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]

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]

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]

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]

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?