Is there such thing as a truly selfless act?

[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.

 

[Solar Eclipse]

o.k. so now there are solid arguments for and against selfish actions. I think that there are selfish actions but not all actions are selfish. is this agreeable?

 

[LightbulbSun]

o.k. so now there are solid arguments for and against selfish actions. I think that there are selfish actions but not all actions are selfish. is this agreeable?

What actions do you consider "not selfish?"

 

[JUSTANAME]

Self is what is progating on this thread. Not selfless. The need to be right is not a selfless act. What occurs is going after a poisition on a thread to attempt to be the big dog.

To understand the question and the answer you must enter a relm you don't even know exists. You must pay the price to climb the mountain. You cannot say it exists or does not exist through the words of a book or the eyes of another.

 

[LightbulbSun]

Self is what is progating on this thread. Not selfless. The need to be right is not a selfless act. What occurs is going after a poisition on a thread to attempt to be the big dog.

This is not what's happening. This is a classic case of simple reasoning.

To understand the question and the answer you must enter a relm you don't even know exists. You must pay the price to climb the mountain. You cannot say it exists or does not exist through the words of a book or the eyes of another.

To understand any question and the answer you must constantly use the terms "realm" and "beyond our existence" to get everything all entangled to the point of debating becomes useless. You cannot say it exists within this current realm because anecdotes are the gospel, and I'm anti-intellectual.

 

[JUSTANAME]

If one wishes to make an discussion, one should place forth the limiting parameters of the system. Self is the topic. To be selfless. Hmm... So what is the self. What will your answer be? Will it be quoted from a book? 10 books? 100? 1000? What is it? Read it? Tell me what it is. LOL...

Self? Who will define it for me? Maybe it would be the Cocaine addict Fred? Fraud? Frued that's it. LOL Maybe it will be some professor who loves to write paper upon paper to justify his position of academia and has long forgotten the soul of truth or the hope of its understanding. Maybe. maybe. maybe...

What is self? Please use the sum of your experience and not someone elses. What are it's defining characteristics? Does it have limits? What are they? What is the function of the system? How did this system arise? After you have defined self, what systems does it apply to? What characteristics must that system have? Yada yada yada...

 

[LightbulbSun]

Self? Who will define it for me? Maybe it would be the Cocaine addict Fred? Fraud? Frued that's it. LOL Maybe it will be some professor who loves to write paper upon paper to justify his position of academia and has long forgotten the soul of truth or the hope of its understanding. Maybe. maybe. maybe...

Wait a minute, are you seriously contending that academia is hindering the truth?

What is self? Please use the sum of your experience and not someone elses. What are it's defining characteristics? Does it have limits? What are they? What is the function of the system? How did this system arise? After you have defined self, what systems does it apply to? What characteristics must that system have? Yada yada yada...

Can you give me an example of a truly 'selfless' act?

 

[baywax]

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

There will always be the perception that someone committed suicide in a selfish act. The actual causes can probably be traced back to some factor that can be described by "Chaos Theory". This type of perception takes the decisions out of our hands and attributes them to the laws of nature. That's what I was proposing but I don't know if its a truth or not.

The only way I could know if determinism and the laws of nature govern our actions is by me personally knowing every event that takes place in the universe during all time and being able to observe the synergistic links between each of these events.

It would be another thread to discuss if that is possible.

 

[LightbulbSun]

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.

But if you don't care for it, the cat will end up dieing and won't you feel regret from it?

 

[robertm]

It is impossible to be involved in anything physically without involving yourself. So no you can't do anything 'sans the self'. However this thread is pretty pointless because the question is one of semantics, and semantics are notoriously difficult...ie... 9 pages and over 3,000 views.

 

[baywax]

It is impossible to be involved in anything physically without involving yourself. So no you can't do anything 'sans the self'. However this thread is pretty pointless because the question is one of semantics, and semantics are notoriously difficult...ie... 9 pages and over 3,000 views.

Lao Tzu would say:

“All difficult things have their origin in that which is easy, and great things in that which is small.”

and

"Do the difficult things while they are easy and do the great things while they are small. A journey of a thousand miles must begin with a single step."

Josh Billings would say:

"It's not only the most difficult thing to know one's self, but the most inconvenient."

Shakespeare wrote:

"Our doubts are traitors,
and make us lose the good
we oft might win,
by fearing to attempt."

and

Seneca said:

"It is not that things are difficult that we do not dare;
it is because we do not dare that things are difficult."

 

[cristo]

I think if this question hasn't been answered yet, it never will be!