there is no such thing as a selfless act

[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]

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]

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?]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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:

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.

^ 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

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]

^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.

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.

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.