there is no such thing as a selfless act

[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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.