Is there such a thing as a "selfless" act?

[Aetius]

In most cases, yes. But there are exceptions such as when a soldier throws himself on a grenade to save others.

Is a case for altruism valid, if there are no selfless acts?

[Evariste]

Of course, there's the argument that there are no selfless acts, and that every supposedly altruistic action is only performed out of selfish desires. For example, I may see someone drop their wallet. I pass by them, get their attention, and notify the person of his error. Do I do this out of a desire to help, or would my guilt over not telling him be the main factor here?

[Silver Guard]

Yes, there are such things, but not many, and it's a unique person who finds themselves in that situation
The only truly selfless act I can think of, is an Atheist giving his life for others
Why do I say Atheist? Because with a Christian it can be argued in doing so he knows (or believes) he will reach heaven, therefore it is not entirely selfless
However the Atheist has nothing to look forward to, giving up his only chance in life is truly selfless, especialy if the life he leads is perfectly happy and comfortable.
Beyond that there are few acts that can be called entirely selfless. For example a man goes to Africa in his gap year and helps build a hospital, yes he is helping the africans, but he is also helping his CV and giving himself a boost as he thinks to himself how generous he is, compared to his friends now studying back home.
There are many examples of such acts, and whereas some may view them as selfless, they have selfish reasons as well.

[LoZz]

of course their is, their have been times when ive helped people i dont even know for no other reason then they needed help

[MoROmeTe]

... and because it made you fell good about yourself and as such made you more productive and more capable of enjoying your life which you otherwise, I a no help situation, would have enhoyed less.

So no, there are no selfless acts. There are acts that are more selfish and those that are more on the selfless side of things. But even if I throw myself on a grenade and save a lot of lifes, I do it partly 'cause I have relatives or friends in the crowd, cause I hope that others shall do the same thing for them, 'cause I hope to get recognition and praise after the event, 'cause my brain, in that stressfull situation, cannot properly evalueate the risk of dying vs. the chance for glory. I could find more reasons...

I suspect that most seemingly selfless acts are driven either by the desire of one to feel good with himself or by an evolutionary drive to good to others so that others can to good onto me or those that I hold dear...

[rez]

Considering i just donated some blood an hour or so ago i think posting here is rather appropriate.

I don't believe pure altruism is possible to achieve as a human because it would require 100% of our minds to be focused on the sacrifice. Our heads do not work in such a way, we consider and evaluate hundreds of pro's and con's for every decision. As such we would have a number of positives to count in making any altruistic decision.

However, i do not belive that achieving pure altruism is a neccesarily important task. All that matters is the attempt to reach altruism.

To make a concerted effort to do something good is far more important than anything else in this world

[Silver Guard]

Yes but even as someone thinks about achieving altuistic acts he is essencialy weighing out pros and cons, he'll only commit a close-to-selfless act if the pros outnumber the cons, thus it is in his own interest that he strives towards such selflessness, for afterall, after commiting such an act you feel happy about it, making yourself feel good is selfish, a never ending circle:
Decision to be selfless - act of selflessness - fells good about act - decides top be selfless more often - back to beggining
The third step in that circle shows the selfish drive behind our acts, no matter how selfless we percieve them to be

[rez]

But the entire technicalities are utterly irrelvant when you look at the simple viewpoint.

If one can distinguish between a good act and a bad act, such as whether or not to give blood, the only fact of importance is that the man chose what he believed to be the good path.

Whether or not the sense of fuzzy righteousness is a mitigating factor in the decision does not take away from the fact that the man chose generosity over selfishness.

Thats where the real area of focus should be. Not on how pure the choice is, But the outcome of the choice itself

[Silver Guard]

That's not the point in the thread I isnt it not to discuss whether or not there is such thing as a selfless act? Not to discuss whether or not slefish actions can be good, in that respect there can be no disagreement that they can be.

[rez]

My point leads directly on from the inevitable discussion about the pointlessness of the pursuit of altruism. A very important subject that is inherently linked to the topic at hand.

he'll only commit a close-to-selfless act if the pros outnumber the cons,

I missed this the first time around, this statement isn't quite correct.

I can buy a friend a drink in a club even though im strapped for cash. My friend does not know about my money problems so accepts the drink.

Im put out of pocket when i desperately needed money and soberer for not spending that money on myself. The only gain i get is the temporary gratitude of the friend and a sense of self satisfaction. I also get a sense of complete self depreceation as i realise the idiocy of spending 5 pounds on two shots.

