Is a truely selfless act possible?

[NinjaGeek]

Is it possible for a person to purposely commit a selfless act where in which there is absolutely 0 gain for themselves?

Not trying to say humanity is evil or something, just that people elevate so called giving and selfless people when they're not truly selfless. Everything you purposely do is for a reason, and we only do it for reasons that benefit us.

Keep in mind possible reasons for doing things can include.
-It makes you feel like a better person.
-It makes you feel morally superior to others.
-You would feel guilty if you didn't do something.

Every time you help someone even if you gain nothing in the material world you always feel some kind of sense of accomplishment, or at least think you will even if you end up regretting it later. Even if you die from said selfless act, I would bet that either, you hold on to some belief of a better life in the afterworld, you don't view death negatively, or you would hate your life after if you didn't do it.

I'm sure someone will be able to come up with something, but my point is that truly selfless acts are rarely if never seen. And when you act "selflessly" by giving someone something you're being a presumptuous asshole by assuming they're materialistic and selfish. Sometimes (often in relationships) the selfless thing can actually be hurtful if you give them a lot of things and they are unable to give as much back they may feel like shit because of it, while you feel better about yourself.

Think about how people feel not how society tells you everyone should feel.

 

[StocktontoMalone]

Is this Sho Kosugi, or Tadashi Yamashita?

 

[Seditious]

this needed its own thread?

 

[NinjaGeek]

Sorry never posted on this board before I thought this was a pretty good philosophical question, I didn't realize that they had to be these huge life bending questions.

 

[Blowtus]

I think it's an interesting enough question, you can find some pretty recent discussion along similar lines here -
http://www.ultimatemetal.com/forum/philosopher/307726-mans-innate-humanity-worthy-respect.html
http://www.ultimatemetal.com/forum/philosopher/309311-does-matter-if-altruism-natural.html

Politeness isn't always high on the to do list in this forum

 

[Seditious]

Politeness isn't always high on the to do list in this forum

yea, Ninja bro all I was really getting at was there are very recent existing threads on the subject with that general premise addressed, better to continue on from there than pave the old ground anew

 

[infoterror]

No; exception: enlightened solipsism which recognizes self as beneficiary of the world.

 

[Blowtus]

So basically, you mean 'yes'...

 

[infoterror]

I mean No.

Exceptions are category overlaps.

 

[Blowtus]

"Is it possible to hammer a nail into floorboards?"

"No, except in the case where you apply sufficient force to the head of the nail to penetrate the wood."

 

[Seditious]

"Is it possible to hammer a nail into floorboards?"

"No, except in the case where you apply sufficient force to the head of the nail to penetrate the wood."

 

[Norsemaiden]

There are some things that might not yet have been said on this.

By the definition given, a truly selfless act is not possible, except when someone inadvertently does something to benefit some living thing. Sometimes the thing they did has neutral effect on the person acting, and so they have not really lost anything themselves from the act, but there are also numerous incidences where a person inadvertently acts in such a way as to disadvantage themselves without any accompanying benefit to themselves, not even a feeling of being a good person.

For example: A man does not compare prices or check out the fuel consumption on his new car and ends up paying unnecessarily much for a car that also pollutes the environment excessively - and he could have bought a car he liked just as much that didn't do this. But the man he bought the car from was made rich by his corrupt business.

Someone falls over, breaking his leg, and inadvertently distracts a stranger who luckily then avoids the fatal accident that he (the stranger) would have had if he had not been distracted just at that moment.

Deliberate selflessness actually amounts to an oxymoron.

 

[hibernal_dream]

As long as we have the power of intellectual reason, we have the power to choose not be influenced by the desires of the sensual world.

Of course, a definition of "selfless" which excludes making oneself happy excludes most actions capable of being "selfless" in the more reasonable sense - actually directly benefiting the actor, rather than indirectly benefiting him as a consequence of a benefit to someone else.

 

[Valerie]

What if someone is walking along and sees another person about to step in the way of a car, and pulls them out of the way? Keep in mind that this would probably happen in only a couple of seconds, without the time for a person to think "How would this benefit me? If I save this person, will I feel better?"

I suppose you could say that it's instinctual. Does that count as selfless?

 

[Seditious]

What if someone is walking along and sees another person about to step in the way of a car, and pulls them out of the way? Keep in mind that this would probably happen in only a couple of seconds, without the time for a person to think "How would this benefit me? If I save this person, will I feel better?"

I suppose you could say that it's instinctual. Does that count as selfless?

you wouldn't feel bad about yourself if you could have effortlessly saved someone from crippling injury and instead just watched? Do you really need a lot of time to figure out the answer to this? If you do, then I'm skeptical that you'd actually have that 'instinct' if it happened, in other words, I doubt you'd make any move in any situation if you didn't see any self-interest involved.

