# there is no such thing as a selfless act



## alasdairm

i was having a heated discussion recently with a friend who posited that there is no such thing as a completely selfless act. he argued that even the most overt acts of altruism are done, in part, because they fulfill some need in the person doing them.

my initial response was that he was bitter and wrong but, the more i think about it, the more i believe he is correct. empirical evidence since then further convinces me that he's correct to the point where i now agree.

what do you think?

alasdair


----------



## auto238367

I have belived for quite some time that every action is made by an individual with their own self interest as a priority.

From the person that gives money to a homeless person to feel better about themselves, to an individual that gives away millions for an new hospital and tax deductions, every action people make is made because it benefits them.

Even people who "selflessly" give their lives to protect others, do so for the benefit for immortality as a hero.


----------



## Roger&Me

I think its impossible to help others without also helping yourself. That's just the interconnected nature of reality. Likewise, the converse is true: bettering yourself will put you in a more favorable position to help others, and likely you will. 

I think its kinda pointless to argue about this, though. I mean, even if there are no absolutely, completely selfless acts, that doesn't make altruism any less valuable -- as it certainly does make peoples lives tangibly better. Its not like getting enjoyment out of helping someone makes it any less of a valid action.


----------



## HoneyRoastedPeanut

I would agree, there is no selfless act. The closest I've heard to one, as my friend once posited, is when you give up the one you love so they can be with the one they love. Of course, this act reinforces your inner conscience and morals, so that in itself is self-preservation. But yeah, as has been mentioned, it doesn't really matter, what matters is how we allow our selfishness to define our lives.


----------



## ebola?

If all acts are selfish, then "selfishness" no longer operates as a useful category for assessment of human behavior.

ebola


----------



## swilow

Bizare. I was about to start a thread regarding whether giving is ever not selfish if not done altruistcly. I shall expand on my thoughts later....but yeah, weirdness.


----------



## PsYcHoAcTiViSt

The closest thing I can think of is doing something nice for someone and not letting anyone know you did it. i.e. slipping some money into someones purse and not telling them or anyone else ever. If they ask you about it deny it. This at least dissipates any fact that you are looking for a pat on the back or a "Awww, thats so nice" from anyone
However, you could also be doing this for self satisfaction as it might make you feel nice and warm inside doing this for a person.
....As I said, thats the CLOSEST thing I could think of.

This is why it is also important to let people do favors for you. A lot of people have a hard time excepting favors from others. This in a sense is being selfish, believe it or not, because you are actually denying the other person some self gratification they would receive from doing you a favor. People like to do things for others not only because it makes others feel good but because it makes them feel good too.


----------



## neonads

I've done many things that accidently help others without realising it until they told me, does that count?


----------



## CHiLD-0F-THE-BEAT

I've had this same discussion with countless people over the course of my life.  I have always stood by the idea that every act is somehow driven by some form of self-serving, no matter how small.

People are inherently selfish in general, but that's human nature.  We evolved this way.  It's natural to look out for yourself.  When life gets tough and there's a choice between them or you nobody else will.


----------



## Belisarius

This is psychological egoism, which is unfalsifiable; by that, I mean that there is nothing that you couldn't look at and see as confirmation of its truth.  For me, unfalsifiability is a pretty stiff barrier to acceptability.  Freudianism is the same way; if you don't believe you have an Oedipus complex, you're in denial.  If you hate Freudianism, you're experiencing reaction formation.  100% "confirmation".

Now, before someone says something like "Well, Kantian and Nicomachean ethics, et al. are unfalsifiable as well," I'll counter with the statement that those are ethical prescriptions, not predictions about the real world.  You can't point at an act and call it proof of deontology, or at a rock and call it proof of idealism, or at a poor man and call him proof of utilitarianism.  

Falsification criteria have their limits, but in general they are a useful litmus test for me.  So in short, I don't believe in psychological egoism.  At all.  Like solipsism, it's an interesting thought experiment, no more.


----------



## Solitude_within

neonads said:
			
		

> I've done many things that accidently help others without realising it until they told me, does that count?



Interesting posit. But then I guess this goes back to our definition of "act".


----------



## MyDoorsAreOpen

Grrrrr!

No offense alasdair, but I think I may just hate this topic more than any other philosophical argument out there.

It always makes me curious WHY, in the name of all things good, would anyone want to belittle and reduce every kind deed to an unknowingly selfish act. According to Chaos Magicians, holding an unproven/unprovable belief about the nature of reality is essentially a tool for changing how you interact with, and therefore your place in, the outer world. It's changing your inner world (your perspectives and assumptions) in order to exert change on the world around you.

Based on this, I really have to wonder about anyone who's eager to define all acts as inherently selfish. What exactly are they trying to change? What exactly are they trying to accomplish? What kind of people are they trying to become, or encourage you to become?

I find that people who loudly defend this position tend to be people who really REALLY rub me the wrong way. In short, I find they tend to be people who either enjoy deflating people, or are just. plain. cold. Not that this has any bearing on whether this position is defensible or not, but I just thought I'd mention that for the record, I am not ashamed to admit I am VERY biased against this argument.
Not few among them are people who enjoy shaking people up and causing controversy, and the rabidly antireligious. I'll take a pass.

If you and I are ultimately part of the same great oneness, than 'what's good for you' and 'what's good for me' becomes a false dichotomy. Well then buddy, you might say, I can think of many instances where me doing what's good for me harms you. What says you to that? To that, I'd say that our relationship is not in tune, and one or both of us needs to wake up and realize that bolstering one's ultimately false and fleeting individual ego, at the other's expense, doesn't have any lasting good effects of either of us, and is as futile as clearing the sea floor of sand.

The general 'you'. Not you, alasdair


----------



## Jamshyd

^ I mostly agree with MDAO. People who vigorously defend such positions tend to be simply unpleasant and I have little interest in being around them. For those people, may I suggest some Dawkins porn? 

That said, here is my belief, which might sound similar to said position but as you read on you'll find that it is in fact not so:

It is impossible for anyone to be truly selfless while alive, let alone being able to do any acts of pure selflessness. Even if you become a hermit and live on nothing other than air and water, you're still indulging in life - which is, strictly speaking, selfish. To be truly selfless is to be dead (and emancipated too, if you believe in anything after death). 

Now as one matures (on all levels) in life, one learns to to shred away the veils of inherent human selfishness, one at a time. 

Even if one doesn't manage to strip away all these veils, revealing the light within, one can still get very close to doing so. This is the proverbial process of Alchemy - the transmutation of base metals into gold. One may only reach silver in one's lifetime, but that is still better than lead. So while humanity may be inherently selfish (one needs only to look at a baby to see this), it is not just possible, but imperative, that individuals attempt to evolved out of said selfishness as much as possible. 

This is what my very limited experience in life has taught me so far, and I think MDAO has put it more eloquently than I have.


----------



## L2R

it IS better for you when you are better for others. so i guess i agree. i just don't agree with the connotations that selfishness is the primary motive for all of our actions.


the previous thread


----------



## CHiLD-0F-THE-BEAT

Impacto Profundo said:
			
		

> i just don't agree with the connotations that greed is the primary motive for all of our actions.


^That's where this discussion can frustrate me - why can't people be happy with the fact that people are inherently selfish in all they do?  I'm not interested in the _connotations_ of this line of thinking, it's simply a fact.

I also don't see why this is viewed so negatively?  Surely the fact that helping someone is somehow helping yourself isn't such a bad thing?  Wouldn't that encourage people to do seemingly altruistic things?


----------



## L2R

when i help a lady or old man up/down stairs with their trolley, i don't do it for myself. it's instinctual. 
i see "person requires assistance". i have "capability to assit", therefore "i assist". 

it is simply the right thing to do. is this selfish?


----------



## CHiLD-0F-THE-BEAT

^You could be doing it for any number of reasons including but not limited to the following;


So you don't feel guilty for not helping.
So someone might see you [pride]
Because you feel it is your 'duty' and with you uphold certain morals that have been instilled by whatever person or institution - in a round-a-bout way so those people / groups will feel proud of you or you will be accepted by them.


----------



## Rated E

Impacto Profundo said:
			
		

> when i help a lady or old man up/down stairs with their trolley, i don't do it for myself. it's instinctual.
> i see "person requires assistance". i have "capability to assit", therefore "i assist".
> 
> it is simply the right thing to do. is this selfish?



You could have done it to satisfy the urge you felt to be "selfless". You could have done it to uphold the belief that people are "selfless", since it makes you feel good to think there is more to your own existence.

There's no point in fighting it lefty, you are one of us. :evilmoticon:


----------



## Rated E

ebola? said:
			
		

> If all acts are selfish, then "selfishness" no longer operates as a useful category for assessment of human behavior.
> 
> ebola



Perhaps the label can be used in relative terms. Someone who is overtly selfish is not selfless, someone who is less overtly selfish could be considered selfless.

Evolutionary speaking, it may be that some people are selfless because they have a strong urge to uphold the living standards and success of their "tribe". The "tribe" is a broader definition of themselves. The "tribe's" success is their own success. Even though they are still performing selfish acts, they might be labeled as selfless by the members of their "tribe", because their acts are overtly and obviously benefiting other people.


----------



## L2R

you guys are talking nonsense. i don't think any of that. i don't think at all. it's like i said: instinctual. 
i mean, it costs me nothing. sometimes i'd have to climb or descent the stairs a second time to keep going when i was. but stairs are nothing to me, i can climb them all day. i don't even stick around long enough to have a face to face thanks. 

is it so hard to comprehend that some people help others simply because they can?


----------



## Rated E

Impacto Profundo said:
			
		

> it's like i said: instinctual.



But why do you have the instinct and why did you act on it?

How would you have felt if you didn't act on it?



			
				Impacto Profundo said:
			
		

> is it so hard to comprehend that some people help others simply because they can?



Is it so hard to comprehend that it's not that simple?


----------



## namelesss

A 'selfless' act is a _non-egoic_ act. 
The 'self' of 'selfish', and the 'self' of 'selfless', is the false 'self' of egoic images. 
Any act done when not in the egoic state is 'selfless'.
That people manifest non-egoic Perspectives, at times, is well documented and has a long history. 
Though quite uncommon, there certainly exist 'selfless', altruistic, acts.


----------



## Jamshyd

This is sort of in response to IP and COB:

I'd say that all people are selfish, yes, but some people are more selfish than others. There seems to be a "threshold" between selfishness as conscious self-sustenance and selfishness as conscious greed (where it gets complicated is with the unconscious counterparts). 

In other words, I think it is greed that ought to be condemned, not selfishness. Condemning the latter makes us... Catholics?

At the end of the day, I think it is the _motives_ that really count, and we cannot judge an act without fully understanding its motives.


----------



## L2R

^agreed (re: motives). that's what i said in the other thread about five years ago ... along with some silly hippie shit about energy.

of course we are all selfish. but not all of our actions are selfish



			
				Rated E said:
			
		

> But why do you have the instinct and why did you act on it?



I dunno. Maybe it's from the way i was raised. 



> How would you have felt if you didn't act on it?



i guess i would have paid no attention. since i didn't act, something else was preoccupying my attention and/or my assessment of my ability to assist may have come up a negative. 
Why would i feel anything about not being to do something when i normally would?




> Is it so hard to comprehend that it's not that simple?



experience tells me that quite often it is.

are you afraid to acknowledge that there are parts of you outside of your rationality and reason?


----------



## swilow

If giving is not selfless, maybe the most altruistic thing you can do is accept a shitty gift graciously; after all, if you don't actually need 15 screwdrivers, but it pleases someone to give you something, then say "Thanks".


----------



## lady grey

A lot of people i know believe this. I don't at all and have heard almost every argument. Many people do completely selfless things every day. What makes it selfish? Because it makes you feel good about yourself too, that doesn't make the act any less selfless, it means you are rewarded for your selflessness. If that makes sense.

One of the kindest people i have ever met has always been so hard on himself for being kind and generous, not for the reason that he gets taken advantage of but because he feels as though it has to do with his ego. He gave his last $50 to a lady at a bus station once and beat himself up over it, not because he lost his last $50 or that he knew she was just going to spend it to score but because something in him had convinced himself that he did it for selfish reasons, to feel as though he had done this kind, selfless thing and felt good about it afterward. Where is the logic in that? He did a completely selfless act in the moment but beat himself up afterward because he didn't feel indifference.. Why is it only selfless if we feel indifference?


----------



## Rated E

Impacto Profundo said:
			
		

> i guess i would have paid no attention. since i didn't act, something else was preoccupying my attention and/or my assessment of my ability to assist may have come up a negative.
> Why would i feel anything about not being to do something when i normally would?



But what if you had the ability to help and you were aware of the situation, but you didn't help, how would that make you feel? Unpleasant?



			
				Impact Profundo said:
			
		

> are you afraid to acknowledge that there are parts of you outside of your rationality and reason?



Not at all. But this does exist within my rationality and reason. It's just a matter of meaning.



			
				swilow said:
			
		

> If giving is not selfless, maybe the most altruistic thing you can do is accept a shitty gift graciously; after all, if you don't actually need 15 screwdrivers, but it pleases someone to give you something, then say "Thanks".



Good example.

However, who would you give the screwdrivers to? And why would you give it to them instead of somebody else?


----------



## IGNVS

do you think an act that results in the death of an individual for the benifit of others is still somehow selfish?


----------



## auto238367

IGNVS said:
			
		

> do you think an act that results in the death of an individual for the benefit of others is still somehow selfish?


yes.

Even people who "selflessly" give their lives to protect others, do so for the benefit for immortality as a hero.


----------



## thujone

i tend to steer clear of any discussion invoking neitzsche because the man was a tool.  i don't doubt his logic, but my issues is that he applies the logic to humanity, a nature which he, like many other critical philosophers, are entirely ignorant of.  for that reason it's easy for me to dismiss all such ideas; because they _have no basis in reality_.  it's just theoretical logic.



			
				auto238367 said:
			
		

> yes.
> 
> Even people who "selflessly" give their lives to protect others, do so for the benefit for immortality as a hero.



now let's take an example from the real world (the scenario i'm describing HAS actually happened) :

a person falls ill on a subway platform and falls onto the tracks, incapacitated, with a train on the way.  there are ten people in the viscinity that could help, but only one does.  from eyewitness accounts, the person that helped did so *instinctively*.  he was not only trained in the armed forces, but also moved so fast that there was no possible chance for the hero to make an analysis of the pros and cons of the situation, or even consider whether he would live or die in the rescue.

then there are the nine people who didn't jump to the rescue immediately, because concern for their own well-being kept their feet planted to the ground.  who is the selfish one again?

a thing that pisses me off the absolute most about neitzsche is how he's a cold-hearted fuck with no concern for the consequences.  if the scenario were different and the hero did have the opportunity to think about the outcome and performed the rescue anyway... then what the HELL does it matter what compelled the man to commit such an act of bravery?  

clearly, neitzsche was a loner his whole life to somehow not see that few people really act in the pathetically formulaic way be believes we all do.  if i were a nazi, i'd make sure his books were the first on the bonfire.


----------



## auto238367

thujone said:
			
		

> then there are the nine people who didn't jump to the rescue immediately, because concern for their own well-being kept their feet planted to the ground.  who is the selfish one again?


All of them were selfish.  Most because they valued their lives over the life of a fellow man, and the hero rescuer was selfish, as his actions would make him a hero.

How can you prove his action were selfless?

Furthermore I refute the implication that even with split second decision making, one cannot consciously or unconsciously weight the decision and make a choice.

My own personal experience in highly stressful disaster/rescue is proof to myself, that we all judge everything, even if your not taking the time to think about it.


----------



## alasdairm

Impacto Profundo said:
			
		

> is it so hard to comprehend that some people help others simply because they can?


is it so hard to comprehend that somebody might have a different opinion?



alasdair


----------



## HoneyRoastedPeanut

I just wanted to clarify that my interest in defining all acts as selfish does not correlate to the relative desirability of said actions to me. That is, just because I think all acts contain an element of selfishness doesn't mean I don't value altruism or expressions thereof.


