Is there such thing as a truly selfless act?

[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.

 

[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.