• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

there is no such thing as a selfless act

^ 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)
 
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.
 
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
Click to expand...

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
 
Last edited:
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:
..
Click to expand...

Very touching post. I am truly sorry to hear of your losses. <3
 
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Last edited:
^ 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.
 
MyDoorsAreOpen said:
:X 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 :)
Click to expand...

/\ this. Agreed very much and put into words well.
 
wow talk about semantics

no wonder I avoid this forum

L2R said:
^a lot of philosophy is so pointless :\
Click to expand...

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
 
^ Do you have anything to actually contribute to this topic, or are you here to just attack people who want to philosophize?
 
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
 
I've excised the irrelevant discourse from this thread so that we may return to talking about altruism.

Carry on. :)
 
Joeof1 said:
This.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top