The cons outweigh the pros in this situation yet i made the choice to do it anyway

[Bwaho]

Is there such a thing as a "selfless" act?

short answer: no

But there are exceptions such as when a soldier throws himself on a grenade to save others.

You help others because it makes you feel good. Of course you wont live to see the results of you throwing yourself on the grenade, but the feeling is there to the end.

[Aetius]

Of course you wont live to see the results of you throwing yourself on the grenade, but the feeling is there to the end.

I have to disagree with you right there. The soldier has no time to calculate the benefit or loss to their own person, but does it purely out of a desire to help someone in peril. Sacrificing your life for another is the ultimate selfless act.

[Bwaho]

Sacrificing your life for another is the ultimate selfless act.

The result is that you save someone else's life instead of your own, but the thought behind the action is a selfless one.

[ErikinWest]

I think that altruist acts are very unhelpful. Everyone benefits if people are individually selfish.

Erik

[sephodwyrm]

There are many opponents that say that everyone benefits when everyone is altruistic.

[Da Skinna]

Well, if people do unto others what they'd like to be done unto them, couldn't that be selfish as well as selfless?

The person drops their wallet, I'd like someone to tell me if I had dropped something important like that, so I would run ahead and alert them to it, sure.

[Last_Crusader]

Well, if people do unto others what they'd like to be done unto them, couldn't that be selfish as well as selfless?

The person drops their wallet, I'd like someone to tell me if I had dropped something important like that, so I would run ahead and alert them to it, sure.

I don't think so - that presumes a reciprocal agreement which is being used for personal gain, which is ultimately a selfish act. Some things are greater than the sum of their parts, and selfishness is most definitely one of those.

To be somewhat reductionist about things, any action you can take is essentially a series of 1/0 decisons, whereby one option will lead to something more advantageous, or open circumstances allowing such an action, or vice versa. Overcoming surroundings -and contemporaries- is in the blood for humans. And anyone who does act altruistically overall will face a disadvantage as a result; itis arguable that any true altruism (as, with no alterior motive) will die out of its own accord where resources are in any way scarce. If true altruism does exist, it's a social artefact from an abundance of resources we weren't programmed to deal with.

[Da Skinna]

To be somewhat reductionist about things, any action you can take is essentially a series of 1/0 decisons, whereby one option will lead to something more advantageous, or open circumstances allowing such an action, or vice versa. Overcoming surroundings -and contemporaries- is in the blood for humans. And anyone who does act altruistically overall will face a disadvantage as a result; itis arguable that any true altruism (as, with no alterior motive) will die out of its own accord where resources are in any way scarce. If true altruism does exist, it's a social artefact from an abundance of resources we weren't programmed to deal with.

How true... :tooth:


Maybe it's just my naivete then that people will do things for others because they'd like that same good to be done for them... I make up for it by robbing people.

[Bovril]

The most convincing discussion of this subject, for me, is to be found in evolutionary psychology.
The basic idea is this:
The human brain is structured in such a way (thanks to human genetics) that humans will feel empathy (i.e. feel the emotions that they think other people they care about around them are having). This characteristic is selected for for the following reason. Humans eveolved in small familial groups of only betwen 8 and 15 people. These people would all share a lot of their genetic make up. Now, groups, the members of which acted in altruistic ways, would perform better from an evolutioniary (basically breeding) perspective than groups where alturism was not a feature. The reasons for this is groups displaying empathy would do a whole bunch of basic human tasks such as decision making, looking after the sick, child rearing, organising tasks and hierachies, etc. much better than groups who could not empathise. So they would have an advantage in surviving difficult times, and propogating themselves.

Given that allmost all modern thought acceots the importance of evolutionary theory in describing human physiology and behaviour, I think this account of what 'altruism' is is the best one available to us.

[Manji]

If we go by Kant then there are selfless acts but the majority of actions we believe to be selfless are infact non-selfless at all.
Example: you give money to a beggar on the street. According to Kant, if you give money because you pity the man then it is no longer a selfless act but in fact a way of making yourself feel better ("I helped another person therefore i'm a better person myself).

Giving your life for others, the example of the man who throws himself in front of another to spare his life, can be considered selfless if only because the man gave more meaning to another beings' life than his own.