No Self-less acts?

[Kylyssa]

Also, if I give my life at 25 I'll never ever have to have a proctology appointment, so that's a bonus.

Shhhhh!  Not so loud!  My partner feels the same way and he's pushing 40 - the dreaded year of the proctological exam. He's even stated it as the small upside of not having insurance - not having to have a 40 year-old-man-physical.

[Sophus]

So you consider conforming to your code of ethics as providing a benefit for yourself?  If someone sacrifices their life for another person, I don't care what excuses you give, aside from the person thinking that they will be rewarded in the afterlife, they have committed a self-less act.

In terms of demonstrable benefits the only one who benefits would be the person whose life was saved.

They have put another person's needs above their own.

I'm not a philosopher, I haven't studied philosophy either, so unfortunately I can't look to prior philosophical giants for all the retorts to my response, but it seems that just because you gain "something" that doesn't make it a selfish act so long as the reason you are performing the act is to help another person at a cost to yourself (or at least so long as the intent isn't to gain some type of benefit for yourself).

I used to be under this impression too. It's probably because our tendancy is to associate a sort of snobbish behavior to selfishness. It has really gotten a bad reputation. My thoughts are: You always benefit in some way from everything you do. Even when you die for someone you may be avoiding guilt of not saving the person or your satisfaction is dieing knowing your loved one will live on. There's considerate people and inconsiderate people, but we're all selfish. If you're interested in taking the topic further Ayn Rand wrote quite a bit on the issue, saying that selfishness is a virtue because through it all other virtues become possible. Actually one of her books is currently being turned into a movie.

[jbeukema]

[quote="Hollownucleus"
So that brought up a bigger question. Are there any real self-less acts?
Everything I do, I do because it benefits me in someway.
Even if I were to go to homeless shelter and help serve food I would be doing it for the feeling it gives me.
If I were to give a hobo money it would be to think I am helping somebody in need.

So, are there no self-less acts?[/quote]

I concur with your conclusion

[LARA]

Are there selfless acts or is this all just selfishness?


This is a false dichotomy.


There is a spectrum of actions and characteristics that can be labelled from selfish to selfless. Let's start with four.

These are:

Selfishness
Self-preserving
Altruistic
Selflessness

Now I'm going to give some descriptions.

Selfish- Unnecessary actions that are harmful to others and beneficial to the self.
Self-preserving- Necessary actions that preserve the self.  These actions may be null such as sleeping, breathing, drinking, mildly harmful to others (granted that animals and plants are granted "other" status) or very harmful to others such as self-defense.
Altruistic- Actions that are positive to others and positive to the self.
Selflessness-Actions that are detrimental to the self and positive for others.  Examples include sacrificing life or food for others in times of need. Selfless acts can result in species preservation, such as the selflessness of a parent to a child or a sick person to a healthy one, but create the illusion of selfishness in the beneficiary of the action.  The key is free will, was the selfless individual forced, etc.

[Renegnicat]

Well, it's impossible to do a self-less act, as that implies an action done, but not directed by the self, which is physically impossible. I think, however, that a lot of us forget that it is perfectly possible, and even common, for humans to directly care about another person's welfare just as much as their own, even when that person's welfare is not related to the self.

For a perfect example, what do you do every time you read a good book where the protagonist feels danger? Even though you care about him, you will get absolutely no tangible benefit from the protagonist living. Keep in mind, that there's a difference between having a good feelilng because you benefited, and having a good feeling because someone else benefited. In one case you are actually benefiting, while in another case you are using your imagination to understand how the other person is feeling and then using transference to feel the same thing.

But even then, a protagonist in a book narrowly escaping danger doesn't give us any benefit. Why do we love good books where the protagonist dies a horrific death? In that scenario, there's absolutely no benefit, and even some pain.

I really hate how people say that everyone is perfectly selfish but that that's all right. So often what we really should be saying is that actions are perfectly explainable, but the typical connotations of the word "selfish" hardly measure up to what's really going on.  

[cyniclaus]

"selfless act" is an oxymoron.

All actions, in the context being discussed here (i.e. they are not instinctual or reflexive) require a motive

Motivation requires the selfish expectation of either a reward or of the witholding/withdrawal of punishment.

[McQ]

"selfless act" is an oxymoron.

All actions, in the context being discussed here (i.e. they are not instictual or reflexive) require a motive

Motivation requires the selfish expectation of either a reward or of the witholding/withdrawal of punishment.

Welcome to the forum. Care to elaborate?

[Ultima22689]

"selfless act" is an oxymoron.

All actions, in the context being discussed here (i.e. they are not instictual or reflexive) require a motive

Motivation requires the selfish expectation of either a reward or of the witholding/withdrawal of punishment.

So what happens if I do something on impulse? When I lived in Chicago I saw a kid on the train tracks in the subway. I didn't even give it a thought and hopped down to grab the kid despite the rumbling of a train incoming. Fortunately I just hid us inbetween the space that leads to the train going in the opposite direction and I simply walked back and casually hopped up ensured there was no train coming for 5-10 minutes.

[cyniclaus]

"selfless act" is an oxymoron.

All actions, in the context being discussed here (i.e. they are not instictual or reflexive) require a motive

Motivation requires the selfish expectation of either a reward or of the witholding/withdrawal of punishment.

Welcome to the forum. Care to elaborate?

