Is there such thing as a truly selfless act?

[Gelsamel Epsilon]

Love stories romances and fantasies are not part of instinct, only sex drive is apart of that.

And I disagree with Instinct = Selfless, because Instinct =/= no-thought, if thought is required in the decision then a weighing of decisions happens and a selfish direction is chosen.

You have got me thinking though, I guess you could call arc-reflexes "selfess".

 

[baywax]

Love stories romances and fantasies are not part of instinct, only sex drive is apart of that.

And I disagree with Instinct = Selfless, because Instinct =/= no-thought, if thought is required in the decision then a weighing of decisions happens and a selfish direction is chosen.

You have got me thinking though, I guess you could call arc-reflexes "selfess".

I think what it is I'm trying to express could be what a physicist would call the "emergent properties" of instincts. What appear to be complicated courtship dances and acts of heroism are mechanical, knee-jerk emergent properties that arise out of our instincts.

Like I said, whatever my brain and the rest of my body do is ultimately the result of instinct. We can split hairs and say my decisions are my own and they are either altruistic or self serving. But, because it boils down to all actions appearing to serve the idea of self-worth and self-preservation this unifying attribute lends itself to my hypothesis because these attributes are a function of the instinct to survive.

Instincts are so ingrained as to be primitive genetic traits. They have nothing to do with "self". Self is equated with the "ego" and ego is the mediator between the "superego" and the "id" (Freud/Jung). The superego is the ideal altruistic part of our psych and the id is the animalistic/libido side of our psych.

The ego (or self) takes from the other components (id and superego) and finds a middle ground that, basically, facilitates the demands of the survival instinct.

The mechanical nature of instinct is hidden from us by our need to feel special and important (which helps with the will to survive). That's another function of ego. But strip all of these mechanisms away and we are left with the wizard behind the curtain, instinct, driving evey action we make. It is not our selve's making decisions - it's our descisions being controlled by and serving instinct. And that falls under the definition of selflessness.

 

[Gelsamel Epsilon]

What can I say other then I simply disagree with your model.

 

[baywax]

What can I say other then I simply disagree with your model.

Let me help you disagree.

If all our actions are emergent properties of instinct then "selflessness" and "selfishness" are two of those properties. Thus we are able to distinguish between the two and debate whether one or the other actually dominates as a motive to our actions.

My model looks at what drives both properties. But it doesn't even get close to explaining the mechanical properties that drive instinct. That would require another entire thread.

 

[-Job-]

I think unconscious or unintentional acts can be considered selfless, but i realize we're probably talking about intentional, conscious selfless acts.
I think the base question is whether or not it's possible for an act to be unable to benefit the actor in any way.

Clearly we're not willing to take the actor's word that his/her act was selfless, so to prove that selfless acts are possible we try to find an act that will not benefit the actor in any way at all and have someone perform it. But i think that this may be impossible.

Is it the case that, for any given act, you can construct a scenario/interpretation in which the actor benefits from the act? If this is true then we can never know that the actor did not perform the act to reap the benefits of that one specific scenario.

I think selfless acts are possible, what is impossible is to verify or know beyond any possible doubt that the act was indeed selfless.

 

[baywax]

I think unconscious or unintentional acts can be considered selfless, but i realize we're probably talking about intentional, conscious selfless acts.
I think the base question is whether or not it's possible for an act to be unable to benefit the actor in any way.

Clearly we're not willing to take the actor's word that his/her act was selfless, so to prove that selfless acts are possible we try to find an act that will not benefit the actor in any way at all and have someone perform it. But i think that this may be impossible.

Is it the case that, for any given act, you can construct a scenario/interpretation in which the actor benefits from the act? If this is true then we can never know that the actor did not perform the act to reap the benefits of that one specific scenario.

I think selfless acts are possible, what is impossible is to verify or know beyond any possible doubt that the act was indeed selfless.

Yes, you're right of course. Unless there was an identifiable neurological signal that was associated with selflessness there would be no way to prove it happened. And isn't this true of most motives.