----------



## B9

MyDoorsAreOpen said:
			
		

> Grrrrr!
> 
> No offense alasdair, but I think I may just hate this topic more than any other philosophical argument out there.
> 
> It always makes me curious WHY, in the name of all things good, would anyone want to belittle and reduce every kind deed to an unknowingly selfish act. According to Chaos Magicians, holding an unproven/unprovable belief about the nature of reality is essentially a tool for changing how you interact with, and therefore your place in, the outer world. It's changing your inner world (your perspectives and assumptions) in order to exert change on the world around you.
> 
> Based on this, I really have to wonder about anyone who's eager to define all acts as inherently selfish. What exactly are they trying to change? What exactly are they trying to accomplish? What kind of people are they trying to become, or encourage you to become?
> 
> I find that people who loudly defend this position tend to be people who really REALLY rub me the wrong way. In short, I find they tend to be people who either enjoy deflating people, or are just. plain. cold. Not that this has any bearing on whether this position is defensible or not, but I just thought I'd mention that for the record, I am not ashamed to admit I am VERY biased against this argument.
> Not few among them are people who enjoy shaking people up and causing controversy, and the rabidly antireligious. I'll take a pass.
> 
> If you and I are ultimately part of the same great oneness, than 'what's good for you' and 'what's good for me' becomes a false dichotomy. Well then buddy, you might say, I can think of many instances where me doing what's good for me harms you. What says you to that? To that, I'd say that our relationship is not in tune, and one or both of us needs to wake up and realize that bolstering one's ultimately false and fleeting individual ego, at the other's expense, doesn't have any lasting good effects of either of us, and is as futile as clearing the sea floor of sand.
> 
> The general 'you'. Not you, alasdair



I must say this sums up my position very neatly - minus the deftly added annoyance from MDAO


----------



## kytnism

thujone said:
			
		

> i tend to steer clear of any discussion invoking neitzsche because the man was a tool.  i don't doubt his logic, but my issues is that he applies the logic to humanity, a nature which he, like many other critical philosophers, are entirely ignorant of.  for that reason it's easy for me to dismiss all such ideas; because they _have no basis in reality_.  it's just theoretical logic.
> 
> now let's take an example from the real world (the scenario i'm describing HAS actually happened) :
> 
> a person falls ill on a subway platform and falls onto the tracks, incapacitated, with a train on the way.  there are ten people in the viscinity that could help, but only one does.  from eyewitness accounts, the person that helped did so *instinctively*.  he was not only trained in the armed forces, but also moved so fast that there was no possible chance for the hero to make an analysis of the pros and cons of the situation, or even consider whether he would live or die in the rescue.
> _*
> then there are the nine people who didn't jump to the rescue immediately, because concern for their own well-being kept their feet planted to the ground.  who is the selfish one again?*_
> 
> a thing that pisses me off the absolute most about neitzsche is how he's a cold-hearted fuck with no concern for the consequences.  if the scenario were different and the hero did have the opportunity to think about the outcome and performed the rescue anyway... then what the HELL does it matter what compelled the man to commit such an act of bravery?
> 
> clearly, neitzsche was a loner his whole life to somehow not see that few people really act in the pathetically formulaic way be believes we all do.  if i were a nazi, i'd make sure his books were the first on the bonfire.



fantastic post, thujone. 

i believe obligatory actions are selfless. for example, your mother calls and asks that you give up a saturday night with friends to come visit and help her with something that needs doing around her home. you agree to help, even though you would be missing out on an opportunity you rather wouldnt. the only benefit forseeable is "helping out your mother" per se. you may even be a little pissed that youve had to give up an opportunity that would have been more beneficial to you; but do it regardlessly and with love. 

...kytnism...


----------



## auto238367

kytnism said:
			
		

> i believe obligatory actions are selfless. for example, your mother calls and asks that you give up a saturday night with friends to come visit and help her with something that needs doing around her home. you agree to help, even though you would be missing out on an opportunity you rather wouldnt. the only benefit forseeable is "helping out your mother" per se. you may even be a little pissed that youve had to give up an opportunity that would have been more beneficial to you; but do it regardlessly and with love.
> 
> ...kytnism...


or your helping your mother because it is in your own best interests having her help you in the future, so you are still going to be included in her will, so that others around you see that you help your mother and then bestow upon you the status of a good person.


----------



## L2R

Rated E said:
			
		

> But what if you had the ability to help and you were aware of the situation, but you didn't help, how would that make you feel? Unpleasant?



i don't know. it doesn't happen, mate.  
if i do not help, there is always a reason. reason stops me, it doesn't start me.


----------



## L2R

alasdairm said:
			
		

> is it so hard to comprehend that somebody might have a different opinion?
> 
> 
> 
> alasdair



opinions are like arseholes..... i don't know how that ends.. 

but i disagree that anyone can assess that everyone does things in one way just because that the way they (believe they) do it. 

it's simply false. 

perspectives change. moods change. sometime it seems like everything is shit and everyone is selfish at every moment of their lives, etc. at others, the sun shines, and there are genuinely selfless acts happening relatively often. 

i don't buy this "i don't believe in nuffin no more" agsty bullshit. nor do i buy that "i am in 100% control of my actions and can explain all that i do" egoistic dribble neither.

but this is just my opinion and i'm talking from a fairly sunny and happy place.


----------



## alasdairm

MyDoorsAreOpen said:
			
		

> Based on this, I really have to wonder about anyone who's eager to define all acts as inherently selfish. What exactly are they trying to change? What exactly are they trying to accomplish? What kind of people are they trying to become, or encourage you to become?


maybe they're simply interesting in exploring who we are and why we do the things we do. the unexamined life? 


			
				MyDoorsAreOpen said:
			
		

> I find that people who loudly defend this position tend to be people who really REALLY rub me the wrong way.


what about people who quietly defend the position or simply wish to discuss it to try to understand? maybe it's the loudness bit which is the problem, not the selfless-act bit? 


			
				MyDoorsAreOpen said:
			
		

> If you and I are ultimately part of the same great oneness, than 'what's good for you' and 'what's good for me' becomes a false dichotomy.


agreed - i did think about that (and i'm still thinking about it).

alasdair


----------



## Jamshyd

alasdairm said:
			
		

> what about people who quietly defend the position or simply wish to discuss it to *try to understand*?


Thank you for mentioning that. For me and I am sure MDAO as well, the "try to understand" part is fundamental in any discussion. 

There are two kinds of debaters: 

1. I argue with you just to prove that I am right and you are wrong.
2. I argue with you in hopes of reaching an understanding. 

Personally, I have absolutely no interest in wasting any time with the 1st type (which is  generally characterized by passing quick judgements and ad-homs), which unfortunately seems to infest internet forums. The 2nd type, I'm willing to keep talking with for months if I felt that they truly want to understand.


----------



## kytnism

auto238367 said:
			
		

> or your helping your mother because it is in your own best interests having her help you in the future, so you are still going to be included in her will, so that others around you see that you help your mother and then bestow upon you the status of a good person.



granted.

if those *ARE* infact your motives, you are right. although to be honest, none of those factors enter my mind when contemplating the situation i highlighted. 

...kytnism...


----------



## L2R

what kind of monster helps their mother just for their inheritance?8)

this is real life, not "days of our lives".


----------



## alasdairm

^ they may not be doing it consciously. some of these drivers may be subconscious.

alasdair


----------



## Rated E

kytnism said:
			
		

> fantastic post, thujone.
> 
> i believe obligatory actions are selfless. for example, your mother calls and asks that you give up a saturday night with friends to come visit and help her with something that needs doing around her home. you agree to help, even though you would be missing out on an opportunity you rather wouldnt. the only benefit forseeable is "helping out your mother" per se. you may even be a little pissed that youve had to give up an opportunity that would have been more beneficial to you; but do it regardlessly and with love.
> 
> ...kytnism...



Both of you (thujone, kyt, others as well but I quoted this for convenience) are approaching the topic and the question too practically. I assume that is why most people also don't agree with the statement to begin with.

See this:



			
				Rated E said:
			
		

> Perhaps the label can be used in relative terms. Someone who is overtly selfish is not selfless, someone who is less overtly selfish could be considered selfless.
> 
> Evolutionary speaking, it may be that some people are selfless because they have a strong urge to uphold the living standards and success of their "tribe". The "tribe" is a broader definition of themselves. The "tribe's" success is their own success. Even though they are still performing selfish acts, they might be labeled as selfless by the members of their "tribe", because their acts are overtly and obviously benefiting other people.



It's likely that some feeling or urge guided your decision to help your mother instead of going out with friends. If you looked at the situation in terms of overt, conscious pros and cons you might think "if I go out with my friends I will have a lot of fun" and "if I go help my mother I won't have as much fun, but I will be helping my mother."

This isn't all that illuminating. What's more illuminating is the fact that "helping your mother" was important. The urge that made you think that helping your mother was the right thing to do was probably related to evolution - looking after your own family is important - their success contributed to your success, etc.

But you don't even have to resort to evolution to explain the basic idea in the original post. The fact that you acted on an urge you felt, means that the act was selfish, just like all acts.

It doesn't matter how many examples are offered of people crawling through broken glass to save school buses filled with children, the point lied much earlier in the process.


----------



## L2R

i'ma lose a shoe up yer arse soon, arie. and you know how important shoes are to me so such an act would be quite selfless. 



			
				alasdairm said:
			
		

> ^ they may not be doing it consciously. some of these drivers may be subconscious.
> 
> alasdair



still an unimaginable monstrocity actually. 

mothers, man. it's our MOTHERS we're talking about! 

what else is there to say?


----------



## Rated E

Impacto Profundo said:
			
		

> i'ma lose a shoe up yer arse soon, arie. and you know how important shoes are to me so such an act would be selfless.
> 
> 
> 
> still an unimaginable monstrocity actually.
> 
> mothers, man. it's our MOTHERS we're talking about!
> 
> what else is there to say?



Appeal to emotion. Stop trolling bro.


----------



## kytnism

i appreciated that post, and you breaking it down, RatedE, thankyou. :D

i have a question though.

are you saying that ALL acts, whether acknowledged or not are infact selfish? 

that without motive or cause, ultimately we are *all* looking to benefit ourselves?

 regardless of personal drive to act in a way that weve seen fit to resolve a situation (regardless of motive) we are deemed "selfish" as a collective; subconciously?

...kytnism...


----------



## L2R

since this conversation has become another one of the redundantly countless threads in this forum about evolution/rationality vs whatever else... then i'll oblige to your request.


----------



## Rated E

kytnism said:
			
		

> i appreciated that post, and you breaking it down, RatedE, thankyou. :D
> 
> i have a question though.
> 
> are you saying that ALL acts, whether acknowledged or not are infact selfish?
> 
> that without motive or cause, ultimately we are *all* looking to benefit ourselves? that regardless of personal drive to act in a way that weve seen fit to resolve a situation (regardless of motive) we are deemed "selfish" as a collective; subconciously?
> |



Yes, that's what I'm saying, I guess.

But I see it as more of a semantic issue, that makes the term "selfless" incorrect. It doesn't mean I believe there is no such thing as a good deed or that nice people are any less nice.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

When you help somebody out, it can make you feel good and right. I don't see why anyone would argue that this wasn't the case, why would you be so worried about being seen as selfless -> doesn't that itself go against the whole idea of a selfless act?

Even in trancegirlie's post about the guy who beats himself up over being so selfless. The thing is, he still does act in those charitable ways, even if he beats himself up over it after the act. In the moment, he met the urge he had to donate the money to the lady. That doesn't make him a mean or bad person. He sounds like a nice person (maybe too nice...). It seems like we define people as nice when they are outwardly kind. I think we see this outward kindness as potentially beneficial to ourselves and thus, acknowledging niceness of others is a selfish act (oh lord).


----------



## L2R

Rated E said:
			
		

> When you help somebody out, it can make you feel good and right. I don't see why anyone would argue that this wasn't the case, why would you be so worried about being seen as selfless -> doesn't that itself go against the whole idea of a selfless act?



alright, i'm back, no more jokes, i promise. 

this is where you are getting it wrong. 
no one here is saying that helping others out does not make them feel good afterwards if they think about it. what i disagree with is wehn you're saying that people help other FOR that good feeling. this is rubbish. you cannot comment on the motives of others, and speaking for myself, i do not consider such things. if i want to feel good about myself, i can do it in many other, much easier ways than get out of my way to help someone out. 

another error here is your question over why some of us are "so worried about being seen as selfless". well, i don't give a rats arse about how i am seen by anyone, let alone a bunch of internet names. this is about how we ARE, not how we APPEAR. 
all my comments are not to impress any of you. hell, i'm disagreeing with the majority. i am simply commenting on what motivates me, and as such your blanket proclamation that every action of every body is selfish in motivation is utterly false.


----------



## Rated E

I'm not really saying that people do it FOR the good feeling. More that they do it BECAUSE of the good feeling.

Or maybe there's no good feeling afterwards. Maybe they did it for a bad feeling or a neutral feeling, it's irrelevant. They did it because they had an instinct, an urge or a decision to act, so the act is not selfless, because it serves them in some way.


----------



## L2R

do you consider, genetically, the cost of the extra effort?


----------



## Rated E

What extra effort?


----------



## L2R

the effort it takes to help that other


----------



## Rated E

Yes. But like I said, you don't even need to go that far. I'm only using evolutionary explanations because I like them and it fleshes the idea out. But the idea itself is a semantic matter. That being that, when performing any act, it is initiated by some internal process. Otherwise it would not be that person performing the act. So with that in mind, no act is selfless, because the act has been performed to carry out the will of the internal process.

But to address the extra effort of helping the other person. It's not necessary to actually weigh up the extra cost of helping. Evolutionary, helping others can helpful to you, so we (or some of us) have an instinct that helping others is the right way to act in whatever situation it is that brings on that urge.

Maybe you've been taught to help others, in which case helping others is a learnt behaviour (a conditioned response).


----------



## L2R

stop being selective of what traits would evolutionarily suit your needs. 

it take more energy to provide that assistance than what is received when dwelling on it later (feeling good about yourself). it doesn't make sense to spend that energy.

but anyway, you allude to a reluctance to acknowledge any semblance of choice. is this what this is all about?


----------



## Rated E

Impacto Profundo said:
			
		

> stop being selective of what traits would evolutionarily suit your needs.
> 
> it take more energy to provide that assistance than what is received when dwelling on it later (feeling good about yourself). it doesn't make sense to spend that energy.



I don't recall evolution advantageous behaviours being strictly or even predominately to do with the energy expenditure of the behaviours. I would think that it's the results that the behaviours bring that determine whether it will be evolutionary advantageous or not. Helping others who could be considered allies in some way, or helping others when they don't pose a forseeable threat could very well be more advantageous than not. Of course, time tells whether it eventuates into advantage or not, but the urge itself acts on the principle that it could be or should be.



			
				Impacto Profundo said:
			
		

> but anyway, you allude to a reluctance to acknowledge any semblance of choice. is this what this is all about?



Like I said, this is a matter of semantics. It doesn't matter what choice is made, acting on that choice (whatever it is) is not selfless. You could help someone, it's not a selfless act, you could not help them, it's not a selfless act.


----------



## L2R

in an animalistic sense, our base instincts are for self preservation and propagation, but as evolved humans, we have the ability to see this and work in contrary to our animalistic natures. we can do things quite harmful, let alone inconvenient to ourselves for a greater moralistic purpose. 

we can choose the degree of selfishness/selflessness we apply at any given moment, and acts in both contrasting extremes do exist.


----------



## ebola?

human beings have empathy.
this entails that we gain personal satisfaction when we choose to help others.
this entails that all acts are somewhat 'selfish'.

Okay, but so what?


----------



## alasdairm

^ that's the question



alasdair


----------



## twentysix

I have agreed with your friend since I was about 22. 

At first I got a little depressed about it.. but I feel I'm stronger for knowing it.



lets assume Jesus is/was real (not saying he's not).. and he had made the choice not to die for all of our sins (say, somehow, he evaded authorities).. What would be the purpose of Jesus? His "selfless act" was in-fact "selfish". Right?


----------



## PsYcHoAcTiViSt

^Of course it was selfish... He did it for the fame. 
Ok sorry bad joke.


----------



## L2R

ebola? said:
			
		

> human beings have empathy.
> this entails that we have the ability to gain personal satisfaction when we choose to help others.
> this entails that all acts cam be somewhat 'selfish'.
> 
> Okay, but so what?


corrected. 

helping someone does not directly cause the sense of self satisfaction. that comes only when one dwells on their actions afterwards. 

this self satisfaction that everyone in this thread seems so hard on to link directly as the reason anyone does anything even remotely selfless is NOT a given. perform more selfless acts, especially when you're busy or stressed or pressed for time and you'll see this. 

maybe this is easy for me to see, since i help people in need for a living.