Thanks; I came across this topic and felt I should comment since I have held this point of view my whole life.  I was about to just spit out a whole essay about it, but instead I took the extra time to be concise  

So what happens if I do something on impulse? ....I didn't even give it a thought and hopped down to grab the kid despite the rumbling of a train incoming....

An impulsive action still requires a motive.  The only difference is the amount of forethought

The action you describe is the expected one...we are socially conditioned to react in that way.  We are taught that such an action is heroic and to not act in such a way is cowardly.  Therefore, the anticipated reward is dualfold; 1. earning heroism and 2. avoiding shame (external) and guilt (internal).  

The selfish nature of such acts is revealed in that people are much more likely to act "selflessly" (in the interest of others) when they know someone is watching.

[Ultima22689]

"selfless act" is an oxymoron.

All actions, in the context being discussed here (i.e. they are not instictual or reflexive) require a motive

Motivation requires the selfish expectation of either a reward or of the witholding/withdrawal of punishment.

Welcome to the forum. Care to elaborate?

Thanks; I came across this topic and felt I should comment since I have held this point of view my whole life.  I was about to just spit out a whole essay about it, but instead I took the extra time to be concise  

So what happens if I do something on impulse? ....I didn't even give it a thought and hopped down to grab the kid despite the rumbling of a train incoming....

An impulsive action still requires a motive.  The only difference is the amount of forethought

The action you describe is the expected one...we are socially conditioned to react in that way.  We are taught that such an action is heroic and to not act in such a way is cowardly.  Therefore, the anticipated reward is dualfold; 1. earning heroism and 2. avoiding shame (external) and guilt (internal).  

The selfish nature of such acts is revealed in that people are much more likely to act "selflessly" (in the interest of others) when they know someone is watching.

So you're claiming that humans, no matter what, only do things if there is some form of gain on their part? I call BS. Giving a bum the rest of my doughnut holes doesn't make me feel any better. If humans can still be so illogical to believe in a man in the clouds then they can do illogical things like selfless acts, that's my take on it anyway.

[Renegnicat]

Hey! Pay Attention to me!

Motives, yes. Allways required. But the thing that benefits does not have to be the self. If you care about someone else, then you can do something at great pain to yourself but benefit to them, because you care about them. The motive can be geared towards anything. It's called transference. Trust me, I know this stuff.  

[Ultima22689]

Hey! Pay Attention to me!

Motives, yes. Allways required. But the thing that benefits does not have to be the self. If you care about someone else, then you can do something at great pain to yourself but benefit to them, because you care about them. The motive can be geared towards anything. It's called transference. Trust me, I know this stuff.  

This makes sense.

[cyniclaus]

Hey! Pay Attention to me!

Motives, yes. Allways required. But the thing that benefits does not have to be the self. If you care about someone else, then you can do something at great pain to yourself but benefit to them, because you care about them. The motive can be geared towards anything. It's called transference. Trust me, I know this stuff.  

Thanks for making my point.  "Transference" implies you are benefitting.  It may be vicariously through someone else, but it is a benefit nonetheless.

If you "feel good about yourself" after commiting an act of charity, that's clearly a benefit.  That beggar in the subway is selling a service.  He boosts your self esteem for pocket change.

Even if you don't believe in charity, you can benefit from giving....through avoidance of perceived consequences to inaction.  For example, if you are being watched and giving is the socially expected thing to do, you may give when you otherwise wouldn't simply to avoid the scorn of your peers.  Why do you think they pass the collection plate openly in church (or at the office) instead of just asking people to make private donations to a collection box....you get a lot more money when people have the choice of giving or losing face.

[cyniclaus]

Giving a bum the rest of my doughnut holes doesn't make me feel any better.

Maybe you should analyze your motives a little better.  After all, since every act has a motive, there is no such thing as a "random act".  

Why give the donuts to the bum instead of throwing them away?  Because it makes you feel better.  

A robot that functions purely on logic (and has no ego to gratify) would not see the distinction.  He would either keep the donuts for further use or dispose of them in the most convenient manner.

[zandurian]

Wow - interesting thread, the exact kind of discussion I hoped to find here. I found every post brilliant in it's own way.

I like this analysis:

Are there selfless acts or is this all just selfishness?
This is a false dichotomy.

There is a spectrum of actions and characteristics that can be labelled from selfish to selfless. Let's start with four.

These are:

Selfishness
Self-preserving
Altruistic
Selflessness

Now I'm going to give some descriptions.

Selfish- Unnecessary actions that are harmful to others and beneficial to the self.
Self-preserving- Necessary actions that preserve the self.  These actions may be null such as sleeping, breathing, drinking, mildly harmful to others (granted that animals and plants are granted "other" status) or very harmful to others such as self-defense.
Altruistic- Actions that are positive to others and positive to the self.
Selflessness-Actions that are detrimental to the self and positive for others.  Examples include sacrificing life or food for others in times of need. Selfless acts can result in species preservation, such as the selflessness of a parent to a child or a sick person to a healthy one, but create the illusion of selfishness in the beneficiary of the action.  The key is free will, was the selfless individual forced, etc.

I do also see the point that everything is done for a reason, even if those reasons are unknown to the ones acting out.

From a Pantheistic (or my personal PanENtheistic view) an apparently 'selfless' act can actually be an act for the benefit of the bigger whole, which could include what we commonly call 'self' as well as all other 'selves'.