Is a truely selfless act possible?

[Norsemaiden]

the actor usually has no idea he is benefiting himself, and is surely not taking the action for that reason.

Certainly the actor may have no idea that he is benefitting himself. When someone donates money to starving Africans, for example, they are very likely feeling that they are performing a selfless act - yet of course it is not so because they do get the benefit of feeling they have done something positive. And if they feed their own starving children they have the additional benefit of helping copies of their own genes.

It is insane to deliberately do something that thoroughly disadvantages you and doesn't even give you a positive feeling about what you do. That most likely only ever happens by accident.

 

[hibernal_dream]

Certainly the actor may have no idea that he is benefitting himself. When someone donates money to starving Africans, for example, they are very likely feeling that they are performing a selfless act - yet of course it is not so because they do get the benefit of feeling they have done something positive. And if they feed their own starving children they have the additional benefit of helping copies of their own genes.

I would certainly classify these acts as selfless if the pleasure from donating is incidental to the act, and not the primary reason for doing it, which is to help the starving Africans. The person could have obtained a greater benefit by keeping the money and developing a personal philosophy that foreign peoples should fend for themselves. This is why I said it is crucial to define "selfless".

 

[infoterror]

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

...this isn't a selfless act, per se, as it's ultimately selfish but its ends are not within the self.

 

[Έρεβος]

"Is a selfless act possible?"

This question either crumbles to utter meaninglessness, or is entirely semantic.

Human concepts of love, altruism, and selflessness all must fall within the limits of human nature. Altruism and love are evolved traits which greatly increase the survival rate of a species. The traits revolve around an intinctual incentive: it feels "good" to help others & care for them above yourself. This is the meaning of human selflessness... acting with the conscious motive to benefit another above one-self. It does not mean there is not some deeper reward; that would be entirely irrational and unnatural.

But yeah, in a way, technically speaking, there is no such thing as 100% pure selflessness; but it doesn't make any difference, and is a complete waste of time to give a shit. It is of no use at all to cut off the meaning of words like this from human application. Maybe as a pure concept humans are incapable of selflessness; that completely nullifies any practical use of the term, and is in no way philosophically advancing to point out.

 

[Viremic]

If someone had somehow had all of their positive emotion permanently removed (and were aware and convinced of this), and committed and act to benefit someone else, even though it would cause harm and unhappiness to them self (and were aware and convinced of this as well); would this not be 100% selfless?

Edit: I'm thinking this might not be 100% selfless, as we all probably have a built in instinct that will always make us think about ourselves in the action, even if we know that we can't really benefit. It might be though.

 

[Blowtus]

Probably - but is that possible?

 

[Έρεβος]

If someone had somehow had all of their positive emotion permanently removed (and were aware and convinced of this), and committed and act to benefit someone else, even though it would cause harm and unhappiness to them self (and were aware and convinced of this as well); would this not be 100% selfless?

Robots can do many things.

 

[10293847]

It's not possible.

The unexamined life is truly not worth living. We all really do care about our status amongst the rest of the human race.

There is no such thing as a true nihilist in it's rigid definition. It's all posturing as far as i'm concerned.

 

[Norsemaiden]

It's not possible.

The unexamined life is truly not worth living. We all really do care about our status amongst the rest of the human race.

There is no such thing as a true nihilist in it's rigid definition. It's all posturing as far as i'm concerned.

What is the most appropriate term for someone who realises that, in order to understand reality, values must be decided by the individual (whether by instinct or by intellect) and never adopted as faith - because values don't exist externally and are not universal.
Or are you saying that anyone who claims to hold this view can't really be serious and is merely posturing?

 

[10293847]

Or are you saying that anyone who claims to hold this view can't really be serious and is merely posturing?

That one.

 

[Norsemaiden]

That one.

I'm not posturing, nor are others who have come to the same conclusion - but I suppose if someone can't think this way then it could seem like that from their view. From where do you get your values? How can it be possible that we wouldn't examine values nihilistically , while at the same time living a life that we have examined? Perhaps the posturing is done by those who claim to live a life examined, and yet cannot bear to deconstruct their values. Dare you philosophise with a hammer?

 

[10293847]

I'm not posturing, nor are others who have come to the same conclusion - but I suppose if someone can't think this way then it could seem like that from their view. From where do you get your values? How can it be possible that we wouldn't examine values nihilistically , while at the same time living a life that we have examined? Perhaps the posturing is done by those who claim to live a life examined, and yet cannot bear to deconstruct their values. Dare you philosophise with a hammer?

Nihilistic values? That sounds like a double-negative to me. There are values because we make sense of OUR existence. I emphasize "our" because we live as social beings, where we are judged against our peers, be that our friends, neighbors, and other races, etc.

Maybe the nihilism you mean is that there are not set values. Nothing has value, except for that which we place upon it. I suppose if there were set values, there wouldn't exist much conflict.

But well, that is my opinion. I'm sure there will be many differing opinions here.