----------



## B9

I walk in fields - I see a rabbit with myxomatosis - I sigh & kill it with a stone.

What does this benefit me then ? 
Because if it does I cannot feel the benefit - I just feel sad.


----------



## alasdairm

Impacto Profundo said:
			
		

> this self satisfaction that everyone in this thread seems so hard on to link directly as the reason anyone does anything even remotely selfless is NOT a given.


i agree. however, you've latched on to _one_ possible reason for doing something - self-satisfaction - and assumed that some are arguing it's the _only_ reason. there could be hundreds of other reasons.

there's an argument here called psychological egoism which argues that any voluntary act is, by definition, selfish:

when people act voluntarily, they are doing what they want to do
when people do what they want to do, they are acting selfishly (because acting selfishly = doing what you want)
therefore, all voluntary acts are selfish.

i've come to believe that the word 'selfish' has been given an unnecessarily negative connotation over the years. being selfish and being an asshole are not the same thing 

alasdair


----------



## ebola?

L2R said:
			
		

> corrected.
> 
> helping someone does not directly cause the sense of self satisfaction. that comes only when one dwells on their actions afterwards.
> 
> this self satisfaction that everyone in this thread seems so hard on to link directly as the reason anyone does anything even remotely selfless is NOT a given. perform more selfless acts, especially when you're busy or stressed or pressed for time and you'll see this.
> 
> maybe this is easy for me to see, since i help people in need for a living.



Great point!  If we differentiate between empathic satisfaction after the act and empathic satisfaction when planning and choosing an act, then not all acts are selfish (unless we judge selfishness by consequences, not intent, which I think is silly).

I was wrong.

ebola


----------



## swilow

I threw a can of vodka/orange stuff to a "wino-type" guy once, on a whim, as we were passing him in a car. He was fucking thrilled. My friends thought it was a kinda fucked up thing to do, like feeding someones addiction, but I honestly saw 'probable alcho' and released a can unto him. Probably the only purely altruistic thing I;ve done :D Maybe altruism needs to be spontaneoous and not thought about? 

After all this whole subconcious thing- May Not Be Real. Probably believeing in your subconcious makes it so. T


----------



## PsYcHoAcTiViSt

^ Thats a really great point... I hadn't thought about that much before but yeh, if it spontaneous and certainly not pre-meditated then .......hell I don't know I just lost belief again actually cause even if no one else was around but you and the whino you wouldn't be doing it to be credited but still you would get satisfaction in return for knowing that you gave someone else satisfaction.

We like to make others feel good cause when we do it makes us feel good. 

When we make someone else smile it makes us smile and then if anyone else is watching they will probably smile too and there would probably be someone else watching from further back who smiled cause the person watching the person giving the booze to the whino smiled.

This sets off a chain reaction that keeps the universal flow of positive energy streaming. So whether there may be subconcious ulterior motives for our "unselfish acts" or not, it is essential in the balance of the universe.


----------



## L2R

alasdairm said:
			
		

> there's an argument here called psychological egoism which argues that any voluntary act is, by definition, selfish:
> 
> when people act voluntarily, they are doing what they want to do
> when people do what they want to do, they are acting selfishly (because acting selfishly = doing what you want)
> therefore, all voluntary acts are selfish.



can one choose to do something they don't want to do? my body doesn't want to climb those stairs a second time carrying a weight of groceries for someone who probably can't speak the language to thank me, will not reward me and who i will never see again. i don't want to feel that unecessary burn in my thigh and my arms  and a twinge in my back from carrying something awkwardly up those slippery stairs. i don't want to sweat and be late for my train or my meal or my meetup or for the movie or for work. 
but i choose to do it any way. and i choose to deal with the consequences whatever they are and not stew over them. 
i'm relatively young. i'm relatively strong. whatever i'm going to can wait. 

the direct net loss for such an action far outweighs the direct net gain. but no matter. 



> i've come to believe that the word 'selfish' has been given an unnecessarily negative connotation over the years. being selfish and being an asshole are not the same thing
> 
> alasdair



i agree with the negative connotation to selfishness, just as i agree with the negative connotations to pride. neither are good imo.


----------



## Rated E

Impacto Profundo said:
			
		

> can one choose to do something they don't want to do?



You still chose to do it.

Even if doing something that one doesn't want to do... for example, if someone held a gun to another's head and told them to hand over their money, and then they obliged by handing the money over, they may not have wanted to hand the money over, but they also didn't want to be shot, so even performing an act that they didn't, on the surface, "want" to do, in respect to the act seen in the context of the larger scale, it was what they wanted to do, or at least a step in what they wanted.

I think I went on a bit of a tangent there.



			
				IP said:
			
		

> my body doesn't want to climb those stairs a second time carrying a weight of groceries for someone who probably can't speak the language to thank me, will not reward me and who i will never see again. i don't want to feel that unecessary burn in my thigh and my arms  and a twinge in my back from carrying something awkwardly up those slippery stairs. i don't want to sweat and be late for my train or my meal or my meetup or for the movie or for work.
> but i choose to do it any way. and i choose to deal with the consequences whatever they are and not stew over them.
> i'm relatively young. i'm relatively strong. whatever i'm going to can wait.
> 
> the direct net loss for such an action far outweighs the direct net gain. but no matter.



I find it strange that you went into so much fine detail about the physical sensations experienced when performing the act, yet ignored the satisfaction of helping another. Did you really feel no satisfaction, at all?


----------



## L2R

with relation to your extremist tangent, take the gun out of the equation. 

yesterday i was at town hall station and had exact change for a train ticket and my smallest notes was a twenty, only the last ten cents was in fives and you know the machines don't take fives. i asked the guy at the next machine if he had a 10c piece and presented the two 5cs. this stranger, who i will never meet again, we didn't even see each others faces, got out of his way to reluctantly find me a 10 cent piece and even refused my two fives in exchange. he clearly didn't want to give me anything (time nor money). if i were in his position neither would i. but he did anyway. as i most certainly would too. 

on your second point, to answer your question, see my reply to ebola. that satisfaction is not inherent to the act of selflessness. it comes later and only if you generate it yourself by thinking about it. 

my job is in like an industrial triage unit. we help people when their jobs are severely injured or terminally ill. we help them through the process. we win some. we lose some. i help people for almost 40 hours each week. sure i get paid for it, but i'd get much more money and far greater career prospects elsewhere. every day at least once or twice i am able to dwell on something i had just done with a sense of satisfaction and realise that "i just did a good thing". it's quite nice. 
BUT that sense only comes about when you got the time and energy to generate it. 
sounds like a heavenly job, and it is the most rewarding and satisfying work i've ever done, but it is also extremely stressful. a colleague had to take the last month off and is only now working lighter duties. another, who is very knowledgeable on legislation state by state and generally very tough completely broke down on friday. 
when deadlines are tight. voicemail and email pile up. heavy workloads drops out of nowhere, then there's no time for any sense of self satisfaction. 
receive. react. move on(repeat). 

apologies for my tangent


----------



## IGNVS

there is no answer to this question; we cant look into the intentions of others, and this answer would require knowing so. you can ask this question only to yourself. maybe you will bring something into this world quite amazing if you go far enough with it. like i said only you can know.


----------



## Solitude_within

Impacto Profundo said:
			
		

> satisfaction is not inherent to the act of selflessness. it comes later and only if you generate it yourself by thinking about it.



I disagree. 

A "selfless" act, no matter how noble, is still committed with the self's desire to set external conditions in a certain way.

Can you give an example of when this isn't true?


----------



## L2R

what if that self's momentary desire is a selfless one?

an old woman standing next to you waiting at a bus stop. she drops a pen. what do you do instantly and without thinking? why do you do it?


----------



## alasdairm

^ these hypothetical situations really don't help because you can craft an answer which supports your position and somebody else can craft an answer which supports their position.

alasdair


----------



## Rated E

"Instantly and without thinking". That's the problem. It doesn't matter how quickly the act is performed or how little conscious thought is given to it, the idea still lays earlier in the process:



			
				Solitude Within said:
			
		

> A "selfless" act, no matter how noble, is still committed with the self's desire to set external conditions in a certain way.



Otherwise it wouldn't be an act.


----------



## L2R

^take those words out if it makes you feel better. it still doesn't benefit one to strain their back and/or legs to pick up the pen. 

and you still can decide to do something contrary to your own wishes. 



			
				alasdairm said:
			
		

> ^ these hypothetical situations really don't help because you can craft an answer which supports your position and somebody else can craft an answer which supports their position.
> 
> alasdair



my hypothetical doesn't attempt to explain everyone's intentions, like the other POV insists upon. 

actually, forget about the hypothetical. what about the question



> what if that self's momentary desire is a selfless one?



or better yet



			
				ebola? said:
			
		

> If we differentiate between empathic satisfaction after the act and empathic satisfaction when planning and choosing an act, then not all acts are selfish (unless we judge selfishness by consequences, not intent, which I think is silly).


----------



## jam uh weezy

Helping yourself is good for others, and helping others is good for you. You buy your work buddy who left his wallet at home lunch because you want to help him fulfill his hunger, and would want the same treatment if you forgot your wallet. 
Actions can be both selfless, and selfish at the same time.

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


----------



## Rated E

Impacto Profundo said:
			
		

> ^take those words out if it makes you feel better.



It doesn't bother me whether those words are there or not. I addressed "those words" because they seemed to be an attempt to support your view, I was pointing out why I don't think they do.



			
				Impacto Profundo said:
			
		

> it still doesn't benefit one to strain their back and/or legs to pick up the pen.



It doesn't matter whether the act is beneficial or not. It was an act, so it's not selfless, that's the point. 



			
				Impacto Profundo said:
			
		

> and you still can decide to do something contrary to your own wishes.



But if the act is performed, then at some level it was decided by that person to perform it, so it's not selfless. Contrary to their wishes, attitudes, opinions, beliefs, it doesn't matter, the act was performed, so the desire to perform that act was satisfied.


----------



## L2R

so, your point is: no acts are selfless, because no acts are selfless. 

nice one.  i think we're just going to have to disagree, mate.


----------



## Rated E

Impacto Profundo said:
			
		

> so, your point is: no acts are selfless, because no acts are selfless.



Whatever makes it easier for you...

I thought I'd made it clear long ago that we disagreed on a vital semantic issue, that lays earlier than the discussion has mostly revolved around.


----------



## neonads

Rated E - If I'm sitting on a chair and you stand in front of me before whacking me on the knee with a baseball bat, the following act of me kicking you in the nuts is most definitely a selfless one.


----------



## scarsunseen

alasdairm said:
			
		

> i was having a heated discussion recently with a friend who posited that there is no such thing as a completely selfless act. *he argued that even the most overt acts of altruism are done, in part, because they fulfill some need in the person doing them...*
> 
> alasdair



Sounds very Kantian to me, in which I agree. I don't think there's anything wrong with that though. For example, I would be more than happy to help get a poor kitty down from a tree branch because 1) I want the kitty to be ok, and 2) I like doing things that make me happy -- which is selfish in a GOOD way.


----------



## Sentimental

*Every act of human nature is done for one's self (?)*

There's been a thing going through my mind for a few years now, and it's been driving me crazy.  These are the basics to this principle:

People will always do what they feel is will make themselves feel the best.  People's greed or selflessness are measured on how much gratification you get from helping others.  The more happy helping others makes you feel, the more you do it, so you are a generous person.  Greed is the opposite.  *EVERY ACT OF HUMAN NATURE IS DONE FOR ONE'S SELF.*

The thing about this is that it makes perfect sense.  But, it would just feel so bad, knowing that every act that you for someone else is done just for yourself.

Do you guys think that we (the human race) are just helping others for ourselves?  Or do you think that there's something more to it; that we actually care about others?  But if we care about others, is it just for ourselves?  But if we do it just for ourselves, than we don't care about others...

See, this is why this has been bugging me.  Any thoughts?

Oh yeah, and I'm new to TDS, so please tell me if this is an appropriate post.

Thanks.


----------



## xxkcxx

The thing about this principle is not that we don't do things for others also, it's just that even when we think we are being selfless, we are getting something out of it--a good feeling from doing something good.

So, sure, we are very selfish creatures, but that doesn't mean we can't care for others also.

We may get a good feeling from helping someone, but from not helping someone, perhaps we could have gotten a bigger gain.  We still help people right?



Also, there are definitely exceptions--someone who is willing to put themselves in harms way for someone else--often these situations, such as someone jumping in front of a bullet for someone else, is down without even enough time to think. So obviously, we have the tendency in us to go against that as well.


----------



## Sentimental

(Response to paragraph 3) - We may have gotten a bigger gain from not helping people, but we'd also feel like an asshole, so maybe we're just avoiding that feeling.

(Response to paragraph 4) - Perhaps we jump in front of a bullet because we feel that it's a nessesary sacrifice, and going without fuffiling that feeling would leave us feeling that we should have made the sacrifice.

These are maybes, because there's no true way to know.  I just want to know if it's possible, I guess.


----------



## xxkcxx

Sentimental said:


> (Response to paragraph 4) - Perhaps we jump in front of a bullet because we feel that it's a nessesary sacrifice, and going without fuffiling that feeling would leave us feeling that we should have made the sacrifice.



I guess I don't really buy that, cause it is such a knee-jerk reaction (I'm assuming...I've never done it, but there isn't much time after a bullet is shot to think about what to do).  Also, if you end up dead there really won't be time to bask in the glory of your sacrifice.


----------



## Sentimental

I see what you mean with the quick reaction part.  I still think it's possible that not nessicarilly the full thought goes through our head, just the feeling before we take the action.

If the other person dies, I'd probably feel like shit because I didn't take the fall, and I could have saved them.  (That's if I really, really cared about the person.)


----------



## Jabberwocky

I agree that there isn't any pure altruism. Even the most self sacrificing acts provide a feeling of being right or good. This thread has a lot of affinity with an existing thread in Philosophy & Spirituality,  there is no such thing as a selfless act . Sentimental, this is a good topic but I think it has more affinity with P&S than TDS. I'm going to send it over there. Usual proviso that if I chose poorly feel free to send back & I'll try to find another home. 

The Dark Side--------------------------------------------------------------------------> Philosophy and Spirituality


----------



## MyDoorsAreOpen

Enki said:


> I agree that there isn't any pure altruism. Even the most self sacrificing acts provide a feeling of being right or good. This thread has a lot of affinity with an existing thread in Philosophy & Spirituality,  there is no such thing as a selfless act . Sentimental, this is a good topic but I think it has more affinity with P&S than TDS. I'm going to send it over there. Usual proviso that if I chose poorly feel free to send back & I'll try to find another home.
> 
> The Dark Side--------------------------------------------------------------------------> Philosophy and Spirituality



Thank you Enki. Merged.


----------



## dingbat

If someone asks me "Can you?", my first thought is always "I can". Not with any thought of benefit for myself, but of sheer ability to deliver what was requested. I'm not sure if I'm a little od school that way.


----------



## Papa1

They found some ants that die for their colony without any immediate danger present. That seems pretty altruistic.

http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2008/923/1


----------



## L O V E L I F E

ebola? said:


> *
> If all acts are selfish, then "selfishness" no longer operates as a useful category for assessment of human behavior.*
> 
> ebola



Thank you, fellow non-diefier of Rand.


----------



## swilow

Does it even matter?


----------



## MyDoorsAreOpen

^ In terms of the way people evaluate and justify their own behavior, and that of others, I'd have to say yes. Does it change the thing-in-itself which is the pure action? Maybe not. But it sure can change where we place that action in our overall scheme of things, as sentient actors.


----------



## Papa1

^ Yeah, I think it does. As someone said before, if every act is selfish then selfishness clearly can't be used as a criteria for discriminating between actions. But in terms of understanding my motivation and why I act the way I do, I think it matters quite a lot.


----------



## swilow

^Why? If you do something good, that makes you feel happy AND someone else, what does it matter if there is a degree of selfishness in it?


----------



## Endymion00

No one hear can claim to actually know the intent or motive of someone who is making a selfless act, and therefore cannot actually know whether or not they're doing it for a sense of gratification, to become a hero or whatever other stupid shit some of you guys came up with.

