Is there such thing as a truly selfless act?

[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.

 

[K.J.Healey]

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).

I don't do it to stop her from asking for food.

I don't feel good about feeding her. I do it without even thinking. I see an empty bowl and I fill it.
While I understand the whole "habit fulfillment" thing being considered selfish in some way, isn't it really a subconscious selfishness? Can that even be considered selfish?

I guess I think its all up to semantics. Selfish in my book means a primary concern for ones self. Actions that just happen to benefit you without consideration I do not deem selfish.
I do not feed my cat to feel happy about myself. I may do it so she doesn't starve. The fact that I MAY feel happy about it (or may not) is inconsequential. It was not the REASON the act was performed.

 

[JoeDawg]

As more research shows that altruistic behaviour is autonomic and genetically determined...

That doesn't make it any less altruistic. A behavior is a behavior.
Like I said, if it is for the 'common' good, then its altruistic by definition.
It doesn't matter where altruistic behavior comes from, or whether it benefits the individual as well.

Those who demand that altruistic behavior produce absolutely 'not benefit' for the individual are simply creating a straw man to knock down.

Richard Dawkin's for instance, in his book The Selfish Gene, explains how altruism may have evolved... but the fact its not some metaphysical thing, doesn't make the behavior any less altruism.

 

[baywax]

but the fact its not some metaphysical thing, doesn't make the behavior any less altruism.

That's why I've never said altruism needs to be metaphysical or "selfless" to be altruism.

 

[baywax]

As I said before,

my conclusion is that "self" is basically a concept born of
an organism which is a composite of matter and em radiation.

The debate should really be about whether or not there is
a "self" to begin with.

If no one can prove "self" to be a viable and verifiable
entity then all animal, plant and mineral actions are indeed "selfless".

This would render the answer to the question posed in this thread "yes".

 

[Solar Eclipse]

well pretty much every action a plant does is for its own survival and making a new generation of itself, right?. that sounds pretty selfish.

 

[baywax]

well pretty much every action a plant does is for its own survival and making a new generation of itself, right?. that sounds pretty selfish.

As far as most people know, plants don't have a sense of self. So, in this case the word "selfish" does not apply.

On the other hand... we can take a clue from this. A plant acts to further its longevity in a selfless manner... or without a sense of self. It does so because of genetic determiners and because of certain natural laws (what the laws are I don't know... let's call them "survival laws")

The same can be said of humans. Humans may have developed a sense of "self" and on the surface their acts appear "selfish". But, let's just theorize that the "sense of self" humans have managed to develop is a trait of a genetic determination that is, in turn, an expression of a natural law or "survival law". With this in mind we can say that all humans are acting "selflessly" because their actions and beliefs are being determined by genetics and by natural law.

This is a round about way of repeating what I said in my last post which was

As I said before,

my conclusion is that "self" is basically a concept born of
an organism which is a composite of matter and em radiation.

The debate should really be about whether or not there is
a "self" to begin with.

If no one can prove "self" to be a viable and verifiable
entity then all animal, plant and mineral actions are indeed "selfless".

This would render the answer to the question posed in this thread "yes".

So, if selflessness is a trait of Heros and Saints then it would follow that every living and non-living entity is an hero or a saint. And I agree.

 

[Solar Eclipse]

so in order for a person to act selflessly they can't be in control of the action? and our actions are goverened by this survival law so every action is selfless...
if a person gives their life to save someone elses they aren't acting for their survival which is against what the "survival law", I am guessing, states. so giving your life for another, or just giving your life, is one of the few selfish actions?

 

[baywax]

so in order for a person to act selflessly they can't be in control of the action? and our actions are goverened by this survival law so every action is selfless...
if a person gives their life to save someone elses they aren't acting for their survival which is against what the "survival law", I am guessing, states. so giving your life for another, or just giving your life, is one of the few selfish actions?

No, its an action governed by "survival of the species" (as a whole, not the individual) which is facilitated by the "altruistic gene" that hasn't been identified yet.

 

[baywax]

One may well wonder what I mean by "natural laws of survival".

I'm trying to figure it out myself.

