there is no such thing as a selfless act

[Rated E]

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?

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

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]

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?

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.

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

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?

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]

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.