robots either, but then we'd have to establish that free will exists and we are not just a part of our materialist programming to really prove that.

OK. But I had another thought with regard to this question.

Is self-preservation not a selfless act?

Let's say I choose not to save 400,000 lives and simply save my own.

Potentially there may be 400,000,000 lives that I save the next day.

Or, let's say I've saved my own life so I can care for my 3 children. So, in this case, I've gone against my empathetic "instinct" which may or may not be a result of selfish reasoning and let 400,000 lives perish because I am so selflessly committed to 3 completely innocent, helpless children.

News Flash: Self preservation (eating, sleeping, busting stress at a party, whatever) is most certainly an instinct. Going against the instinct seems selfless but I have to point out that instincts such as self-perservation are also "selfless" or "autonomic" behaviors.

 

[Gelsamel Epsilon]

No there is more then "I save my life so I can care for my children".

It is the parents duty to do so, and they don't want to see their children being brought up wrong = the selfish motivation towards saving your own life for your kids. (As well as you surviving being a motivation).

 

[baywax]

No there is more then "I save my life so I can care for my children".

It is the parents duty to do so, and they don't want to see their children being brought up wrong = the selfish motivation towards saving your own life for your kids. (As well as you surviving being a motivation).

Survival is an instinct. Instincts are beyond the control of "self", they are autonomic functions and therefore are "selfless behaviors".

 

[Gelsamel Epsilon]

Only if you agree with your above premise.

 

[baywax]

Only if you agree with your above premise.

It appears selfish for me to agree with myself, no?

But, look at it this way. Whatever functions my brain and the rest of my body perform can be eventually traced back to the basic instincts of my species and all species of living organisms. One of those basic instincts is survival.

However one maintains one's survival, (be it rendering a feeling of worth by saving 400,000,000 lives or be it inflating my ego and feeling worthy of surviving through winning in sports, politics, love or finance) this maintanence (of survival) is driven by deeply rooted, selfless, mechanical instincts.

The instinct to procreate is also expressed in what appears as selfish and obsessive behavior among humans. We create great big love stories, romances, fantasies and invasions or build great companies to protect and ensure the continuation of certain bloodlines. These acts all appear selfish to a society steeped in its own interpretations of morality. But, they are instinctual and completely selfless acts.

But, do we label the Killer Whale "selfish" when it scoops up 4 or 5 seals for dinner? No, we attribute the act to "survival instinct". Do we think of apes as committing a selfish act when they run rather than protect their family which is being killed by poachers? No, they're not called cowards and the act is not selfish, its an instinctually-based behavior.

So, when I party my eyeballs into the other side of my head instead of saving the planet by planting nukes on an asteroid don't call it a selfish act. Call it my "selfless survival instinct".

This is because I would not survive another day without enjoying a wonderful party and having my eyes rolled up in the back of my head.