There is evidence of it in all of nature.
For instance... we are here and the universe has reportedly been here for 14 billion years give or take. That's a lot of surviving. It seems logical that if there were no laws facilitating the survival of the universe, there would be no universe.

So there is a long list of laws that have been observed and recorded.

Conservation of mass law
Conservation of energy law
Conservation of momentum law
Conservation of angular momentum law
Charge conservation law

...etc...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_(principle )

Hopefully Wikipedia didn't screw up on listing them...

 

[Solar Eclipse]

this is starting to sound like a case for determinism. which I am fine with talking about but gets off topic fast

 

[baywax]

this is starting to sound like a case for determinism. which I am fine with talking about but gets off topic fast

Unless you're determined enough to stay on topic !-]

 

[Solar Eclipse]

ok ill try. how do the laws explain suicide? it deffinantely isn't for self preservation and i can't see how it helps the species survive.

 

[JUSTANAME]

Do you think anyone can give you such an answer? Real answers float in the wind, they pass by those with ambition and are seen by beggars. Only beggars have eyes but clowns try to make you laugh to pass the time.

 

[baywax]

ok ill try. how do the laws explain suicide? it deffinantely isn't for self preservation and i can't see how it helps the species survive.

That's an easy answer.

There is a gene called the P52 gene that demands a cell to kill itself...or... self destruct... when it is threatened with mutation and threatens the rest of the tissues of an organism. You could extrapolate and allegorize the suicide of a cell in the name of protecting the organism with the suicide of an individual in the name of protecting the society from their rather negative outlook on life.

 

[JUSTANAME]

How many people have you ever known that committed suicide? Words from a book are not understanding. They are a basis for which you can potentially learn, but it is only the beginning. There are few lessons in life you will ever learn from a book. Books cannot convey truth and in many unfortuante circumstances, they don't convey fact either. They convey relative splices of a reality not fully understood.

Today drug comppany's do not only not see the forest through the trees, but through lobbiests, they create only the need to see only pieces of a single tree. Not even a section of a tree but pieces.

Real understanding takes time, sweat and pain and a desire to understand.

 

[LightbulbSun]

How many people have you ever known that committed suicide? Words from a book are not understanding. They are a basis for which you can potentially learn, but it is only the beginning. There are few lessons in life you will ever learn from a book. Books cannot convey truth and in many unfortuante circumstances, they don't convey fact either. They convey relative splices of a reality not fully understood.

I disagree. Anecdotes get touted everyday like a smoking gun. What you view in life on the overall scale, to use a statistics concept here, is a "small sample size." Small samples tell you nothing. Typically books will be dealing with larger and more meaningful samples of life.

Real understanding takes time, sweat and pain and a desire to understand.

And chalking up your "experience" as a smoking gun does not follow these guidelines.

 

[JUSTANAME]

The world is flat was in a book. Was it true? There are many things which get accepted as fact due to sampling and it is not truth. It is relative facts which seem to define some subset of a working condition.

People who commit suicide do not commit suicide to help the human race. They do it out of pain. If it was a genentic trait, those that were presses so by life would then apparently have the gene quite strongly. Since on average they would be committing suicide, this does not hold well for the propagation of those genes does it not? In fact it would eventually eliminate the need and the system would eventually become defunct.

 

[LightbulbSun]

The world is flat was in a book. Was it true?

But where was this derived from? Our experience, and our appeals about the horizon. There are so many anecdotes that get turned into a collection and published in book form. I didn't mean to generalize and conclude that books= truth. What I did mean though was that informative books typically deal with a larger sample of life and therefore come to more accurate conclusions about an issue, over someone who just bases his views off of lessons he's learned in his life, which would still have a certain bias to them, based upon any conflicting emotions.

There are many things which get accepted as fact due to sampling and it is not truth. It is relative facts which seem to define some subset of a working condition.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say with this.

 

[Solar Eclipse]

ok. so suicide isn't a gene. does that mean it violates the laws baywax stated and is indeed a selfish act?

 

[LightbulbSun]

ok. so suicide isn't a gene. does that mean it violates the laws baywax stated and is indeed a selfish act?

Suicide usually deals with someone seeking attention, which is purely selfish, or someone trying to "ease" their depression or grief, which would still be a selfish act.