People don't need a reason to help.

For me, things are instinctual. Someone is in trouble? I help, regardless of the dangers. I do not do it to be regarded as a hero or to feel better about myself. Fuck, I don't even think about the after effects of the actions. I do it because it is the right thing to do or because its on a spur of the moment rather than, 'Ooh everyone will love me for this'.

Why everyone here insists that everyone is selfish and hell-bent on making themselves feel better is dumb...to be quite frank. If it is all selfish, then there is no need for the word selfless eh? 

In any case, all selfless acts are still appreciated. I do not give a shit about the intent the person had. They helped someone. That is the point.


----------



## Endymion00

The people here who insist that every human being here is selfish regardless of intent really put me off. Kind of frustrating that you would staunchly defend a belief in something so negative like that.


----------



## MyDoorsAreOpen

^ Yeah the motives for preaching this do vary, but they're all motives I don't relate to.


----------



## Jabberwocky

Like in the recurrent freewill debate, I reject absolute altruism as I reject absolute freewill. Real life or reality tends to contaminate pretty much any absolute that gets thrown at it. I don't reject any altruism, just pure altruism.


----------



## yougene

> Originally Posted by ebola?
> 
> If all acts are selfish, then "selfishness" no longer operates as a useful category for assessment of human behavior.
> 
> ebola


Not quite, since the self is a tiered structure, with many sides to it.

The robber and the hero being shot by the robber are both acting in the service of their self.  But the heros identity/self includes his community whereas the robbers does not.  Both are being selfish but the heros self is the individual identity + something more.
Words like "selfishness" don't take into account the depth of the self-structure.  But the idea of selfish as a self that does not extend much beyond the individual human identity is still valid.




L O V E L I F E said:


> Thank you, fellow non-diefier of Rand.


I think this adds credibility to Ayn Rand's view rather than refute it.  Alot of people acting in their own self-interest are also acting in the interest of others.


----------



## Papa1

yougene said:


> The robber and the hero being shot by the robber are both acting in the service of their self.  But the heros identity/self includes his community whereas the robbers does not.  Both are being selfish but the heros self is the individual identity + something more.
> Words like "selfishness" don't take into account the depth of the self-structure.  But the idea of selfish as a self that does not extend much beyond the individual human identity is still valid.



I just want to make sure I'm clear on what you're saying (since I like it). Are you more or less saying that there are degrees of selfishness?

I took ebola's statement to mean that if everything is selfish (to a degree), then 'being selfish' can't be used to discriminate between actions, but I now see that's not quite what he said.

thanks


----------



## yougene

Papa said:


> I just want to make sure I'm clear on what you're saying (since I like it). Are you more or less saying that there are degrees of selfishness?


Basically yeah.  I'm saying there are cumulative degrees of self.




> I took ebola's statement to mean that if everything is selfish (to a degree), then 'being selfish' can't be used to discriminate between actions, but I now see that's not quite what he said.
> 
> thanks


I took him to mean that a dichotomy of selfish vs. selfless doesn't work if all actions are selfish.


----------



## L O V E L I F E

yougene said:


> *
> I think this adds credibility to Ayn Rand's view rather than refute it.
> 
> A lot of people acting in their own self-interest are also acting in the interest of others.*



Yes, but SOME people act ONLY in their own self-interest, and couldn't give a shit about others.

I think that Ayn Rand is (was) brilliant.

But I have a strong distaste for her contortion of the English word "selfish."

And, yes, I've read her defense of it.

What I _think_ that ebola meant in his post (and which I strongly agree with) is that by using Rand's definition of "selfish," we lose a valuable method of distinguishing between ethical people and non-ethical ones.


----------



## Shakti

I really like this conversation guys.  I think you're all bringing strong points.

I'd like to add a bit of my view.  Some of it will be redundant.

When a human being acts in the world, they do so through a series of projections of self conceptions.  I agree with the developmental nature of 'Self' growing from me to family to community to world to kosmos etc.  Each step of the way however there is a reformation of 'self'.  A new sense of self forms that is greater and more inclusive.  However, part of this requires the repression of lower instincts.  For example, someone with a world centric self conception doesn't engage in nationalistic urges anymore.  This doesn't mean that they don't love their country anymore or work to serve their nation, but that they don't love it to the exclusion of others and wont support it in the aspects were it fails to uphold a world-centric level of action (this is always fun being an american   )

So, all actions require these self-conceptions.  They are a necessary aspect of being an individuated person with a unique perspective and task.  This being the case, all actions are inherently selfish, but which self is that?


----------



## jaguraguguru

*On selfishness, kindness, empathy...*

Basically I’m just going to put down in writing all of my most recent thoughts on this subject. Hopefully it doesn’t seem *too* rambling or desperate, I just have a lot of thoughts I want to get out about it and would love to get some feedback on these ideas.

It's been a long time since I've really dwelled on any of these subjects--since I had a kind of breakdown the summer before college while trying to figure out the truth behind religion and the state and direction of any soul I might have, how there can be absolute good and evil, etc.  Basically after this one day breakdown, I calmed myself down and have tried not to dwell on the subject in order to steer clear of the damage to my self these obsessions were causing.

Before this breakdown, I had decided that there is no such thing as true "selflessness," or “altruism,” because any thing I do, whether I consider it good or bad and whether it helps others or hurts me or anything else, I only do because it makes me feel good to do it, or I don't do something because it makes me feel bad to do it.  Basically anyone would only do something if they think they should, meaning the deciding factor in a decision is oneself, not others. Even if something seems like it's only a bother or harmful to someone, if they do it, it's because it makes them feel good for whatever reason. This is the definition of selfishness I’ll use from now on, rather than the innocuous use of the word wherein selfishness is a disregard for others.

I was pretty ok with that concept and it didn't make any difference to any actions I'd take, since anything I did was still based on what I wanted and I still wanted to do all the same things, but the main problem is that if everyone and everything they do is selfish (in the aforementioned sense), what room does that leave for people being considerate, kind, or empathetic? I think these traits are some of the most virtuous and important things in humanity.  These abilities of humans are some of the most important things that distinguish us from animals and that characterize the exaltation that is possible in humans--the ability to understand to another person's circumstances and emotional state and to be able to help them when they need it, to be able to lend a hand when it can make someone else feel good or when it helps society. This theory of selfishness leaves room for this possibility only when those things make a person feel good, but it seems that that is something in people that's greatly lacking.

I recently read The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand, definitely one of the best books I've ever read in basically every criteria of judgement (intellectual/ethical arguments and nuclei of thought, plot, character development, engagingness, etc) and Ayn Rand elaborates on this topic, in that the people who base their actions and "beliefs" on what others want from them are the ones that are unfulfilled and unhappy, no matter how many people they are pleasing, because they're not doing what THEY want to do and effectively negate their own egos. It reinforced my own belief and had me deeply consider any alternatives and reinspect my own beliefs. I agree with Rand that giving much less (or no) consideration to others' expectations of oneself allows greater room for self-esteem, self-fulfillment and the development of their character. 

Rand works hard to convince her readers that the only important thing is to do what you want to do and not to base your actions at all on what others might want or expect, but does that mean that if you don't feel like helping someone else when they're in danger that you shouldn't? Rand describes a virtuous person as a self-fulfilling person who doesn’t sacrifice for others or ask others to sacrifice for them. When is an act considered sacrificial? Is holding the door open for someone else and wasting that time a sacrifice and thus unvirtuous? Is a person who is in a hurry and cuts in front of others in traffic justified because it is in their best interest?
Rand consistently puts down different kinds of kindness in the Fountainhead and even uses kindness as the best example of the way that humans put themselves down and negate their egos. But is there a healthy amount of kindness that isn’t considered sacrifice? If kindness makes a person feel good, does that reduce their amount of self-fulfilledness; does it mean that they require making others feel good to validate themselves?
Thanks for any feedback!

To selfishness *and* kindness !
-Jaguraguguru


----------



## Philoscybin

Great topic for discussion. I'm glad there's another Ayn Rand fan on this forum! In terms of her philosophy, objectivism, she declares that the most ethical man is one who lives for himself, as an individual, above all other things. This means that selfishness is man's highest virtue. Selfishness, in its true sense, is practiced as a means towards one's ultimate happiness via rationalism. It's not based on, as it usually is confused with hedonistic acts such as instant gratification, self-indulgence, and short-term pleasures (bingeing on drugs/alcohol, food, and meaningless & unsafe sex, etc.). Nor does it promote any other narcissistic acts, such as aggressiveness, bullying, or carelessly stomping over and endangering other people and things. 

That being said. To answer your question about helping someone in danger whether you even want to or not, it is very much circumstantial. It is only natural and very much rational to value human life, seeing as you value your own. In a situation where someone's life is endangered, you must take into consideration many factors. For one, seeing as you value human life, this makes up a part of who you are, and therefore you would be contradicting and negating your values and furthermore yourself if you were to neglect this person (even if you do not care for them). However, if you are putting yourself at an equal amount of risk by saving them, you would be succumbing to altruism. There may be an exception to this rule for someone serving in the military or as a police officer, as they live for the safety of other people. But above all, your life is the first thing to consider.


----------



## jaguraguguru

But there's no such thing as altruism, really. There is possible way for a human to act with only another person or thing's interest in mind and completely separating from themself. But how about kindness just for the sake of it? Like opening/holding doors, doing favors, etc. If you want it for yourself because it's what you believe, then is it right, or is it wrong to get satisfaction from doing something for _someone else_?


----------



## lyrrad85z

kindness, compassion... it has to be natural, automatic. if you're consiously trying to be kind, it's all well and good however, it's an act. be who you are and thats all you should be expected to be. we're all good, and evil.


----------



## Philoscybin

jaguraguguru said:


> But there's no such thing as altruism, really. There is possible way for a human to act with only another person or thing's interest in mind and completely separating from themself. But how about kindness just for the sake of it? Like opening/holding doors, doing favors, etc. If you want it for yourself because it's what you believe, then is it right, or is it wrong to get satisfaction from doing something for _someone else_?



I'd have to refute your statement that being altruistic is impossible. Altruism is practiced by the mass majority everyday, and sadly looked upon as a virtue. 

You suggest that when man acts in the interest of someone or something else he is never altruistic; always selfish and "right" because he believes it is "right" and/or gets satisfaction from it. This is not correct as selfishness is based under the confines of self-interest via rationalism rather than being driven emotively or intuitively. So what may be believed and perceived a priori to be "right" and in one's self-interest, may in actuality be selfless and self-defeating therefore unethical and altruistic. 

For example, a businessman gives 10% of his monthly income to his local church under the believe that it's ethical, as he finds emotional sanction and has been molded into believing so as his sacred duty. He may feel satisfaction by doing this, possibly thinking he is earning brownie points from the church and his god, but as rationality would conclude he is in fact throwing his well earned money away for the sake of some supernatural entity (God) and contributing to the further growth of a completely irrational establishment and system which will in turn assist in drawing in more people. 

As you can see, the man was most certainly being altruistic not selfish, as he could have further benefitted himself w/ that money had he used it to pay off a mortgage, buy himself a new guitar for his love of music, put it into a savings account for his family, or invested in a new and innovative product on the market. This can pertain to any sort of scenario, such as opening a door for someone- if the action does not attribute to one's advantage and overall happiness and is counterproductive, the action is altruistic.


----------



## alasdairm

related reading: there is no such thing as a selfless act

alasdair


----------



## jaguraguguru

Philoscybin, I don't really understand your argument. You're saying that it's not in his self-interest to donate money because he could put it to other uses that would benefit him. And you're saying that the only reward from the donation is an emotional one, which is not rational at all.

Firstly, why are you supposing that all things that are emotional are not rational? Whether his donation is going straight to the church and the church only or whether the church is using the donations to benefit some other charity hardly even matters; in either case, he has rationally decided that the money he has made will go to better use to the church or the charity or whatever than if he had it. If it's going to the church and he believes in his church and that it saves others' souls, then he is helping to bring other souls salvation. If it's going to a charity, he's rationally deciding that the people being given that money or something bought with it are benefitting far more than he would by satisfying his wants.

I agree that maybe part of his decision is an emotional one, but it doesn't discount the possibility of rationality in his decision.



> This can pertain to any sort of scenario, such as opening a door for someone- if the action does not attribute to one's advantage and overall happiness and is counterproductive, the action is altruistic.



Furthermore, you assert that if it contributes to your happiness, it can be ethical, but is happiness not an emotional, not rational state? Or both, which discounts your idea of the mutually exclusive nature of emotions and rationality? And does not donating money to a charity bring happiness and productiveness in society? What if the businessman is rich and the money is all going to waste sitting in a bank anyway? Still unethical?

It seems like there are a lot of holes in this theory, and I don't mean to seem argumentative or like I think I know the truth, I'm just trying to really develop this idea.

-Jaguraguguru


----------



## CoffeeDrinker

I think you are right in that selfishness in its truest form is the ideal of most people, but I do believe that there are others out there who want to please other people just for the sake of observing the smile on their face, I think this comes from the fact that these people realized that by providing genuine help to a person in need is itself a privilege, which can be argued technically that it is still a self-motivated act, but being "self-motivated to be selfless" is definitely a different mental disposition than "self-motivated to be selfish".
I also believe that the vast majority of so called acts of altruism are self motivated based on rational self-interest, but that is why true compassion based on empathy is such a special thing.


----------



## Philoscybin

I'm not stating that emotions and rationality are mutually exclusive. In many cases however, when someone is completely emotively driven, they are not necessarily making the best overall decision and are blind sighted from being rational. Instead of acting on reason, they are acting on whim and intuition. Happiness, according to Rand, is an emotional state (yet rational), comprised of one's values- reason being man's highest value. A man donating his money to a religious organization is an irrational and altruistic act. For one, religion is irrational and collectivistic. Secondly, the money could have been used in a way that wouldn't subsidize a corrupt system and truly benefit him. Even if he found joy in giving the money away, Rand would argue that this is a false and temporary contentment and not true happiness as it doesn't nurture the man's true identity. Rand would argue that the man has been fooled or is foolish enough into believing what truly makes him happy and is delusional because happiness must be achieved through reason.


----------



## CoffeeDrinker

A healthy degree of rationality is definitely necessary for true happiness. This is why you should question your religious beliefs, actions, and motivations. Your motivations are limited by your knowledge of the situation. People who believe everything a pastor says as dogma are extremely limited in their knowledge base. They lose sight of the fact that this "personal relationship" that a pastor has with their god can only be established entirely on your own and you need to actually go about developing it honestly, free from gimmicks like talking in tongues and supporting republican candidates exclusively, condemning people who have abortions, homophobia, etc. etc. These activities that strongly religious people often engage in are exactly the result of living purely by emotional reflexes. 
Christians who truly believe their teachings that everything was created by God and given to us by God should have no problem with giving freely because selfishness and possession is simply an illusion. The realization of this illusion can only come about through serious rational contemplation. "Rational contemplation" is a bit of a goofy term I admit.

Also a man donating his money or time to a church might not be an irrational act if he knew the direct result of his contribution. People need to do something with themselves. If you feel strongly to do all of the electrical work of a new MegaChurch free of charge you may be simply a stupid fool getting tugged around by calculating people, or you may realize that some people are cold and calculating and you help them anyway simply because it's what you want to do that day. If you operate with this in mind you are helping yourself as well as others, though the actual help that you provided can't be measured in terms of dollars and cents. In this way altruism can be completely rationally based. Like I said earlier: "self motivated to be selfless," which I like to think of as true empathy or altruism. 

BTW interesting side note did you know that bacteria are showing signs of empathy and altruism by the process of horizontal gene transfer? This is where the DNA of one bacterium is transported into another to convey helpful genes based on environmental conditions. Scientists have been alarmed by this fact because it is causing non-resistant bacteria to become resistant to antibiotics when they are in the presence of resistant bacteria. The resistant bacteria have nothing to gain by giving their genes away, they reproduce asexually, and it takes valuable time and energy to actually go about this process. So what is the deal here? Does someone with a well informed opinion on the subject have anything to say about this? Is calling this a form of altruism a stretch? Or have humans simply evolved to think that only they can feel certain emotions, and that "lower" forms of life are essentially nothing more than a piece of hardware with a primitive operating system, and that this assumption is wrong?


