Is there such thing as a selfless act?

i think your use of the word 'tangible' is key.

I think it's a big stretch to include something as all encompassing as personal fulfullment as 'selfish gain.' IF you're getting fulfillment by being unselfish -- and this is somehow deemed selfish -- I think you've been debating the issue too long.

There are lots of tangible gains you can get be doing acts that might appear selfless -- contacts/ experience/ cute girl?/ recognition/ power...and that doesn't negate the good of the acts...but there are a slew of people who devote countless hours to causes over which they get none of those things -- and i think those should be considered selfless acts.

 

If its all one then every act is selfish.

 

It's really difficult to have a definitive conclusion, whether certain act is selfless or selfish. Therefore, I try to avoid guessing others' motives, I would just judge any action based on the action itself, and the result it causes. However, it's always easy to say than to do. My subjectivity is always in the way for an absolute fair view.

Honestly, having seen how things were played in Red China before, I came to realize it's very dangerous and unfair to question others' motives all the time. In that case, we really put everything up for the group with power and means and loud voice to spin everything in their needs. I certainly feel that it's been done too much in recent political environment in US as well.

 

Hey Joey, I just wanted to let you know that I found a selfless good deed. I just went down to the park and I let a bee sting me.

What? What good is that gonna do anybody?

Well, it helps the bee look tough in front of his bee friends. The bee is happy and I am definitely not.

Now, you know the bee probably died after he stung you.

Aw, DAMN it!

 

Nothing is has an independent, constant self, even the one.

 

I think that i could get very drunk debating Mr Meowgi.

and i wouldn't have to drink anything...

 

Psychological Egoism - the argument that all acts are motivated by selfish interest

Here is a bad description of the argument that I think is the best criticism of egoism. Basically, it says that it is circular. Some acts may be selfish, but somewhere there has to be a non-selfish origin to the act. For example, if I help someone to make myself feel better, there has to be a basic reason why it made me feel better.

I found this which I thought was clever way of putting it:

 

Parenting is a good example of altruism. Parents often sacrifice for their offspring to no benefit for themselves. Evolutionary theory of this says that is more important to pass on their genes.

Here is a list of altruism in animals that I found on Wikipedia:

 

Of course there are selfless acts. The teacher is being absurd. Her argument about giving up your life for someone else is completely unconvincing. People who are in the military or whatever do not think they are less worthy than the people they are saving. And, sure, Mother Teresa got self fullfiment, but what she had to give up was unbelievable. She had to live a life of poverty and work and gave up many of the good things in life.

 

There is no one answer to the question because it involves value judgements by different individuals and is subject to their own perception, biases and preconceptions. What I perceive to be selfless you may perceive to be egotism. If I perceive that I am being selfless than that is my reality; you know, it's possible that I consider my own selflessness as a weakness, not as an ego stroke. I should be advancing my evolutionary imperative by being the strongest in the group but I keep giving away my advantages to the weaker members.

Am I selfless or a doormat?
(or just a liberal, )

 

Acts should not be judged "selfish" simply because of the presence of egotism - but rather, by the degree of egotism in comparison with the results of the action. There's a tendency to dismiss wholly the "selflessness" of an act just because there is a miniscule, even barely-detectable, degree of selfishness. I guess it comes with the term -- "selfless" implies a total absence of self-interest.

To ask a person to remove totally his/her personal interest is not only unrealistic, but probably impossible.

It's funny - in earlier history, say Hellenic through Roman, there is very little discussion (in the literature, and within my reading) on the motives of acts, but much on the results. This suggests, to me and others, that our propensity to judge actions by their motives is a viewpoint with historicity - and not necessarily a viewpoint that will be maintained. This focus on motivation is a recent (comparatively) development.

 

This thread is bringing back memories of one of my college ethics courses...I am getting headaches.

 

i've been thinking about this while having a beer in the backyard.


the self is what?

we come into the world, we observe, we memorize, we experience. so observation, memory, experience, which create thoughts, all these things make up the self. this is who we are, that is our identity. so to act selflessly would mean to act without all these things that make up the self. and as much as i try to put that in experimintation, I can't do it. see because it's the 'I" at work here and the 'I' is made up of the past. I am the past. and to act selflessly would mean for me to die while I am alive and I can't do that. the death of the ego. the death of the past. that would have to happen, even for just a moment, for there to be a selfless act.

so there would have to be immediate action in the present without a millisecond of time to elapse before acting. that would be a selfless act.


with that said, i don't think i'm close... but i gave it a try.

 

Well if you read our opinions then I suppose you can guess our answers.

Some will say that because the person feels his country is more important than his life, then his choice of serving his country is to fulfill his own beliefs and give himself satisfaction, and thus is a selfish act. Just like people who donate money feel good after their act, it may be contrued as an act of self interest.

However, others will debate the meaning of the word selfish. Is it even relevant whether the motive is selfish or not as long as the outcome is for a greater good? If a person saves anothers life out of accident versus out of intent, how does his act change? Are we to judge the act based on the motive or the act itself?

To define an act itself as a selfish or unselfish one is to give it a human characteristic. An act is not human therefore, to me, seems premmature to define the act itself as selfish or not selfish. Instead we must judge the individual. However, individuals will always act in accordance to their priorities. If they do not act in accordance to their priorities that only means their priorities have changed. In this way, we can always define an act as selfish. However, it is a poor and limiting way to define selfish and unselfish acts. If a person acts with his priorities being of something other then himself, then his act is not selfish.

But then again maybe we are just arguing semantics.