Some say there are no accidents and that the subconscious is continuously getting us into situations that satisfy some motive or other.

 

[baywax]

I found this quote on the determinism site (www.determinism.com/concepts.shtml)[/URL].

[quote]BASIC DERIVATIVE CONCEPTS
Everything in nature is worthy of respect-including all persons. We define respect as representing that attitude (thought and feeling) resulting from understanding the concept of total determinism. Applied to humanity, this implies, “There but for the differences in our determinants go I.”

All persons are totally selfish. This makes sense when we define selfishness neutrally, to mean responding to one’s own motivations (determinants). The question of whether one’s actions are selfish or unselfish thus becomes irrelevant. The real issue is whether one's actions are intelligently, healthily, and socially selfish, or stupidly, neurotically, and anti-socially selfish.

There are no bad people, only persons who have a greater or lesser degree of mental health.

Healthy behavior is social, equitable, tolerant, cooperative, and respecting to all.

Morality represents man's traditional attempt to formulate practical rules for living one's life.

To the extent that they are neurotic, the powerful tend to mislead, deceive, or lie to the weak.

Parents tend to corrupt. Power brings out corruption (neurotic behavior)-with apologies to Lord Acton.

Consistent with the Psychosomatic Principle, there is no life of the personality (mind, soul, spirit, psyche) after the death of the body. Death only results in the recycling of our constituent chemicals.

All concepts of heaven, hell, purgatory, limbo, and the like, are false.

There is no anthropomorphic god with a knowledge of, concern and plan for, individual organisms.[/quote]

It seemed appropriate to this thread.

 

[moving finger]

Is it the case that, for any given act, you can construct a scenario/interpretation in which the actor benefits from the act? If this is true then we can never know that the actor did not perform the act to reap the benefits of that one specific scenario.

If we qualify this to say "Is it the case that, for any given conscious act, you can construct a scenario/interpretation in which the actor benefits from the act?" then I think the answer is yes. All conscious acts provide feedback to the person doing the act - by definition, we carry out a conscious act because we have consciously chosen to carry out that act, and that conscious decision has repercussions on our perceptions of the world and of ourselves in light of that act. Our decision is made for a reason or reasons (otherwise it would simply be a random selection rather than a conscious decision), and we can never be certain that all of those reasons are completely selfless.

Only in the case of perfectly random acts (which we can be sure are genuinely random) could we be sure that there are no selfish "reasons" for the act (simply because there are NO reasons for a genuinely random act!).

MF

 

[Xori]

If we qualify this to say "Is it the case that, for any given conscious act, you can construct a scenario/interpretation in which the actor benefits from the act?" then I think the answer is yes. All conscious acts provide feedback to the person doing the act - by definition, we carry out a conscious act because we have consciously chosen to carry out that act, and that conscious decision has repercussions on our perceptions of the world and of ourselves in light of that act. Our decision is made for a reason or reasons (otherwise it would simply be a random selection rather than a conscious decision), and we can never be certain that all of those reasons are completely selfless.

Only in the case of perfectly random acts (which we can be sure are genuinely random) could we be sure that there are no selfish "reasons" for the act (simply because there are NO reasons for a genuinely random act!).

MF

In conclusion, we've taken all the truly selfless people in society and placed them into mental institutions, their actions are random and didn't make sense to us.

 

[Laozi]

I believe that a true selfless act would be sacrificing something that you find valuable to you and sacrificing it for the betterment of another person/group. That valuable thing would have to be something that you own and hold dear such as your very life or a priceless inanimate object. However, sacrificing other people that you find irreplaceable would not be selfless... This is just my opinion though. If someone already said this, then that's just too bad (i just skipped to the last page and decided to post my opinion). But if you take the word "selfless" literally, then a selfless act would be cutting off an apendage/bodypart or cutting out an innard. that would mean that you would have less of the self.