 

[Valerie]

you wouldn't feel bad about yourself if you could have effortlessly saved someone from crippling injury and instead just watched? Do you really need a lot of time to figure out the answer to this? If you do, then I'm skeptical that you'd actually have that 'instinct' if it happened, in other words, I doubt you'd make any move in any situation if you didn't see any self-interest involved.

Some people might feel indifferent about not being able to save someone, but you have a point. But for the few people who would save a person, couldn't that decision (at the exact moment and possibly split-second that it's decided) result from genuine concern?

Or is genuine concern not considered selfless, seeing as how you can put "I" in front of something such as "I don't want this person to get hurt"?

I think those split-second decisions to help someone, with no forethought involved, and obviously no immediate benefit to the person committing the act, is the closest you can get to a truely selfless act.

Then again, the definition of selfless is just too simple. "Little or no concern for oneself". So, I guess now that I think more, I fail to see how an act to help someone, committed by someone with no desire for reward or acknowledgement, can't be considered truely selfless.

*sigh* I also think my mind is beginning to run around in circles, reaching conclusions that I've already thought of and tried to make sense of. I hope this post makes sense.

 

[hibernal_dream]

Perhaps an equally valid question is "Is a truly selfish act possible?". If we act out of instinct and not by choice, then our acts can neither be selfless nor selfish. I think it is important to first develop a consensus whether it is possible to use our intellect to overcome instinct - we need to answer this in order to discuss LadyValerie's question, and I am unsure what Seditious' stance is on this point.

Then we can ask: If it is possible to use our intellect in this way, then why cannot we apply it towards actions that are not favourable to our own self-interest?

 

[Seditious]

Some people might feel indifferent about not being able to save someone, but you have a point. But for the few people who would save a person, couldn't that decision (at the exact moment and possibly split-second that it's decided) result from genuine concern?

Or is genuine concern not considered selfless, seeing as how you can put "I" in front of something such as "I don't want this person to get hurt"?

if you're genuinely concerned about a person being hit by a car, or a piece of pizza falling on the carpet, then it's like I said, you wouldn't be indifferent to it being hit or ending up too furry to eat and staining the carpet... you already see a subjective emotional cost for allowing the action to occur.

I think those split-second decisions to help someone, with no forethought involved, and obviously no immediate benefit to the person committing the act, is the closest you can get to a truely selfless act.

and while I catch my slice from a devastating fall, so fast that I can't possibly have forethought it at the time it fell, chances are I've already established such thoughts as beliefs and am able to act so fast because I already know what is in my interest to do---I don't so quickly grasp for my debit card when I drop it, and it's obviously not because I don't have any ability to catch falling things quicker than I can think about it at the time, it's because I've already formed the belief which will determine my action... if I thought it would shatter on impact I would be as concerned as I am with the slice of pizza, or person I like in front of a car. only when I know my own interests are at stake will I even try to react like that.

 

[Norsemaiden]

Yes, good answer.

In response to hibernal_dream:
One of the reasons that acts such as throwing oneself in the way of a bus in an attempt to push someone else out of the way can happen (although people generally don't sacrifice themselves under the circumstances) is genetic interests. This is an instinct that can accidentally lead to a decision that is not genetically beneficial, but generally it should be beneficial.

A man may save a young female of his tribe because females are more biologically valuable to a the tribe than males are. Even a younger man may be considered worth more. It makes a lot less sense for him to risk himself to save an old person or someone who is less related and thus more of a competitor. However he may save someone very unrelated or old for other reasons than genetic reasons. Something else he values or likes about them, or concern for how he would be treated if he did not save them would be examples.
In all these scenarios the person is still acting selfishly.
Even if in saving someone the individual loses their chance to reproduce, they are protecting copies of their genes in another body and also acting in accordance with an altruistic programming which has evolved to further copies of these genes.

If someone is crazy enough to knowingly kill themselves to save an animal this is very likely to be selfless, but not if they think they may survive the rescue attempt. (Because then they get a positive feeling from it, even though their behaviour was not in their genetic interest at all).

 

[hibernal_dream]

I still think you're confusing cause and effect. What makes one make the choice to save an animal in a very dangerous situation is very likely to be a genuine care for its welfare. The risk of death would not be weighed up favourably in a rational thinking person if they took the action for the pleasure of having saved a lifeform.

The more I think about it, the more I realise these practical scenarios are meaningless without considering the state of mind of the actor. A crazy person might throw himself off a building to relieve depression, but another more rational person might consider that no benefit derives from that because depression can be cured and enduring it is not worse than suicide. This is why i doubt these genetic benefits - the actor usually has no idea he is benefiting himself, and is surely not taking the action for that reason.