----------



## MyDoorsAreOpen

I'm with CoffeeDrinker on this one. I think being giving of oneself to others makes good rational sense. Moreover, the more educated and informed one becomes about what real needs exist in the world (in contrast to good sales pitches for causes that don't help many people), the easier it becomes to focus one's natural drive to be generous and generative in the right ways.


----------



## Philoscybin

Reason is the criterion. A man deciding that something is right because he says so, doesn't make it right. Morality is an objective standard, true for all men, if it is a rational morality proving on rational grounds why certain acts are good and others evil. Only on the basis of the morality of individualism is each man actually free to choose for himself what is right, and only for himself- so long as his decision isn't concerned primarily with others, and isn't to be forced upon others; leaving the altruist out. In choosing altruism, you deny the premise of man's rights, freedom, and choice. Altruism is totally immoral, and cannot be claimed to be right merely because it's your own choice of what is right, and then believe that this makes it moral. Each man is free to seek salvation in his own way only so long as he leaves others alone; leaving them the same right. Neither you nor any philosopher in history has ever been able to defend altruism on rational grounds.


----------



## CoffeeDrinker

^You may be right *cracks you over the head with a staff*
Philosophy may have some limitations, but that doesn't concern me. I am only speaking from experience.
That man doing the electrical work is my uncle. I wondered why in the hell he would ever do that for such a cult-like church, but he had his reasons.


----------



## MyDoorsAreOpen

Philoscybin said:


> Neither you nor any philosopher in history has ever been able to defend altruism on rational grounds.



I think it's a rare person who has lived any sort of life worth wanting, without the generous help of other people who went the extra mile for them. Altruistic acts, toward those capable of appreciating them, simply work -- they build connectivity between people, which is what allows individuals to not only live, but thrive. Seems pretty rational to me.

Then again, I do not start from the popular libertarian premise that I am the sole owner and determinant of me, which I think is preposterous. Nor do I espouse the view that my life is nought but a tooth and nail struggle to perpetuate my genes, which I see as buying into a sucker's game.


----------



## CoffeeDrinker

^ I hear ya. I am coming from the Dharma standpoint myself. It's kind of funny arguing with Ayn Rand fans. I think it is possible to prove anything you want to prove if you frame the argument correctly for your purposes, hence the limitations on "philosophy" as a way to logically prove the "correct" way to live and behave.


----------



## MyDoorsAreOpen

^ Indeed. This is why philosophy is more a verbal sport than a collaborative project towards irrefutable truth, to me.


----------



## azzazza !?

philosophy is not about proving or answering anything definitively. any such project is doomed to failure from the start. its about understanding the question.


----------



## Shakti

I think the divide between selfish and unselfish acts is unnecessary and misleading.  I think in pursuing one's most innermost desires and motivations and coming to act and live upon them, one will find that the primary motivation and expression is LOVE.  Ecstatic union with manifest reality.  Fully committing to your own nature (Self) will lead to selfless action.

Rationalism can suck it.  Who serves who here?


----------



## Philoscybin

MyDoorsAreOpen said:


> I think it's a rare person who has lived any sort of life worth wanting, without the generous help of other people who went the extra mile for them. Altruistic acts, toward those capable of appreciating them, simply work -- they build connectivity between people, which is what allows individuals to not only live, but thrive. Seems pretty rational to me.
> 
> Then again, I do not start from the popular libertarian premise that I am the sole owner and determinant of me, which I think is preposterous. Nor do I espouse the view that my life is nought but a tooth and nail struggle to perpetuate my genes, which I see as buying into a sucker's game.



An act fails to be altruistic if it rationally contributes to ones self. Interaction and human connection doesn't fall under the category of being altruistic if it's supporting a rational means towards happiness. By participating on this forum, we are all sharing and spreading knowledge through such means without being altruistic per se. We are interacting and connecting in a positive way that betters ourselves, thus being selfish not altruistic.

As far as stating this as a libertarian premise, it really isn't. Objectivism may have influenced some libertarian ideology, but the two actually butt heads over several positions. Ayn Rand even stated that libertarians are even more detrimental to freedom than liberals and conservatives- which I totally disagree with. 

I personally only take Rand's words so far, as with any great philosopher they can be contradictory and stubborn. It's funny how you see so many college students first discover her and just immediately jump onto that whole elitist bandwagon only to misrepresent her entire ideology. We can learn a lot from Rand however and I think she is absolutely essential for one to study, as opposed to developing some brief and misconstrued generalizations of her off of Wikipedia.


----------



## azzazza !?

an act may be directly altruistic, while its rational selfish dimension is indirect; a construct developed from hindsight. The moment of the act can be completely altruistic, without a positivistic rational _knowing_ that it returns to you. it may be a hope, or something that usually _does_ happen, but is doesn't _have to_ happen. in fact, should others not commit to the altruistic act (which they might), the rational return collapses. so the individual act is altruistic; the rational return, a leap of faith, faith in the others doing the same thing. so from the collective view, it is rationalistic, but on the individual level it is not. infact, having this collective viewpoint, rationally, on the individual level when i would _not_ contribute, my calculus is better: i have no investment, while enjoying full return (ie. freeriding). in turn, rationalizing this to the collective level, this would destroy the benificial system. thus, while having this system is rationally better for everyone, and can be individually rationalised by means of construct, on the strictly individual level the act is actually altruistic. the construct is a leap of faith, and thus, in itself, not rational. pure rationality would actually destroy the system. pure altruism on the other hand, would not. in these matters, we are, infact, rationalising altruism from a hindsight perpective.
[the problem of freeriding]


----------



## MyDoorsAreOpen

^ Well put.

Philocybin, I don't think there's as clear and consistent a connection between rational calculation of benefit to oneself and helping others, as you're suggesting. I'm not saying it never happens that people do good to others in order to help themselves. But arguing that someone later did benefit, or even just could have benefitted, from a favor they did for someone else, seems pretty post hoc to me. You have no way of proving that this actual or intended benefit was anticipated, either consciously or subconsciously. It could have been entirely coincidental.

If we're talking at the level of primal reward circuitry, one sees cases very frequently of people who do things with other people in mind that are not pleasant to the doer in the least, because the person is certain it's the right thing to do.

I frequently hear people say that we do good for others for the vicarious thrill of seeing others joy, and that therefore it's done for the doer's own selfish sake. This is pure semantics as far as I'm concerned. I could just as easily rephrase this by saying that our capacity for vicarious joy facilitates altruism, without doing a reductio ad absurdum on altruism.


----------



## azzazza !?

^besides that, there are altruistic acts that do not involve seeing other peoples joy. even the exact opposite. you might do something for someone that said person will not take in gratitude at all, even to the point of hating you for it; yet he or she may come to see, after a while, that it was the best thing to do, and only thank you for it lateron. in this case, neiter the doer or the reciever of the altruistic act has an immediate, direct gratification, besides just knowing for oneself it is the right thing to do. in such cases it will actually hurt both the doer and the reciever of the act at the time. said person may also never come to thank you at all, due to external circumstances, stubbornness, etc...

 -edit: o wait, you actually already said something to that extent. oh well, elaboration-


----------



## Philoscybin

azzazza !? said:


> an act may be directly altruistic, while its rational selfish dimension is indirect; a construct developed from hindsight. The moment of the act can be completely altruistic, without a positivistic rational _knowing_ that it returns to you. it may be a hope, or something that usually _does_ happen, but is doesn't _have to_ happen. in fact, should others not commit to the altruistic act (which they might), the rational return collapses. so the individual act is altruistic; the rational return, a leap of faith, faith in the others doing the same thing. so from the collective view, it is rationalistic, but on the individual level it is not. infact, having this collective viewpoint, rationally, on the individual level when i would _not_ contribute, my calculus is better: i have no investment, while enjoying full return (ie. freeriding). in turn, rationalizing this to the collective level, this would destroy the benificial system. thus, while having this system is rationally better for everyone, and can be individually rationalised by means of construct, on the strictly individual level the act is actually altruistic. the construct is a leap of faith, and thus, in itself, not rational. pure rationality would actually destroy the system. pure altruism on the other hand, would not. in these matters, we are, infact, rationalising altruism from a hindsight perpective.
> [the problem of freeriding]



Well this would apply to an altruistic act between a stranger. Obviously if you give X amount of money to a complete stranger, there is no guaranty or promise through some mystical force (i.e. karma) that you will be compensated in any way. It's up to the individual to rationally ensure the probability of receiving a reward to which they're expecting through a mutually beneficial trade. 

If you invest your trust in someone, you're making a rational judgement that they are worthy of your trust. If you were giving something to a friend and expecting something in return, you'd tell them what you expect, and chances are they'll give it to you. If they don't seem to respect the give and take concept, you're probably going to discontinue trusting them.

Altruism from the perspective of giving something to a stranger completely free then expecting that philanthropy to be returned by arcane means is irrational. If you give to a charity, your philanthropy should be rationally based on the idea of valuing whatever that charity is for. You should be okay with sinking money into the charity and seeing absolutely no material gain for you. The payment would be emotional. That's why charity should be chosen on an individual level and not mandated by law or other sociological factors.


----------



## azzazza !?

Philoscybin said:


> If you invest your trust in someone, you're making a rational judgement that they are worthy of your trust. If you were giving something to a friend and expecting something in return, you'd tell them what you expect, and chances are they'll give it to you. If they don't seem to respect the give and take concept, you're probably going to discontinue trusting them.



investing trust in someone is never _completely_ rational. (on a side note; many, if not all times, irrational emotions usually play a more or less significant role. these emotions are oftentimes (disease of our times) rationalised a posteroiri). while this investment may indeed be a well-weighed decision, there is no strict garantee of return. the probability may be 99%, but your friend will always have a free will, and with it, may possibly betray that trust. trust is _in se_ an irrational act. what you trust him with is something you unconditionally surrender to the others will. a forwarding without any real, closed circuit guarantee. yes, there may be a history that makes return very likely. but never certain. yes there may be pressure from consequences of betrayal. but the point is, _that what he is entrusted with_, is completely in his hands, and there is nothing you can do pertaining the entrusted itself should he decide to betray that trust. it is, and will always be, a leap of faith, faith in the other. only upon the moment of return, has that trust _proven_ to be correct.

so in short, the weighing may indeed play an important role, but will never provide total guarantee. rational weighing plays a quantitative role. more or less trustable. the act of trusting itself, qualitatively speaking, as a whole, remains irrational.


----------



## Philoscybin

Of course nothing can be proven to be full-proof. However, given all that we individually perceive and know, being our true reality, we are apt to make judgements and decisions. Rationalism is based upon our best ability to differentiate what is right from wrong. To be completely rational, is to be able to evaluate and differentiate a situation. We are not gods who can predict the future, so this is as far as rationalism can take us.


----------



## Captain.Heroin

Philoscybin said:


> Great topic for discussion. I'm glad there's another Ayn Rand fan on this forum! In terms of her philosophy, objectivism, she declares that the most ethical man is one who lives for himself, as an individual, above all other things. *This means that selfishness is man's highest virtue. Selfishness, in its true sense, is practiced as a means towards one's ultimate happiness via rationalism.* It's not based on, as it usually is confused with hedonistic acts such as instant gratification, self-indulgence, and short-term pleasures (bingeing on drugs/alcohol, food, and meaningless & unsafe sex, etc.). Nor does it promote any other narcissistic acts, such as aggressiveness, bullying, or carelessly stomping over and endangering other people and things.
> 
> That being said. To answer your question about helping someone in danger whether you even want to or not, it is very much circumstantial. It is only natural and very much rational to value human life, seeing as you value your own. In a situation where someone's life is endangered, you must take into consideration many factors. For one, seeing as you value human life, this makes up a part of who you are, and therefore you would be contradicting and negating your values and furthermore yourself if you were to neglect this person (even if you do not care for them). However, if you are putting yourself at an equal amount of risk by saving them, you would be succumbing to altruism. There may be an exception to this rule for someone serving in the military or as a police officer, as they live for the safety of other people. But above all, your life is the first thing to consider.



I am so glad that somebody gets it.


----------



## Jabberwocky

I think that in this proposition which I've encountered many times altruism gets annihilated because altruism is required to be pure while acting in one's own interest doesn't have such a handicap. Self interest has a changing scope. Community minded is not narrowly self interested but will always have a strong component of self interest.

Situations where personal interests are completely unrelated to the interests of others don't happen in pure abstract ways. I know of people who made marrow donations to people unrelated to themselves. A person who doesn't believe in altruism would likely argue that couldn't be altruism because they got a good feeling out of doing it and they got strokes and attention for doing it. 

The other part of this that self interest works, is honest, and real; I accept. Self interest is legitimate and when tempered with an enlightened understanding that it is the primary basis for cooperation, conflict, and progress it is a good thing. Some Ayn Rand enthusiasts I have known have tried to treat near every instance of "atruism" as dishonest and deviant. Altruism while maybe never pure is neither total illusion or depravity imo.


----------



## MyDoorsAreOpen

^ That's one of the most fair and balanced assessments of the issue I've come across, Enki.

I've always felt that this "pure altruism" of which you speak is a straw man. It's kind of similar to Heidenberg's uncertainty principle -- one can't do a deed without being involved in it, and doing any deed inherently involves both affecting the recipients of the deed AND being affected by them. Those who argue that it isn't 'real' altruism unless the doer stands to gain absolutely nothing of benefit, are setting the bar impossibly high. And the point is, even when the doer does stand to gain something, tangible or intangible, that doesn't debase the nobility of putting the needs and wishes of others before one's own. (This is why, in this debate, I've always called into question the motivations of people who clearly _want_, i.e. have an interest in, seeing altruism written off; it makes me suspicious of what they'd be willing to justify doing.)


----------



## being

Years back I came to this conclusion, that every action can be traced to some selfish gain and that there exists no true altruism. But after delving deeply into spiritual teachings & practices my opinion has changed.

Imho the truly altruistic deeds arise from the understanding that we are all the same in the sense that we all suffer and strive for positive emotions (often through unwise means, tho).
If one sees no barrier between oneself and others or to say that one has no strong attachment in the view of 'me', it's easy to be equally nice to everyone including this 'me'.
'Spiritually advanced people' give a very good example of this in action.
The reason I believe in true altruism, is that I have experienced these states of mind myself, but nothing 'permanent' so far. This becomes kind of an automatic behavior, not something you think about, but something that's just natural. 
And the reason I am answering to this, is that I really want to show others, that true altruism does exist and how.


----------



## Jabberwocky

I'm merging "On selfishness, kindness, empathy... " with "there is no such thing as a selfless act" at least in part to bump "no such thing" for the prune.


----------



## L2R

i still don't buy it. a pleasant consequence is not essential for altruism. there are many acts of kindness that i have done which have a cause no further than memories of my mum telling me to "be good" as a kid. i never consider a pleasant after-feeling or a better community, ever. also the pleasant after-feeling only comes if i consciously dwell on my act. if i am busy, i'd just as soon forget it as anything else.


----------



## jabbajosh

You can look at this statement in reverse...
If helping others in turn helps you. Then that is surely good cause for everyone to help others.
If the statement 'There is no selfless act' is real then why isn't everyone helping everyone all the time. Surely we'd be aware that it works by now?


----------



## Egzoset

Salutations AlasDAirM,



alasdairm said:


> ...that there is no such thing as a completely selfless act.  ...  ...i now agree.  What do you think?



I wish to concur with this statement as well, judging from what i've seen since i've started corresponding on electronic media:  the No-Strings-Attached attitude(s) rarely last forever in any case...  That's my personal opinion.


----------



## -=SS=-

Well in order to do a selfless act one would surely need to be, selfless? Impossibility I think. One can do positive things for the community knowing they personally stand to gain nothing except maybe a smile of recognition, but even then doing some good will ultimately benefit the individual if enough people do the same.. we just don't see the direct reciprocal nature of this because it's usually drowned out by all the negative stuff coming back at us.

The question is inherently loaded. Only angels could possibly be selfless.. even the saints were only human.


----------



## L2R

^have you never meditated, ridden a motorcycle, written a story or danced/played sport "in the zone"? a complete loss of self-consciousness is very much indeed possible and achieveable. it is a place in which you act without thought or doubt. there you work only with your predisposition and intuition.