 

[Hillary88]

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.

but what's really being asked here is whether or not "personal risk" can outweigh "personal gain" in any human decision...i.e. saving your enemy's life would give your conscious some peace of mind, and you would therefore be "personally gaining".

thoughts anyone? is it possible? I think not because we all see absolutely everything we can see from our own lens...it is impossible to rid oneself truly from the evolutionarily motivated tendency to please oneself.

 

[Laozi]

That doesn't exactly answer the question. You can do a selfless act and still get personal gain. BUT, the reason that it is selfless is because you don't expect anything in return. you don't EXPECT any reward or such. it doesn't mean that you won't get it.

 

[Boy@n]

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.

To be who you are. Universe unfolds just as it should.

So, it's impossible to be selfish, since you cannot be that who you are not ;)

 

[Shekels]

I'm a novice with philosphy but i have read Atlas Shrugged, The Fountainhead, and Anthem all by Ayn Rand, so i think i have some room to voice my thoughts.

Yes as Ayn Rand might have said, the destruction of ones soul ( morals ideals and all the things that make up your 'self' ) is completely selfless.

In her books she shows this when Roark an architect, refuses to give up his ideas for a housing project so he can get paid. He holds dearly to his practices and will not allow them to be destroyed. He has a choice, and should he allow his minds eye to be changed he is allowing for his selfdestruction. If he would have destroyed his morals and ideals he would be without a self, making his initial act selfless.

Think of the Crucible when Proctor refuses to sign his name to a lie. Why? Because he cannot teach his children to be men with a name that has no purity. His 'name' being his 'self'. Should he agree and confess to witch-craft he would have destroyed his morals, his self, and be left with nothing. Imagine living that life. You couldn't have an opinion on anything because you would have destroyed what moral code you lived by.

Being completely without a self.

If you HAVE a CHOICE to allow the destruction of what you yourself are, and you do allow that destruction to take place, then you are being selfless.

Any thoughts?

 

[JoeDawg]

I'm a novice with philosphy but i have read Atlas Shrugged...

Don't feel bad, if you haven't been exposed to much philosophy its quite common to mistake things like Rand or the Matrix for the real thing.

If you're looking for some more serious stuff on Altruism, Richard Dawkins' The Selfish Gene is a good place to start, at least from a modern perspective.

Altruism--Selfishness are really much more a spectrum of behavior than any kind of dichotomy. Of course people love to oversimplify things.

 

[Moridin]

Dawkins asserts that altruism is selfish, even though he uses slightly different definitions. I think the key is to separate selfish strategy from selfish individual. Selfish strategy can give rise to selfless individuals.

 

[JoeDawg]

Dawkins asserts that altruism is selfish, even though he uses slightly different definitions. I think the key is to separate selfish strategy from selfish individual. Selfish strategy can give rise to selfless individuals.

No actually he doesn't equate the two. His claim is that genes are selfish in the standard sense, but that this has caused reciprocal altruistic tendencies to evolve in social animals, and that once it exists it tends to get overapplied and thus we have true altruistic behavior. Like I said, its easy to oversimplify.

 

[Moridin]

No actually he doesn't equate the two. His claim is that genes are selfish in the standard sense, but that this has caused reciprocal altruistic tendencies to evolve in social animals, and that once it exists it tends to get overapplied and thus we have true altruistic behavior. Like I said, its easy to oversimplify.

I was trying to communicate that "selfish" genes makes selfless behavior.

 

[baywax]

If you HAVE a CHOICE to allow the destruction of what you yourself are, and you do allow that destruction to take place, then you are being selfless.

Any thoughts?

This sounds like eastern philosophy where the buddhist monk or the Zen master gives up the self because its too noisy and distracting and disallows a transcendence from material desire, suffering etc to "Nirvana" (not the band).

In this case the self could also be considered the "ego" as it is described by Freud. Once the worrisome ego is discarded it is thought that it is easier to attain a harmonic and synergistic state with all that is.

Jiddu Krishnamurti is a philosopher who's "freedom from the known" gives the promise of a harmony with all being etc... through knowing nothing... including the "self".(edit: I think it means that "knowing nothing" allows one to detach from the idea of "importance".)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jiddu_Krishnamurti

These practices and goals of detaching from the self would, in my opinion, represent a truly selfless act because, once attained, there is no recognition of the self. Its a bit like being dead (not that I know exactly what that entails) while remaining alive.

Any other actions remain selfish acts in that they work toward the preservation of what the instigator deems important to the self... even on a genetic level... and thus, these actions represent selfish (or self preserving and self asserting ) actions.

edit) tid bit from Wikipedia

Physicists David Bohm, Fritjof Capra, George Sudarshan, writer/philosopher Iris Murdoch and biologist Rupert Sheldrake also met and held discussions with Krishnamurti. Psychotherapists representing various theoretical orientations including Freud, Horney, Sullivan, and Rogers met and held discussions with Krishnamurti.

 

[yasiru89]

Determinism is dead, I really hope that's not news to you. This entire thread is linearly interested in 'saving lives, moral supremacy' and the sort which is unproductively all too applicable. Let us consider a general case, with a basic Freudian Analytic architecture.
Assuming the possibility holds we can safely exclude the super-ego(however well developed), which has negligible significance here and proceed. The id is responsible for survival 'instincts' and therefore not above the processes of the self as seems to be a popular opinion. It can be overcome by a simple moral dilemma as is mundane but obvious. Should one then commit to some task without due thought to loss and gain, such that the sum of benefits(even those that are seemingly irrational) do not outweigh losses(in any way considered by the individual- just as before) in the eyes of the weigher we shall call such an act selfless. It shall not be governed by time, pressures nor practicalities as allowed by the non-absolute considerations. Knowing whether such has occurred is much more difficult should you not be the person committing the act. Even then whatever judgement you pass upon it shall be that of your own ideals- i.e. the hitherto insignificant super-ego.

 

[mheslep]

Don't feel bad, if you haven't been exposed to much philosophy its quite common to mistake things like Rand or the Matrix for the real thing.

If you're looking for some more serious stuff on Altruism, Richard Dawkins' The Selfish Gene is a good place to start, at least from a modern perspective.

Dawkin's is an influential evolutionary biologist. I don't agree that qualifies Selfish Gene as a good example of a 'starter' philosophy text.

 

[JoeDawg]

Dawkin's is an influential evolutionary biologist. I don't agree that qualifies Selfish Gene as a good example of a 'starter' philosophy text.

It is with regards to any kind of modern philosophy of selfish/altruistic behavior.

Philosophy doesn't ignore advances in science. This is a case where advances in biology inform the discussion.

40 years ago it would have been solidly in the category of psychology/sociology, 2 hundred years ago, those disciplines were considered philosophy. And that is where the discussion on those topics has its history.

Science is merely an extension of rational/empirical philosophy.

To understand some of the philosophy of Aristotle, Descartes or Hume, you have to understand the level of 'scientific' understanding of their time.

I mean, hell, I'm not a member of this particular community because I studied physics, I'm a member because I studied subjects that are informed by advances in physics... and most of those advances I only have a marginal understanding of. But then watching physicists philosophize outside their expertise can be amusing too.

 

[moving finger]

Determinism is dead, I really hope that's not news to you.

Certainly news to me.

How did it die?

 

[moving finger]

But if you take the word "selfless" literally, then a selfless act would be cutting off an apendage/bodypart or cutting out an innard. that would mean that you would have less of the self.

so cutting my fingernails is a truly "selfless" act?

 

[JoeDawg]

so cutting my fingernails is a truly "selfless" act?

Only if you dispose of the clippings properly.