----------



## -=SS=-

^ None of that is relevant to a 'selfless act' though is it, which was the original question. None of what you listed, except maybe meditation, fits with being selfless anyway.. driving, writing, sport.. all trance states, increased/intense focus, etc.. the self is still there and doing what it always does, your just cease to notice it for that brief interval. Like with hypnosis.. you're still there and functioning.


----------



## tmdoca

Action requires ego.  What I mean is that acknowledging good and evil requires perspective, which requires self.  This is not to say, like it could mistakenly be taken, that the phrase "there is no such thing as a selfless act" means that all acts are selfish, and therefore there is no good in the world or some shit.  In fact, to put value to the implications of that phrase, there must a clear cut definition of good and evil.  The thing about perspective is, unless there is only one of them, there is not just one final understanding of what is being interpreted.


----------



## L2R

^morality can be an automated response. judgement does not essentially require ego. 



-=SS=- said:


> ^ None of that is relevant to a 'selfless act' though is it, which was the original question. None of what you listed, except maybe meditation, fits with being selfless anyway.. driving, writing, sport.. all trance states, increased/intense focus, etc.. the self is still there and doing what it always does, your just cease to notice it for that brief interval. Like with hypnosis.. you're still there and functioning.



actually those other tasks are exactly like meditation in full application. it is relevant to your assertion that any selflessness is impossible. this is simply untrue.


----------



## What 23

I think your friend is right. It may seem dark, at first.


----------



## rickolasnice

I agree. Most of the time "selfless" acts are not selfless at all.. I'd go out of my way to help someone because I cared.. If I managed to help them.. It'd make me feel good. Of course I don't help people SO that I'd feel good.. But if it didn't make me feel good it would be because I didn't care.. and if i didn't care i wouldn't have helped in the first place.


----------



## TheAppleCore

Well, I'm not sure about whether or not truly "selfless" acts occur, but I stand firmly by my principle that all human behavior is pleasure-seeking and/or pain-averting.


----------



## Egzoset

Salutations everyone,



-=SS=- said:


> The question is inherently loaded.



Indeed!!  By the way, my own statement reads as follows and it means only that:



Egzoset said:


> ...the No-Strings-Attached attitude(s) rarely last forever...



...

In other words even good people get burned when continuously exposed to challenging situations which are left to last for too long.  Teachers get about 2 months of vacancy during the summer, after all, otherwise they wouldn't be able to stand it for another scholar year!...  Perhaps being a resource-person on BlueLight may prove to be as demanding, etc, etc.


----------



## CoffeeDrinker

Jesus Christ dying for our sins was a truly selfless act.


----------



## Egzoset

Salutations CoffeeDrinker,



CoffeeDrinker said:


> Jesus Christ dying for our sins was a truly selfless act.



M'yeah.  No vacancies for the poor dude!...  Most probably not even compensated once back up, on top of that!!

8)


----------



## L2R

CoffeeDrinker said:


> Jesus Christ dying for our sins was a truly selfless act.


----------



## rickolasnice

Jesus didn't die for our sins.

Jesus died because the Romans didn't like him.. he had no choice in the matter.


----------



## TheAppleCore

^ I think the argument is more than God killed Jesus for our sins, not that Jesus committed suicide for our sins. Either way, never made much sense to me.


----------



## 7ca5p

TheAppleCore said:


> ^ I think the argument is more than God killed Jesus for our sins, not that Jesus committed suicide for our sins. Either way, never made much sense to me.



Then this undermines the whole concept of free will. How can we be held accountable for our actions is a supposed God is planning and orchestrating every move?

Furthermore, if this is then accepted to be the case, one has to consider the permeations. For example, if there is no Free Will, and God is planning every move, then how can this fit in with the Christian concepts of Heaven and Hell? How can a person be deemed good if it is just God planning their lives, and how can serial killers be deemed bad, if it is just God planning their lives?


----------



## alasdairm

CoffeeDrinker said:


> Jesus Christ dying for our sins was a truly selfless act.


i've actually thought about this recently. the bible tells me that jesus sacrificed himself (his earthly self) to atone for the sins of man. now crucifixion is likely a pretty nasty way to die but he got a fastpass to heaven to sit at his father's side for all eternity. i'll be frank - that doesn't seem like much of a sacrifice (or selfless act) to me...

alasdair


----------



## 7ca5p

alasdairm said:


> i've actually thought about this recently. the bible tells me that jesus sacrificed himself (his earthly self) to atone for the sins of man. now crucifixion is likely a pretty nasty way to die but he got a fastpass to heaven to sit at his father's side for all eternity. i'll be frank - that doesn't seem like much of a sacrifice (or selfless act) to me...
> 
> alasdair



Then add to the equation that us humans are then held accountable to the burden, and commanded to grovel and worship him for it, and it seems as if it's a pretty harsh deal for everyone _apart_ from him. Especially considering we didn't even ask him to do it, but yet are eternally in his debt according to the mainstream Christian doctrines.


----------



## 7ca5p

Also I would just like to leave this here in this thread - 

Throughout the insect kingdom, we witness group serving, and communal, social behaviours.

These same insects neural networks are not complex enough to be home to an ego, and it is debatable whether or not most insects can even experience conciousness.

The general opinion is that small insects including the Woodlouse, for example, do not have concious awareness.

Factor in that these same insects are making decisions for the community, or take in to account the bee sacrificing it's self when it stings.

They are not doing this to fulfil a need within themselves. They are not doing it because they are selfish. It is something innate, and not necessarily anything to do with the 'ego' that many posters have referenced in this thread.


----------



## alasdairm

an act can't be selfless if there is no self?

alasdair


----------



## rickolasnice

I think you mean:



> an act *can* be selfless if there is no self?
> 
> alasdair



?


----------



## freehugs

alasdairm said:


> i was having a heated discussion recently with a friend who posited that there is no such thing as a completely selfless act. he argued that even the most overt acts of altruism are done, in part, because they fulfill some need in the person doing them.
> 
> my initial response was that he was bitter and wrong but, the more i think about it, the more i believe he is correct. empirical evidence since then further convinces me that he's correct to the point where i now agree.
> 
> what do you think?
> 
> alasdair



We had this discussion in my philosophy class a few weeks ago.  I haven't read the thread, but I think the only way for an act to be selfless is if you are doing it strictly because it is the right thing to do, not because it makes you feel good or whatever.


----------



## rickolasnice

^ If you didn't do something that was the right thing to do.. does that make you a wrong'n? 

(I'd say yes.. personally)


----------



## TheAppleCore

Personally, I'm beginning to feel that this argument is essentially pointless.

At the end of the day, whether or not our actions are ULTIMATELY selfish, the fact of the matter is that humans like to cooperate with each other, and help each other out, and befriend each other, and love each other. And that's what matters.


----------



## L2R

^a lot of philosophy is so pointless


----------



## Pariahprose

alasdairm said:


> i was having a heated discussion recently with a friend who posited that there is no such thing as a completely selfless act. he argued that even the most overt acts of altruism are done, in part, because they fulfill some need in the person doing them.
> 
> my initial response was that he was bitter and wrong but, the more i think about it, the more i believe he is correct. empirical evidence since then further convinces me that he's correct to the point where i now agree.
> 
> what do you think?
> 
> alasdair



I feel that some people do commit completly selfless acts but this is only because I have witnessed such. When I was 5 my 12 yr old brother died trying to save my father(we had the same mother but different fathers). So my question is what need would be fulfilled in a 12 year old to end up dying to save someone who isnt even their own blood?Despite his effort though,they both died July 1,1993(my dad a heart attack in the river he was swimming in and my brother got caught by an undercurrent). Do the rules of selfless acts change for those who are young and more pure? 

I believe that those people who feel we are not capable of selfless acts are largely pessimisstic, believe mankind is inherently evil, but most importantly have never witnessed/experienced a selfless act in person or wish to fulfill their own need of satisfaction by knowing that someone would be selfless toward them. Those who feel this way are the result of irrational delusional thoughts fed by an inflated ego and the resulting egotistical desire to have someone stroke their ego in the ultimate way.  

What do you believe alasdair,that people are inherently good,evil, or just exist? You shouldnt really "believe" in his point and what he says per say(nor should you believe my point and what I say),because when you believe in it,you have allowed your friend to craft your ideas for you. However,people can be persuaded and forced to re-evaluate their own positions,is this what you meant when you said you was starting to believe him,I personally think not(though I cant read minds,but who knows you may not even realize the sub conscious impact he had) ? As for the empirical evidence,what has been so great in your observations to do a 180 on your views(if you do not mind my asking). Could it not be like I have already suggested that your friends ability to cause belief in the issue caused the empirical evidence you have witnessed to become construed and false?

Not trying to insult you my friend only persuade you to think and consider the issues within and how you feel about them. Cause c'mon, who doesn't get kinda sick to their stomachs so to speak when they hear of others selfless acts and wonder in some dark corner of their mind if anyone alive would see fit to perform such acts for them? If they feel their is nobody, then that initial hope in humanity followed by hearing of a selfless act proceeds to questions of ones ego which finally leads them to the conclusion that the person who performed the act did so in their own interest and that the person the act is performed on deserved whatever fate was prevented or trying to be prevented?

Pariahprose


----------



## alasdairm

Pariahprose said:


> So my question is what need would be fulfilled in a 12 year old to end up dying to save someone who isnt even their own blood?


i don't know.

i also know that, just because i don't know, doesn't mean there's no answer to that question.

alasdair


----------



## 7ca5p

It's surprising no one has discussed the origins of this way of thinking before;

The idea that 'all behaviours are done to benefit the individual' were derived from Game Theory.

Ronald Fisher was among the first to apply Game Theory to animal behaviours in the 1930's. The result of following work and publications has led this to become very much a mainstream way of thinking.

The result is a very cold, mathematical view of biological interaction and emotions.

Of course, the idea that every action is designed to benefit the self is firmly attached to these theories. The mathematics and science behind the theory is reliable, and thus it is difficult to refute it from a logical standpoint. However, I believe that social needs are a more instinctive, natural driver.

I recommend people interested in this topic watch the three part documentary 'The Trap'.

The programme traces the development of game theory with particular reference to the work of John Nash (the mathematician portrayed in A Beautiful Mind), who believed that all humans were inherently suspicious and selfish creatures that strategised constantly. Using this as his first premise, Nash constructed logically consistent and mathematically verifiable models, for which he won the Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic Sciences, commonly referred to as the Nobel Prize in Economics. He invented system games reflecting his beliefs about human behaviour, including one he called "Fuck Your Buddy" (later published as "So Long Sucker"), in which the only way to win was to betray your playing partner, and it is from this game that the episode's title is taken. These games were internally coherent and worked correctly as long as the players obeyed the ground rules that they should behave selfishly and try to outwit their opponents,[citation needed] but when RAND's analysts tried the games on their own secretaries, they instead chose not to betray each other but to cooperate every time. This did not, in the eyes of the analysts, discredit the models but instead proved that the secretaries were unfit subjects. See U.S. Air Force Project RAND Memorandum RM-789-1, "Some Experimental Games," Merill M. Flood, 20 June 1952, pp. 15–16: "This is in contrast to the proposed theoretical solution in which the two secretaries would have shared the amount g only, with the first secretary receiving m in addition. Upon inquiry, it developed that they had entered into the experiment with the prior agreement to share all proceeds equally!"

What was not known at the time was that Nash was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia and, as a result, was deeply suspicious of everyone around him—including his colleagues—and was convinced that many were involved in conspiracies against him. It was this mistaken belief that led to his view of people as a whole that formed the basis for his theories. Footage of an older and wiser Nash was shown in which he acknowledges that his paranoid views of other people at the time were false.





Pariahprose said:


> ..



Very touching post. I am truly sorry to hear of your losses.


----------



## figure11

Altruism is by definition, selfish. Someone who gets enjoyment out of helping others is driven to be helpful because it makes them feel good.


----------



## illustrious junk

figure11 said:


> Altruism is by definition, selfish. Someone who gets enjoyment out of helping others is driven to be helpful because it makes them feel good.



I can't really agree with that, not only because I find it incredibly nihilistic, but because altruism is often instinctual. If you see someone drowning in a  lake, it's an instinct to jump in and save them. You don't hang around till you've consciously thought 'hmmm, if I help them it will make me feel good, so I guess I'll do it'.

For me it's the other way round, helping other people makes me feel good because I know I've made them feel good. Why wouldn't it, and how does that invalidate the sincerity an altruistic act? It's a result/by-product of my action, not the motivation for it. If it weren't so I don't think humanity last very long. Essentially, acts of altruism increase the net amount of love/happiness felt in the world, which is surely the exact opposite of what a selfish act accomplishes.

Besides (and sorry if I'm misinterpreting), the way I read it you seem to be implying that anything that makes you feel good is selfish. Is taking drugs or having sex selfish? 

And what would be the non-selfish alternative to altruism, in your opinion? Or do you believe that no act is inherently selfless?


----------



## Foreigner

^ Also, sometimes one does not want to do an altruistic act, but their heart/compassion compels them to because it is the higher-value thing to do.


----------



## missmeyet?

MyDoorsAreOpen said:


> Grrrrr!
> 
> No offense alasdair, but I think I may just hate this topic more than any other philosophical argument out there.
> 
> It always makes me curious WHY, in the name of all things good, would anyone want to belittle and reduce every kind deed to an unknowingly selfish act. According to Chaos Magicians, holding an unproven/unprovable belief about the nature of reality is essentially a tool for changing how you interact with, and therefore your place in, the outer world. It's changing your inner world (your perspectives and assumptions) in order to exert change on the world around you.
> 
> Based on this, I really have to wonder about anyone who's eager to define all acts as inherently selfish. What exactly are they trying to change? What exactly are they trying to accomplish? What kind of people are they trying to become, or encourage you to become?
> 
> I find that people who loudly defend this position tend to be people who really REALLY rub me the wrong way. In short, I find they tend to be people who either enjoy deflating people, or are just. plain. cold. Not that this has any bearing on whether this position is defensible or not, but I just thought I'd mention that for the record, I am not ashamed to admit I am VERY biased against this argument.
> Not few among them are people who enjoy shaking people up and causing controversy, and the rabidly antireligious. I'll take a pass.
> 
> If you and I are ultimately part of the same great oneness, than 'what's good for you' and 'what's good for me' becomes a false dichotomy. Well then buddy, you might say, I can think of many instances where me doing what's good for me harms you. What says you to that? To that, I'd say that our relationship is not in tune, and one or both of us needs to wake up and realize that bolstering one's ultimately false and fleeting individual ego, at the other's expense, doesn't have any lasting good effects of either of us, and is as futile as clearing the sea floor of sand.
> 
> The general 'you'. Not you, alasdair



/\ this.   Agreed very much and put into words well.


----------



## shimazu

wow talk about semantics 

no wonder I avoid this forum



L2R said:


> ^a lot of philosophy is so pointless



you said it not me

philosophy is just a way for vague people to feel smart without actually providing any direct assistance to the target audience


----------



## Foreigner

^ Do you have anything to actually contribute to this topic, or are you here to just attack people who want to philosophize?


----------



## shimazu

idk I thought the last sentence was somewhat relevant to this forum


----------



## Joeof1

figure11 said:


> Altruism is by definition, selfish. Someone who gets enjoyment out of helping others is driven to be helpful because it makes them feel good.



This.


----------



## Mysterie

i think if a person is able to experience emotions without attachment, then they can do a selfless act

because if they view the enjoyment that comes from helping others, objectively, then it is selfless


----------



## illustrious junk

shimazu said:


> philosophy is just a way for vague people to feel smart without actually providing any direct assistance to the target audience



There's a lot of good philosophy, and a lot of shit philosophy. Do you have any particular thoughts on the thread topic?


----------



## Foreigner

I've excised the irrelevant discourse from this thread so that we may return to talking about altruism. 

Carry on.


----------



## L2R

Joeof1 said:


> This.



the instinct to help comes before the good feeling. sometimes there is no good feeling at all. it takes effort to generate it, the effort of reflection. not everyone in all circumstances have the time and/or inclination to reflect on their action. whether they experience it or not, the feeling bears no impact on the intial action.