 

[Noone]

Yes its a concept of (Doing onto others as you want done onto your self) it takes away from you and gives to other's every time. Also another one would be what i do every day to everyone i meet and that would be giving there thoughts and point of view of life and there perception of it all the same respect as my own. i dotn do it for my self but only for them with pure intentions i do such -.- here's an example of what peoples thoughts seem like to me and i still give them the same respect as mine--->(killing your self would be selfish, he/she should have to go through the same BS we all do till the day nature takes him/her away to the unknown vauge.) My thought on that matter would be--->(No comment, for lack of logic of why it would or why it wouldnt:)but the reason why i give people the same respect as my own thoughts is due to the concept of doing onto others as you would want done to your self. it only works if you don't lie to your self and try to justify your actions when there not really correct :)

 

[seanpcurto]

Being in an accident.

an accident is not an executed act.

 

[seanpcurto]

The answer is no.

Being in an accident.

I don't think it's possible to commit a selfless act.

Demonstration for continuous acts:
As long as we are making a conscious decision to give or suffer to provide for another, we are being rewarded by the avoidance of failure of what we expect from ourselves and/or of which we are expected from society for the fear of ridicule of action not taken where otherwise could have been. Also, what is perceived as selfless may provide hope to a caretaker that their efforts will resolve a long term problem.

Demonstration act for potential loss of life:
If we commit what some might call a selfless act, we have an awareness that it is good no mater how reactionary or, preconceived it is. Most of us, desire a meaning in life above all else and would attain a "selflessness" status from others from the MOMENT we put our life at risk whether resulting in either escape, injury or death while the act is in progress. The rest of us would have no moral invested interest in being selfless and therefore be the one's on the sidelines of a seen in which a dangerous self sacrifice rescue or the like might be attempted but chosen not to.

A persons act/acts may be deemed by others as a selfless act, but not to themselves.

For me personally I'd like to think it would a selfless act to feed myself to wild tigers, but that's only because I care for wildlife in general and therefore it would be an honor to offer myself to something greater than myself of which I am a integral part of. That is why it wouldn't be selfless. Giving, no matter how extreme, affects how good I feel emotionally responsible AT THE TIME OF THE ACT no matter how terrified I might feel during the act because I would have made the decision first. (hopefully :)

Because we all are different, we go to different lengths to "act" selfless, but are not selfless ourselves.

 

[Air]

It's all down to personal thoughts. A matter of opinion. One act may seem selfish to one person and not to other and vice versa.

 

[baywax]

an accident is not an executed act.

That's debatable. Many people believe there are no accidents. They tend to view the fact that someone has put themselves in a position to be in an accident as a subconsciously directed act.

This doesn't mean its a selfless act... just a subconsciously directed act.

Otherwise, selfless acts appear to be somewhat of a myth. Even the guy dampening the blow of a grenade with his body is doing so out of the selfish aim to feel good about saving his comrades from harm.

 

[Lord Ping]

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.

One day a demon pops up and gives me two choices. After I have made the choice, I will forget that the deal ever took place. The options are:

1) My children will be happy throughout their lives, but it will always seem to me as though they are suffering terribly.
2) My children will suffer terribly throughout their lives, but it will always seem to me as though they are happy.

I have absolutely nothing to gain intrinsically from taking option (1). No happiness, no profit, no sense of self-satisfaction. Yet option (1) is still the obvious choice.

This observation is fully compatible with "inclusive fitness" or "selfish gene" theories about altruistic behaviour - these theories don't deny the possibility of selfless acts by individuals.

 

[Mathos]

I would say no. I would argue that these examples of sacrificing your life to save someone else (or a great deal of people) would only be attempted because you would be impacted in such a way that by continuing to survive without saving them would harm your internal well-being more than you may perceive is allowable to stay within the boundaries of your moral code (or other subjective value system you abide by) to handle and that dying would seem a more attractive option. Those who are religious have more incentive to act in a way perceived as selfless due to the rewards received after death.

Some may argue that by acting so quickly that it's almost 'subconscious' may be considered a selfless act because no time has been made available to process any gain that could come from the action. I'd say that people have likely thought of performing such an action at some point in their lives or have at least thought of something similar enough to have made a judgement on how they would act should such an occasion present itself. That or their skeletal muscles are all messed up and they move without being aware. It could happen!

 

[Lord Ping]

Mathos, I think my example refutes your point.

 

[Mathos]

The actual well-being of your children may have a profound effect on their chances of reproduction and this could be a factor in your decision, which I would say has a big impact on you.

More importantly though, it could be that you simply value your children's well-being as a function of your own happiness. You'd rather make a decision knowing that your children will actually be happy (and this thought naturally makes you happy) rather than on how they seem outwardly. It doesn't matter that you forget the choice you made afterwards, the fact that leading up to making the decision you know your children will be happy is the real factor.

 

[mr-tom]

Stroking your dog? Can't see anything selfish in that.

 

[Lord Ping]

The actual well-being of your children may have a profound effect on their chances of reproduction and this could be a factor in your decision, which I would say has a big impact on you.

More importantly though, it could be that you simply value your children's well-being as a function of your own happiness. You'd rather make a decision knowing that your children will actually be happy (and this thought naturally makes you happy) rather than on how they seem outwardly. It doesn't matter that you forget the choice you made afterwards, the fact that leading up to making the decision you know your children will be happy is the real factor.

1st point: You think I may indirectly gain from choosing option (1) because I will get grandchildren. Is this why I make the decision I make? No. If you like, we can add a bit to the example that says my children don't want any children and will never have any.

2nd point: As far as I can tell, the suggestion here is that my decision is based on my desire to be happy "leading up to the decision". Rather shortsightedly, I prioritise instant gratification over long-term gratification (let alone selflessness!). I don't think this sticks either. Unless you think instant gratification is my rationale for moral decisions normally, it must be that my decisionmaking process in this hypothetical scenario is highly exceptional. But intuitively it isn't. The exceptional feature - that I will never know about the outcome of my decision or that I even made the decision - doesn't have any effect on my decisionmaking at all. It is a simple case of looking after one's children.

 

[Mathos]

1st point: You think I may indirectly gain from choosing option (1) because I will get grandchildren. Is this why I make the decision I make? No. If you like, we can add a bit to the example that says my children don't want any children and will never have any.

2nd point: As far as I can tell, the suggestion here is that my decision is based on my desire to be happy "leading up to the decision". Rather shortsightedly, I prioritise instant gratification over long-term gratification (let alone selflessness!). I don't think this sticks either. Unless you think instant gratification is my rationale for moral decisions normally, it must be that my decisionmaking process in this hypothetical scenario is highly exceptional. But intuitively it isn't. The exceptional feature - that I will never know about the outcome of my decision or that I even made the decision - doesn't have any effect on my decisionmaking at all. It is a simple case of looking after one's children.

The first point is kind of tied to the second, so I'll just address the second point.

Choosing the option that makes you unhappy due to seeing your children unhappy may not be self-centered, but I wouldn't say it's selfless either. Yes, most people would likely pick the first option, but I would say this is tied more to an intuition regarding the passing of genetic material (I think that this drive would still exist in some complex emotional form even if you knew logically that your children would not reproduce.)

More fundamental I think, is that lacking any outside frame of reference, you would put yourself in the situation. You've experienced sadness and you view it as something you'd like to avoid and the empathy associated with the first option is the ability to view what is happening to your children as if it were happening to you. There are probably a host of reasons for empathizing in this way, but I think ultimately it can be tied to some biological imperative.

You realize you're hurting yourself, but by helping your children perhaps on some level you feel like you're helping yourself more in the long run. Of course I doubt any of this would occur at a conscious level-- I don't really enjoy thinking about it in these terms-- but I believe this to be the case.

 

[_Mayday_]

A bee giving it's life for it's queen.

 

[Lord Ping]

A bee giving it's life for it's queen.