----------



## What 23

We do things because we are in a sense programmed to. It is beneficial to the species, and what you were born into, to look out for the other. Its beneficial for yourself. This is why this is rewarded. This is why it feels good. Of course there are likely limits to this behavior. This is natural. But with options, one doesn't choose death over another, but given few options certain death in circumstances might at least benefit the individual in that they are reproduced in memory. Their perceptions are carried on. Their resonances. There are selfish reasons for everything. This isn't necessarily bad. But it can be confusing.


----------



## chimneysweep

You cant cheat anyone but yourself. It's the intent your judged by, not the deed.


----------



## Joeof1

Intent to do good acts are to make yourself feel better or to gratify some sort of internal conclusion about emotional outcome from said altruism. From this it's hard to make any other conclusion about altruism other than that it does not exist and is merely a linguistic trap to deceive others into giving without regard of their own well being. People whom are altruistic by their own accord do so out of some internal need...


----------



## 7ca5p

chimneysweep said:


> You cant cheat anyone but yourself. It's the intent your judged by, not the deed.



Overly simplistic. 

Imagine you are dying and are found by a stranger. If this stranger saved your life because they wanted to torture you, but then you escaped just after they saved you - would you then ignore the fact that you would have died were it not for that person?

Does that mean the important fact that they saved your life is just deleted from memory?

After all, there intent was to be evil, but the act was one of pure goodness, saving a life.

Then you can tell your grandchildren how evil the person who saved your life was, despite them not being able to exist without the intervention of that person.


----------



## Foreigner

My understanding of "self" is that it's an artificial and transient construct. It comes and goes. My theory is that "self" evolved as someting utilitarian for the sake of interacting with a complex physical world; it exists as a relational referent for navigation and survival strategy. 

There are moments when you're a "you" and other moments where self is absent. We know this because when we meditate, self disappears. Therefore, meditation is a selfless act. So is sleeping. 

Maybe people have a hard time understanding selflessness because we live in a degenerate time where semantics, logic and pure rationality are used to justify everything, and selflessness is not rooted in logic. A creative person doing an abstract work may have no method at all, or no inherent selfish desire. They simply channel creation.

Have you ever watched yourself doing something, and you don't even know why you're doing it? Where is self in that moment? Or better yet, why does self (ego) lack awareness in that moment? 

Whether or not you believe in selflessness comes down to whether or not you believe the ego-based self is real and the be all and end all of perceptual reality. My experience of self (and ironically, I am "self" talking as I say this), is that it's transient to such a degree that it can only be a program like all the other thought streams happening. None of them are the real you. If you believe mind is real and the only aspect of consciousness, then selflessness cannot possibly exist because self is all there is.

If you find a calm space and quiet the mind, it will be evident that there's no self in there. And while I am not an enlightened being, I can surmise a level of spirituality where one is closer to pure action than mind, and is thus capable of many selfless acts; and not only grandios ones, but mundane everyday tasks.  

A good example is a baby sitting in the middle of the road with a car heading toward it. Many people's desire to save that baby is going to be based on instinct, or, at a higher level, compassion. There is no mind involved there. There's simply action, as there's no time to think about all this semantic crap. You just act and that's that. 

A heart-centred person living in a compassionate consciousness does things just for doing them, and not because of any reward. But it's going to be difficult to convey this to people not in that consciousness, because their reality is still based on a clingy self that makes constant, irrational demands. In other words, selfishness. Ayn Rand succinctly describes the overwhelming majority of humanity who do NOT cultivate heart consciousness. We may see glimpses of it, like in how people interact with their children, but as an over-arcing consciousness that coordinates entire lives? Most people just aren't there. They haven't done the necessary inner work to overcome fear, sex drives, and emotional baggage... thus their motivations shall remain selfish, and thus humanity as a whole remains in a suffering paradigm.


----------



## chimneysweep

7ca5p said:


> Overly simplistic.
> 
> Imagine you are dying and are found by a stranger. If this stranger saved your life because they wanted to torture you, but then you escaped just after they saved you - would you then ignore the fact that you would have died were it not for that person?
> 
> Does that mean the important fact that they saved your life is just deleted from memory?
> 
> After all, there intent was to be evil, but the act was one of pure goodness, saving a life.
> 
> Then you can tell your grandchildren how evil the person who saved your life was, despite them not being able to exist without the intervention of that person.



The stranger's intent was bad that cannot be changed.  Intent & outcome are two completely different aspects of a deed.


----------



## chimneysweep

Joeof1 said:


> Intent to do good acts are to make yourself feel better or to gratify some sort of internal conclusion about emotional outcome from said altruism. From this it's hard to make any other conclusion about altruism other than that it does not exist and is merely a linguistic trap to deceive others into giving without regard of their own well being. People whom are altruistic by their own accord do so out of some internal need...



No its much deeper than that. You cant manipulate intent, its the inner motivation why you are doing something.


----------



## naughtynicknails

Foreigner said:


> My understanding of "self" is that it's an artificial and transient construct. It comes and goes. My theory is that "self" evolved as someting utilitarian for the sake of interacting with a complex physical world; it exists as a relational referent for navigation and survival strategy.
> 
> There are moments when you're a "you" and other moments where self is absent. We know this because when we meditate, self disappears. Therefore, meditation is a selfless act. So is sleeping.
> 
> Maybe people have a hard time understanding selflessness because we live in a degenerate time where semantics, logic and pure rationality are used to justify everything, and selflessness is not rooted in logic. A creative person doing an abstract work may have no method at all, or no inherent selfish desire. They simply channel creation.
> 
> Have you ever watched yourself doing something, and you don't even know why you're doing it? Where is self in that moment? Or better yet, why does self (ego) lack awareness in that moment?
> 
> Whether or not you believe in selflessness comes down to whether or not you believe the ego-based self is real and the be all and end all of perceptual reality. My experience of self (and ironically, I am "self" talking as I say this), is that it's transient to such a degree that it can only be a program like all the other thought streams happening. None of them are the real you. If you believe mind is real and the only aspect of consciousness, then selflessness cannot possibly exist because self is all there is.
> 
> If you find a calm space and quiet the mind, it will be evident that there's no self in there. And while I am not an enlightened being, I can surmise a level of spirituality where one is closer to pure action than mind, and is thus capable of many selfless acts; and not only grandios ones, but mundane everyday tasks.
> 
> A good example is a baby sitting in the middle of the road with a car heading toward it. Many people's desire to save that baby is going to be based on instinct, or, at a higher level, compassion. There is no mind involved there. There's simply action, as there's no time to think about all this semantic crap. You just act and that's that.
> 
> A heart-centred person living in a compassionate consciousness does things just for doing them, and not because of any reward. But it's going to be difficult to convey this to people not in that consciousness, because their reality is still based on a clingy self that makes constant, irrational demands. In other words, selfishness. Ayn Rand succinctly describes the overwhelming majority of humanity who do NOT cultivate heart consciousness. We may see glimpses of it, like in how people interact with their children, but as an over-arcing consciousness that coordinates entire lives? Most people just aren't there. They haven't done the necessary inner work to overcome fear, sex drives, and emotional baggage... thus their motivations shall remain selfish, and thus humanity as a whole remains in a suffering paradigm.



I don't think you quite understand what self is. It's not ego.

It's a very complex mix of conscious and unconscious. What you needs to survive, what you want to survive, what you need to be content, what you want to be content, what you need to be happy, what you want to be happy, and so on. 

Not everything is a conscious act or even thought. But that doesn't mean your "self" isn't doing it.


----------



## chimneysweep

So who or what  was Shakespeare referring to when he wrote something like "unto thy own self be true"


----------



## naughtynicknails

A persons moral code, i suspect.


----------



## Foreigner

naughtynicknails said:


> I don't think you quite understand what self is. It's not ego.
> 
> It's a very complex mix of conscious and unconscious. What you needs to survive, what you want to survive, what you need to be content, what you want to be content, what you need to be happy, what you want to be happy, and so on.
> 
> Not everything is a conscious act or even thought. But that doesn't mean your "self" isn't doing it.



Conscious or not, self comes from the brain, and is learned. When you talk to your mother, a different set of neural patterns will engage compared to when you talk to your best friend, your boss, a group of people, etc. Outwardly you seem like the same person engaging but inwardly the brain has a different set of heuristic networks and responses spanning many different learned situations, and "self" cannot be found in any of them. Yet we all have an experience of an observer that sees the events unfolding.

There is no evidence, scientific or otherwise, that self is real. The experiencer watching self is something else entirely. I disagree that ego and self are separate, but that's a semantic distinction that isn't worth arguing over. 

Right now I'm just debating the idea that all humans are inherently selfish and there is no such thing as altruism. If we can't prove at a basic level than self even exists than that opens the door for most of our lives actually being selfless. Besides which, there is evidence for many selfless acts and tasks, from the mundane to the great, in our history.

Humans who believe that other humans can only be selfish _are _selfish. They're projecting their inner reality outward. Someone who is compassionate sees the world as being filled with compassion. It's just a product of perspective.


----------



## 7ca5p

chimneysweep said:


> No its much deeper than that. You cant manipulate intent, its the inner motivation why you are doing something.




So would you be grateful for your life? Would you tell your children to be grateful for their lives? Or would you inform them that you and they only existed because of an evil intention? Would that render their whole existence evil?

Would you be ungrateful for your own life? Would your existence from then on be tainted with evil?

Imagine they've saved you're life, and perhaps you never even realised their malicious intentions. Would you then think how great they were? And how malevolent they were as a being?

These are the questions that led me to say you were being too simplistic.

I think this whole "Good Vs Evil" thing is a distinctly human trait, that the grand cosmos doesn't even care about.


----------



## naughtynicknails

Foreigner said:


> Conscious or not, self comes from the brain, and is learned. When you talk to your mother, a different set of neural patterns will engage compared to when you talk to your best friend, your boss, a group of people, etc. Outwardly you seem like the same person engaging but inwardly the brain has a different set of heuristic networks and responses spanning many different learned situations, and "self" cannot be found in any of them. Yet we all have an experience of an observer that sees the events unfolding.



They are all part of self, though. I would say that self = you. What you think, what you believe in, how you behave, your memories, your hopes, etc etc. Your brain = you. There may be different parts of it, sure. There's the how i talk, behave and think when I'm angry. There's the way i talk, act and think around different people. But they are all me.



> I disagree that ego and self are separate, but that's a semantic distinction that isn't worth arguing over.



I didn't mean to sound like ego and self are entirely separate, but they are definitely not the same thing. Ego is just a piece of self.


----------



## L2R

Joeof1 said:


> Intent to do good acts are to make yourself feel better or to gratify some sort of internal conclusion about emotional outcome from said altruism. From this it's hard to make any other conclusion about altruism other than that it does not exist and is merely a linguistic trap to deceive others into giving without regard of their own well being. People whom are altruistic by their own accord do so out of some internal need...



so people who jump in front of trains to help strangers from the tracks do so after considering the post gratification? 

8)
sure.


----------



## kaywholed

L2R said:


> so people who jump in front of trains to help strangers from the tracks do so after considering the post gratification?
> 
> 8)
> sure.



the human brain is a fucking amazing computer.  you can run parallel apps, suck up high def sensor data and process everything hella fast.

in an instant a human can process the outcomes of what to do: help and become a hero, try to help and die, do nothing, and model each scenario in numerous variation to choose the best path.


----------



## Joeof1

L2R said:


> so people who jump in front of trains to help strangers from the tracks do so after considering the post gratification?
> 
> 8)
> sure.



On a sub-conscious level they acted because they thought they could and could not stomach watching a person die without acting, so yes.


----------



## L2R

^the mind doesn't work like that. we have intuitive responses programmed by our lives up until any specific point of action/non-action. there is no subconscious _rationality_ at work. 



kaywholed said:


> the human brain is a fucking amazing computer.  you can run parallel apps, suck up high def sensor data and process everything hella fast.
> 
> in an instant a human can process the outcomes of what to do: help and become a hero, try to help and die, do nothing, and model each scenario in numerous variation to choose the best path.



it's good but its not that good. 

all there is time for is a sense of confidence and the impression of "i can help"... that's it.


----------



## naughtynicknails

L2R said:


> so people who jump in front of trains to help strangers from the tracks do so after considering the post gratification?
> 
> 8)
> sure.



Knowing they'd die or thinking they MIGHT?

Huge difference.

Shame it's impossible to ask someone that thought about it long enough to make a conscious decision to kill themselves for a stranger.


----------



## L2R

Tell me what you think the difference is and how it is relevant.


----------



## Joeof1

L2R said:


> ^the mind doesn't work like that. we have intuitive responses programmed by our lives up until any specific point of action/non-action. there is no subconscious _rationality_ at work.



Which is not true, it's part of the fight or flight motives and yes you can train yourself to take actions and make decisions that quickly. I know, because the military actively does this, I went through the training myself.

The majority of the training for the trigger pullers is target identification and threat assessment. Which are both rationalizations processed by your sub-conscious. The majority of CQB training is exactly that. You are teaching your sub-conscious to process the situation and working the CNS engrams to recruit proper patterns for whatever the desired response is so that once the choice is made the action is essentially automatic.




L2R said:


> Tell me what you think the difference is and how it is relevant.



Because despite what you think yourself, people can and often do process information that quickly and do make assessments, whether they are aware of it or not.


----------



## L2R

Get back at me once you've done some actual study of the mind. It's clear you don't understand what I am saying. You're not even responding to what you think you are responding to.


----------



## Joeof1

L2R said:


> Get back at me once you've done some actual study of the mind. It's clear you don't understand what I am saying. You're not even responding to what you think you are responding to.



Get back at me when you have an actual rebuttal instead of this appeal to authority fallacy nonsense. I'm not one of these kids that will be impressed by your display of presumed superiority here. I have been here just as long as you, and have done more than just "studied the mind".

The vast majority of military training is simply teaching how to think on the move like that.


----------



## naughtynicknails

L2R said:


> Tell me what you think the difference is and how it is relevant.



Well, as an example - Purposely dying for someone else is a lot different than savings someone's life to be a hero AND tell the tale. But even purposely dying for someone is not necessarily a selfless act. There are many reasons why someone would jump in front of a train to save someone. Calculating the risks and weighing up the benefits and cons, even if wrong in a snap moments judgement, still happens.


----------



## L2R

That difference you are putting emphasis on doesn't support your assertion that "it happens". Where are you getting this "it happens" from? 

Joeof1ego, you're in too deep in this subject. Give it up, fella.


----------



## naughtynicknails

If there is no judgement on what's happening, can you really even call it a selfless act?


----------



## L2R

It's the only way to act truly selflessly.

Actually this judge-less state is nothing special. We spent a lot of time in it, it's just not noticeable.


----------



## naughtynicknails

Fair -

But I still don't believe that exists.

Even if the act was initiated by purely subconscious thought, that subconscious thought is still a part of self.


----------



## L2R

I understand and appreciate your position. 

That initial thought has no rationality. It's an impulse based entirely on predisposition. Rationality happens later and it makes our acts _seem_ more rational than it is. Pm me if you would like, and I'll happily share an excellent academic article on this.


----------



## naughtynicknails

Is that predisposition determined by earlier rational, reasonable and moral thoughts that you have had throughout life?

Sure I'll give the article a read


----------



## L2R

everything you are exposed to generates this predisposition. one seldom has rational control over it. 

pm will be sent to you shortly.


----------



## chimneysweep

7ca5p said:


> So would you be grateful for your life? Would you tell your children to be grateful for their lives? Or would you inform them that you and they only existed because of an evil intention? Would that render their whole existence evil?
> 
> Would you be ungrateful for your own life? Would your existence from then on be tainted with evil?
> 
> 
> 
> Imagine they've saved you're life, and perhaps you never even realised their malicious intentions. Would you then think how great they were? And how malevolent they were as a being?
> 
> These are the questions that led me to say you were being too simplistic.
> 
> I think this whole "Good Vs Evil" thing is a distinctly human trait, that the grand cosmos doesn't even care about.



The best example I can give of intent & outcome being bad leading to good is the crucifixion of Jesus Christ.  There was no lack of ill intent but the outcome was a blessing to all Christians. So the bad intent does not live on.  The deed has been done full stop.



7ca5p said:


> I think this whole "Good Vs Evil" thing is a distinctly human trait, that the grand cosmos doesn't even care about.



You may well be correct here. Essential for humanity in a social context but for divinity, who knows?