I assumed we were talking about people. It's doubtful that bees have a "self," whatever that is. We only apply the term to bees anthropomorphically. I think consciousness is a basic prerequisite (are bees conscious? Seems unlikely).You could equally say a bomb is terribly selfless, destroying itself for the good of a terrorist.

Choosing the option that makes you unhappy due to seeing your children unhappy may not be self-centered, but I wouldn't say it's selfless either. Yes, most people would likely pick the first option, but I would say this is tied more to an intuition regarding the passing of genetic material (I think that this drive would still exist in some complex emotional form even if you knew logically that your children would not reproduce.)

I wouldn't say this is incompatible with the act being selfless. The question is whether I gain anything from my decision.

More fundamental I think, is that lacking any outside frame of reference, you would put yourself in the situation. You've experienced sadness and you view it as something you'd like to avoid and the empathy associated with the first option is the ability to view what is happening to your children as if it were happening to you. There are probably a host of reasons for empathizing in this way, but I think ultimately it can be tied to some biological imperative.

I don't think this is incompatible with the act being selfless either. You're saying I'm putting myself in someone else's head and then being selfish from within their perspective... I'd say that's basically what we mean by "selfless".

 

[Mathos]

I don't think this is incompatible with the act being selfless either. You're saying I'm putting myself in someone else's head and then being selfish from within their perspective... I'd say that's basically what we mean by "selfless".

You're only putting yourself in their head because it's the only way to perceive their emotional state. You could be placing your children's happiness over your own in that instant for a whole host of reasons. Perhaps some notion of guilt comes into play when deciding or maybe it would simply be extremely difficult to imagine the situation of seeing your children unhappy and you're making a decision too rashly. I think that the answer lies in some biological drive and it probably doesn't occur on a conscious level.

I won't pretend to have an exact answer to a hypothetical that requires so much leeway in deciding what most people would or wouldn't do, but these are my guesses.

 

[baywax]

A bee giving it's life for it's queen.

That's an interesting example. However, we can't say whether or not a bee has a sense of self and therefore we can't say if the bee is acting selflessly in this case.

There is some research into the presence of a gene that regulates altruistic behaviour. I wouldn't doubt this because of the numerous examples of cooperation within gene pools and cooperation in symbiotic relationships between different species. It appears to be an autonomic response to be available to give up everything for the good of the "hive" or the organism or for the tissue or the colony.

 

[baywax]

If it feels good to see your children healthy... facilitating their health is a selfish act.

 

[K.J.Healey]

What about feeding my cat? It doesn't make me feel good, but I'm sure she likes it.

 

[JoeDawg]

A common problem when talking about 'altruism' is the fact that the word is used differently, both in common parlance and in different fields of study.

The original definition of the word simply referred to 'acts' done for the 'common good'.

Clearly this doesn't imply any problem with receiving benefit from the act. The difference between 'selfish' and 'altruistic' in this case is a decision based on 'what is good for the self' and only the self, as opposed to, what is good for the group, which obviously may include the self. The fact what is good for the group may also be good for the self is not really the issue.

Talking about altruism in some hyper-idealized way simply ignores reality, which is open to interpretation based on individual point of view.

Also, rewards, with regards to altruism, are generally thought to include 'material' gains, rather than internal or emotional gains. This is often the case when sociologists/anthropologists observe animal groups. Obviously, identifying the internal emotional benefits to an animal that performs an altruistic act is quite difficult.

In the end, you can't really look at 'altruism vs selfishness' as binary opposites. Any action described in one way could also be described in the reverse given a specific interpretation of motivation. Any specific action is likely going to exist along a spectrum between these two 'opposites'.

 

[baywax]

What about feeding my cat? It doesn't make me feel good, but I'm sure she likes it.

Why do you feed your cat?

 

[baywax]

A common problem when talking about 'altruism' is the fact that the word is used differently, both in common parlance and in different fields of study.

The original definition of the word simply referred to 'acts' done for the 'common good'.

Clearly this doesn't imply any problem with receiving benefit from the act. The difference between 'selfish' and 'altruistic' in this case is a decision based on 'what is good for the self' and only the self, as opposed to, what is good for the group, which obviously may include the self. The fact what is good for the group may also be good for the self is not really the issue.

Talking about altruism in some hyper-idealized way simply ignores reality, which is open to interpretation based on individual point of view.

Also, rewards, with regards to altruism, are generally thought to include 'material' gains, rather than internal or emotional gains. This is often the case when sociologists/anthropologists observe animal groups. Obviously, identifying the internal emotional benefits to an animal that performs an altruistic act is quite difficult.

In the end, you can't really look at 'altruism vs selfishness' as binary opposites. Any action described in one way could also be described in the reverse given a specific interpretation of motivation. Any specific action is likely going to exist along a spectrum between these two 'opposites'.

The main reason to bring altruism into this discussion was not to use it as a polar opposite to selfishness but rather to help explain that there is no such thing as selfless behaviour. As more research shows that altruistic behaviour is autonomic and genetically determined, that is... behaviour that benefits both the individual and the group... the more "selflessness" begins to look like the "myth" of a self-important group of people.

The idea that selflessness looks like fiction rubs people the wrong way because they have ideals about heroism and sainthood that depend on the concept. I'm not saying there is no such thing as either... I saying the criteria for these nominations may need to be overhauled.

You have to realize that this discussion is summed up by one of three (or so) men from France in the old saying...

"All for one and one for all".

 

[Pythagorean]

raw post (have only read the title. If an argument pursues, I'm willing to read other posts if referenced to them)

Of course, we can't ever prove this absolutely until we find a way to verify people's motivations objectively (if that's even possible... if motivation actually has an observable physical representative... a common set of signals in the brain or what not).

For someone to be selfless, they must have a parasitic relationship (where they are the host, not the parasite) by the definition of selflessness.

I think we generally look down upon parasitic relationships (somehow or another society considers both participants of a parasitic relationship to be weak) and hold symbiotic relationships in high regard.

Personally, I tend to trust people more who are open about their expectations, because it means they have explored and developed their own intentions and expectations. People that have a selfless personality are more liable to have surprise expectations...

So in conclusion, perhaps there are selfless acts, but one person in their lifetime can't be more selfless than selfish without endangering their psychological and/or physical health.

One exception may be someone born rich who never consumes more (in financial value) than they give to charities or what not. Unfortunately, this isn't the end game though, because they may have been receiving other benefits from their actions that result in other types of gains besides financial.

 

[K.J.Healey]

Why do you feed your cat?

Habit? If its empty I put food in. If I don't I'm sure my brother will, its his cat really.

Can habitual actions that happen to be beneficial to others be considered selfless?

 

[luben]

how about we construct a linear scale between selfish and selfless and then continue the discussion I think this is more definite and effective. IMO, 100% selfless acts does not exist, since there is alway some selfishness exists when one considers all relations:
\int_{\text{all relations}}d\text{(relation)}[\text{selfishness in an act}] >0

in other words, one can always find something "the subject wants" in an act

 

[baywax]

Habit? If its empty I put food in. If I don't I'm sure my brother will, its his cat really.

Convenient but incomplete answer. You either feed the cat to stop it from asking for food (selfish behaviour) or because you feel good about feeding the cat (selfish behaviour) or because you have a habit of feeling good when you feed an animal (also selfish).

Can habitual actions that happen to be beneficial to others be considered selfless?

If you have an addiction (habit) of feeding animals it fulfills the need to make the action of feeding an animal (selfish motive). Fulfilling the need to do something is a selfish act.

* * * * * *

We could really end this discussion by saying all motives and all actions are selfless in that they are determined by genetic programming and by the influence of the laws of physics.

In this way we have to see that there is only the myth and the conjecture that there is a "self" because the "self" is really just a composite of matter and em waves acting in accordance with natural laws with no real self-determined outcomes whatsoever.

Concluding with my last statement would mean that all actions are selfless in that they are under the direction of natural law.