----------



## Joeof1

L2R said:


> That difference you are putting emphasis on doesn't support your assertion that "it happens". Where are you getting this "it happens" from?
> 
> Joeof1ego, you're in too deep in this subject. Give it up, fella.



How about actually proving your comments first?


----------



## L2R

When you say shit like "prove your comments" you sound like an imbecile. Unlike droppers, you can do better than that. 

If you have any specific questions about my posts, I'll answer them as well as I can.


----------



## paranoid android

I tend to agree with this as why else would we really do anything? Everything we do even if it is a really good thing is out of some self interest on our part. A person may very well say as a example give almost the last buck he has to someone who is hungry but that is because it would pain that person more to not help that person rather then to go hungry himself. Granted that is a oversimplification of exactly why we do things but i think alot of it comes down to avoiding pain physical or emotional which we are pretty much hard wired to do anyway.


----------



## L2R

seems that way on the surface, bro. it doesn't really hold when one really examines the terms in application.


----------



## L2R

a friend sent me this today. dilbert gets it.


----------



## Ambigram

From a philosophical perspective there is no such thing as either.  Everything just _IS_.. neither good nor bad but where we _ARE_ or our vantage point.. determines our perspective on any situation.


----------



## Tryptamine*Dreamer

There is no selfishness or selfissness
Everything was set in motion, then quatum  physics came into play. Ever since then everything, including our thoughts (which are controlled by processes we have no control over) have just been completely random or ust what would be expected by quantum physics. Molecules became advanced enough to produce life. With neurons, thought became possible - just random firiing from different stimulation. Brains become more complex, but they are atill nothing but machines that are "us". Decide how we feel, what we think, everything we are. Just a state produced by a complex state of neurotransmitters

We may think we have beliefs, morals, and principals that we stand up for or that mean something to us, but they mean nothing.  They are completely worthless trash. There is no meaning in anything. We have no control at all. We never have and we never will have any control over our thoughts or actions/ We are just robots without control. We all want to think we have some control over our lives, but our lives don't belong to us. They are not even real in any real sense of the word. Your beliefs do not matter. Doing the right thing does not matter. Doing what you think is a selfliss act is meaninglessness because you had no control over it. It was already going to happen that way.


----------



## schwiftee

Some relevant reading from Pinker with a perspective from from cognitive science (Green & Cohen studies are worth reading)that I believe L2R was alluding to:   

Is Nothing Sacred?

And “morally corrosive” is exactly the term that some critics would apply to the new science of the moral sense. The attempt to dissect our moral intuitions can look like an attempt to debunk them. Evolutionary psychologists seem to want to unmask our noblest motives as ultimately self-interested — to show that our love for children, compassion for the unfortunate and sense of justice are just tactics in a Darwinian struggle to perpetuate our genes. The explanation of how different cultures appeal to different spheres could lead to a spineless relativism, in which we would never have grounds to criticize the practice of another culture, no matter how barbaric, because “we have our kind of morality and they have theirs.” And the whole enterprise seems to be dragging us to an amoral nihilism, in which morality itself would be demoted from a transcendent principle to a figment of our neural circuitry.

Full link: http://http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/magazine/13Psychology-t.html

It's hard to talk about any of this outside of evolution.


----------



## Maya

Tryptamine*Dreamer said:


> There is no selfishness or selfissness
> Everything was set in motion, then quatum  physics came into play. Ever since then everything, including our thoughts (which are controlled by processes we have no control over) have just been completely random or ust what would be expected by quantum physics. Molecules became advanced enough to produce life. With neurons, thought became possible - just random firiing from different stimulation. Brains become more complex, but they are atill nothing but machines that are "us". Decide how we feel, what we think, everything we are. Just a state produced by a complex state of neurotransmitters
> 
> We may think we have beliefs, morals, and principals that we stand up for or that mean something to us, but they mean nothing.  They are completely worthless trash. There is no meaning in anything. We have no control at all. We never have and we never will have any control over our thoughts or actions/ We are just robots without control. We all want to think we have some control over our lives, but our lives don't belong to us. They are not even real in any real sense of the word. Your beliefs do not matter. Doing the right thing does not matter. Doing what you think is a selfliss act is meaninglessness because you had no control over it. It was already going to happen that way.



I respect your opinion on this but I disagree with you as to believing in morals and principals:

Yes humans have a complicated "brain" full of neurotransmitters/chemicals that are connected to how we process information etc. This is why we have a brain right? We use our brain to think and be in charge of ourselves and our emotions. To compare a human to a robot is just not right. Humans have in control of actions. These actions whether positive or negative will have an impact on how the future is going to be set up. Even if most of us think that we have no control of our future, we actually do and this will depend on the decisions each and every one will make. We make our lives and no matter how you look at it or how selfish or selfless you may turn out to be.


----------



## schwiftee

Tryptamine*Dreamer said:


> We may think we have beliefs, morals, and principals that we stand up for or that mean something to us, but they mean nothing.  They are completely worthless trash. There is no meaning in anything. We have no control at all. We never have and we never will have any control over our thoughts or actions/ We are just robots without control. We all want to think we have some control over our lives, but our lives don't belong to us. They are not even real in any real sense of the word. Your beliefs do not matter. Doing the right thing does not matter. Doing what you think is a selfliss act is meaninglessness because you had no control over it. It was already going to happen that way.



I would fall into the category of hard determinism by most standards but I would never go so far to say morals are completely meaningless.  

"A man's character is his fate"

Maybe your reaction should be taken in the context in which the topic was first addressed or the way some contributors have carried on the philosophical bull $hitting in the face of modernity :D


----------



## pmoseman

Emotions are not rewards, they are triggers which lead to actions that are based on logic.
The fact that we feel happy is not selfish. Whether we chose to starve or kill, we are happy with the decision.
The only way we can logically feel good about starvation is by caring about that other living thing.
Any decision could help us further down the road, it could hurt us as well, but that cannot be used to rationalize our decisions.
We can also make decisions we are not happy with and ones which are completely illogical.


----------



## SirCollis

Good day Maya and Tryptamine*Dreamer

I tend to agree with both statements but with a bit of twist

It is true I think that we do not have any control over out thoughts, beliefs and what we stand up for
that we are in fact like robots. 

Personally before I did shrooms I had a certain type of belief, then I took shrooms and that belief changed, What Happen? 
Well the shrooms played around with my neurotransmitters and viola nee belief. just like replacing Microsoft windows for Linux or changing the desktop theme. 
So I think that humans are like robots plus I think once robots become self aware they will also think they make decisions even though the decision they make will be what humans program them to make, and how they feel about those decision will also be how they were programmed to feel about it. 

Where I agree with Maya is that yes humans do have control over our actions, not total control, but quite abit of control in that we can have and intention and do the actions that will bring that intention in reality. 

But then it is weird, because robots would also have intentions, but they will only have the intentions that humans programmed them to have and they would theoretically think it is their own intent and they would then put together all the action to bring it into reality. 

So then maybe we are also just programmed, we like what we like we do what we do and we intent what we intend because we were programmed to. 

To get back to the topic, if we are all programmed then we are neither selfish nor and we not we just following the program.


----------



## pmoseman

Hallucinating that you did something which you did not do ie replace your operating system.
Free will includes serving the machine (human body) because we have not chosen to be alive.
Without that choice being made for us by sporadic abiogenesis, then we could never ask the question.
Whatever the origin we have no choice but to exist.
Struggling to die may not seem like much of a challenge but by natural selection we are the beings which tolerated being with feelings of being happy and this leads all life to naturally be that which preserves and enjoys life the most.
There will always some part of ourselves that struggles with this.
Family bonds ensure we stay alive, warfare as well, and our constant need to destroy and the bliss we feel upon dying all stem from this root of non-compliance, redirected at our parents and self-hate directed toward others in war.
Clearly this gives a strong argument for partial free will. Yes you can choose but all chooses play part in our life and death, so they are not random.
There is no reason behind life and yet knowing this changes nothing. We are capable of free will, but are trapped in an irrelevant universe.


----------



## BlueBull

Wow this topic must be debated about a LOT. I've had this exact same discussion with a close friend once too, lasted about 4 hours in which my opinion was that indeed selfless acts do not exist. Just about every argument heard in this topic was brought up in that discussion too. He tried to come up with examples that were undoubtedly selfless but in every example I could point out a selfish motivation. At the end he had to admit that my point was valid but made the very good remark that selfish motivation is something a lot easier to prove than selfless motivation. In the end I think this is indeed an endless debate which will never be undoubtedly proven or dis-proven. It makes for a very interesting discussion though. My core argument being that if you look at evolution, selfishness makes much more sense than selflessness because the selfish has a better chance to survive. Even if an individual performs an act for the betterment of a group of people and not directly for himself, the betterment of the group is the betterment of the individual so in the end is a selfish act too...


----------



## CoffeeDrinker

This entire topic seems largely semantic/pedantic...i.e. someone said you're being selfish for wanthing to take drugs instead of help your grandmother. Then, while on those same drugs, you defensively start rationalizing why this is just another way for the "man" to keep you down. 

But really, where does the desire to be a good person come from? Is it the basis for humanities survival? 
Is survival selfish? It predates, greatly, any of our own "selves," and is supremely unselfish because it's the only thing separating us from ignorant bliss. Survival continues the suffering, and bringing someone back from the dead would be SUPREMELY selfish, if it were possible.


----------



## junegreenjeans

Oh so curious.  Interesting debate going on here.  Question:  So if a person does something for another, even when they are complete strangers in person, never met, never will, if help is requested in so many words, (between the lines or not)  and then received,  is the giver doing a selfish or selfless act?  Sure , the giver feels good with that 'hope' that it helps;  but other than a warm fuzzy feeling, (which is great) there is nothing else received other than the notion that perhaps, just perhaps  something good came of it.  Does that mean the giver is selfish?


----------



## Foreigner

CoffeeDrinker said:


> But really, where does the desire to be a good person come from? Is it the basis for humanities survival?
> Is survival selfish? It predates, greatly, any of our own "selves," and is supremely unselfish because it's the only thing separating us from ignorant bliss. Survival continues the suffering, and bringing someone back from the dead would be SUPREMELY selfish, if it were possible.



That's an interesting point. Are some people really better off alive?

There will always be people who act and those who don't. When I lived in China, the spectator culture of watching but not interfering was way more prevalent. They call it kan renao 看热闹 which sort of translates as "watching liveliness". People will watch all kinds of calamities without interfering. In some Buddhist traditions, non-interference is the most compassion course. 

In the west we seem obsessed with the parable of the good samaritan in some ways. It's as though a person doesn't have value unless they are proving how good they can be. I think to talk about altruism we first have to decide what is an act of good.

*Let's turn this on its head then.* If someone saving someone's life can be twisted to make it seem like they really did it for selfish purposes, what about ending someone's life? How many of us would feel comfortable with euthanasia or homicide to defend another person? I think the personal sacrifice would be much more evident if someone had to kill someone, since it goes against social ethics.

To me altruism is clearly seen in doing something that you wouldn't necessarily want to do. Saving a baby from being hit by a car is something praise worthy but what about putting down a baby who is so sick that it will surely suffer a wretched death otherwise? 

Altrusim can be seen in mercy, when there is absolutely nothing you can gain by yielding to another person's need.


----------



## ebola?

Props to L2R for changing my opinion on this issue.

ebola


----------



## L2R

We have good chats, bro. 

I see you stole my niketalk avatar. :D


----------



## pmoseman

Makes sense to me.


----------



## the_Owl

you are right... we are all inherently selfish human beings... to a certain extent.... people like Dalai Lama, for example, is a true spiritual and emotional leader of our modern culture... but for the regular people in modern society, most are really selfish people and only care about what they can get, achieve, and accomplish themselves...


----------



## verso

It's a hard thing to do, to truly, honestly and sincerely do something nice for someone, something selfless, without doing it for the feelings of 'wow, that was a nice thing I just did.'

There's this one guy who sits at this one corner in town with a sign, asking for money. I was stopped at the light one time, and I had a few bucks in my pocket that I could have parted with, but I had to really think about why I was doing it, if I was doing it for the right reasons, because I genuinely wanted him to have the money and not because I felt guilty or because I wanted to feel like I had won some karma points.

I came to the conclusion -- before the light turned -- that I actually did want him to have the money, and so I gave it to him, but it took me a minute. It's not that there's necessarily anything wrong with helping someone out and feeling good about it, but, you know, I would like to think that it's possible for one to have more genuine intentions than just, "oh, well, I've got some money I can part with and it will make me feel less guilty about everything I have when there are so many others without"


----------



## TheRapperGoneBad

I do things every day that I don't need to or really gain something from besides the fact that I can take the time to do it when no one else really does.
 That makes me feel kinda good. But is it for me all along idk.


----------



## What 23

^exactly. it makes you feel good.


----------



## L2R

^yes but you don't consider the feels before you act. the feels are just the consequence, and that only takes place IF you have the time to dwell on it. in other words, it is not part of the primary drive to act in the first place. you help someone because you think it is right, or you're bored or you're intuitively predisposed to _OR_ you hope for a reward, or many other things.


----------



## What 23

all things for feel good. Or have feel good in common in some way. Feel good tied to having needs met, and security, for starters. We are social creatures and spend a good portion of our lives being taken care of or taking care. As social animals it would be tied pretty deeply to feel good about helping. Maybe we make sacrifices because of an internalized image of the "greater good", and feel empathy, or have some sense as to the position of another.


----------



## pmoseman

If different choices all make you feel good then you do not select to help someone just to feel good.


----------



## Dr.FeelGoodINC

I have often done things for others without expecting anything in return, and sometimes walk away feeling no better than before I did them. Sometimes I walk away thinking that was a bit of a pain (selfish thought I know). Not sure, but I feel that some hide behind the guise of calling good deeds selfish as a way to excuse themselves from ever having to think about anybody else... not meant as a personal attack in any way or a self-righteous post just a viewpoint.

edit: @ what 23 : good points but I hardly find empathy tied to feeling good... I see what you are getting at though.


----------



## Foreigner

The more you apply mind to altruism, the less it makes sense. The desire to do good is something embodied, and the mind rationalizes it later with its stories about what happened. Another word for good is inherent "rightness", or truth. When you are embodying an experience that feels right, it is said to feel good. 

In another thread ebola? was expressing dissatisfaction with morals and ethics always boiling down to "because it seemed like a good thing to do." If you take mind out of the equation, inherent good exists. That goodness often appears in moments of pure action.

I think we do a lot of things without "self" getting involved. Our entire subconscious is a world without self.


----------



## socko

When I first heard "that there is no such thing as a selfless act," I was kind of taken aback as well. The person I first heard it from (a Buddhist priest) was quit intelligent, so I thought about it. It's bad to be selfish, and I like to think of myself as being at least a little bit altruistic. Maybe the hardest thing about the idea is admitting to oneself that everything one does is selfish on some level. But denying it is hypocritical or self-righteous.

Going back to the original post, the idea that there is no such thing as a selfless act is common in Eastern religion. In both Hindu and Buddhist religions, everything we do is motivated by selfishness. As an example, dose one volunteer or donate at teh local food bank because you are actually overwhelmed by feelings of love and compassion for the poor? Or are you acting out of some vague sense of guilt or trying to be a "better person" or some nagging feeling of responsibility or something similar?


----------



## -=SS=-

Not sure if I've posted in here already, but I had another though on this topic.

I don't think there is such a thing as a selfless act, because implied with "selfless act" is an act that is considered "good". Obviously we're not talking about a selfless act that does harm here, that would be a negligent action. But my main thought is because there is no such thing as a a "good" or "bad" act, or people, that there can essentially not be a selfless act in this regard. Good and bad simply don't exist outside of our human relative thinking.

So in essence, the question is framed wrong and does not require an answer. How can you answer a question that is wrong?


----------



## DubNaut

paramatman - *selflessness *is the attribute of paramatman, where all personality/individuality vanishes

no to me there is no good and bad, those are like you said based on a human relation to standards and preconceived notions of society, morality/ego.

to me it almost relates to a communist - a supply state of being, a basic self supplied for the future that is needed in a community



Foreigner said:


> "watching liveliness". People will watch all kinds of calamities without interfering.



and take nothing from it. likewise they can take part, and take nothing from it.


----------



## pmoseman

Your view is not free of personality and individualism; it is not free of ego or free from morality. The same standards that apply to me also apply to you.


----------

