Are There Selfless Acts? (elders, point of view)

[Buttons*]

Originally Posted by zombieharlot

People don't do things unless they get some sort of self-gratification out of it.

is this always true?

is there no such thing as a selfless act?

[ChrisP]

People don't do things unless they get somesort of self-gratification out of it

Ok I was going to go straight to bed until I saw this. I respect there are a shugarload of people out there with this point of view, that life is a giant pleasuredome and it should all be about immediate gratification, particulary in the under 30 age group, but I think as we all grow and grow older, that will change. At least I hope so. I see no evidence among my elders to prove it will.

Among a lot of people with children though, I can see Agape self-evident and perhaps it's only something most people understand once they have progeny. There are some who "get it" well before then, so believe you me it's out there.

There's my answer.

[Sunstone]

As the title of this thread might suggest to some of us, it is often claimed that a certain kind of love, agape, is selfless and that acts committed out of agape are therefore selfless acts. I think there is at least some truth to this.

[Buttons*]

Originally Posted by Sunstone

As the title of this thread might suggest to some of us, it is often claimed that a certain kind of love, agape, is selfless and that acts committed out of agape are therefore selfless acts. I think there is at least some truth to this.

never pay attention to the title of my threads. You should examine what time this was posted LMAO

I shouldn't make threads when i havent had sleep, sorry for any future confusion in here

[PureX]

Originally Posted by Buttons*

is this always true?

is there no such thing as a selfless act?

We are social creatures. What happens to our fellow humans, effects to us, too. So when we express love for others, we feel that love, ourselves. And when we hurt others, we hurt ourselves as well. This is often even more true than we realize.

So in a way, there is no such thing as a "selfless" act.

[zombieharlot]

Originally Posted by PureX

We are social creatures. What happens to our fellow humans, effects to us, too. So when we express love for others, we feel that love, ourselves. And when we hurt others, we hurt ourselves as well. This is often even more true than we realize.

So in a way, there is no such thing as a "selfless" act.

Which is exactly what I mean by my quote in the OP.

[michel]

Originally Posted by Sunstone

As the title of this thread might suggest to some of us, it is often claimed that a certain kind of love, agape, is selfless and that acts committed out of agape are therefore selfless acts. I think there is at least some truth to this.

Phil, I see you keep using the word 'agape'; of course I have heard it many times, but would you please tell me your definition of it ? (we are debating "what is Love", and I don't honestly know the full connotations of the meaning of 'agape'; I am sure I am missing something..

[ChrisP]

I don't know about Phil, but to me it is acting in a way where you are thinking outside of "self" ie there IS NO SELF.

[Fluffy]

A complex question. I cannot prove my answer but I can demonstrate my line of reasoning which I shall do below .

When is something selfish?
First I think we need to outline what components need to be in place for an event to be described as selfish as opposed to selfless:
A motive or intention to be selfish
A potential result of the event must contain some aspect of self-gratification.
The ability to choose between a selfish course and a selfless course

I feel the first is necessary because if a person does an action and it turns out to be hugely beneficial to himself then we cannot deem it selfish. For example, if I give a tramp five pounds and he then wins the lottery and gives me a million, my action cannot be deemed selfish since I could not have known of this beneficial outcome for myself.

The second is obviously key since this is what being selfish is all about. However, note that the term "potential" still means that I can take a selfish course of action without actually receiving any self-gratification. As long as that course of action had the potential of providing me with self-gratification (and it agrees with the other two requirements) then it can be deemed selfish. For example, if I give a tramp 5 pounds in the hope that he wins the lottery and pays me a million pounds, yet this rather inventive plan does not work out and I simply lose 5 pounds does not mean that my action was not selfish.

I feel the third is necessary because occasionally, we are forced to go down the selfish path or the selfless path is severely restricted. For example, a tramp asks me for money and I am unable to give him any because I have no money on me. True I could go home and get some but most would argue that this is an unreasonable expectation and I am not being selfish since I effectively cannot give any money.

Additionally, if an action does not contain all three of these prerequisites, then it must be deemed selfless.

Is every action selfish?
In order to demonstrate this, I would have to show that every action has the above three components and I shall take each in turn.

Well a motive or intention requires some sort of self awareness so that immediatly rules out actions such as volcanoes exploding. If you like, we have limited what can be deemed selfish to those actions caused by beings that are able to think (ie animals).

However does the motive or intention have to be concious? For example, many people go into denial over some actions and so do not conciously accept that their motives or intentions are selfish. Does this mean that their action should not be considered selfish? I would argue that their action should be considered selfish regardless of whether they are concious of this fact or not. As long as some part of their psych realises that the course of action is selfless then it should be considered selfish.

Furthermore, what about byproducts of this action? For example, if my intention in helping someone was to make them feel better and this benefitted me in some way and I conciously or unconciously knew that it would benefit me, should my action be considered selfish? To answer this one, we will assume that there were a variety of factors that led to my decision to help this person. If the factor of "helping them will benefit myself" was the overiding (critical) factor then I could be named selfish. If it was a smaller factor, then I would not be selfish. I will label this premise A.

Now onto the tricky one, that of self-gratification. According the idea of causality, an action must have a reason behind it. For example, if I ask you why you helped those starving children by giving them some food, you might respond that it was because you felt that it was right to do so or because you felt sorry for them or because you had decided that suffering should be eradicated wherever possible. However, I would then respond by asking for the cause of these varying reactions. Eventually, they would all come down to one thing, a desire to take that particular course of action (ie helping the children).

This can be proved quite simply by contradiction.
1) I have no desire to do action X
2) In order to do an action, I must have decided upon doing it
3) I do action X
4) Therefore, I must have decided to do action X
5) However, in order to make a decision, I must have wanted to do one choice over another otherwise I would not have made that decision.
6) Therefore I must desire to do action X

So as we can see, all actions must be caused by a desire to do that action since 1 and 3 cannot be simultaneously true. Therefore, when we take a course of action, we are doing it because of our desire to do so. This is also must be the critical factor behind that action since without (via this argument) we would be unable to take that action. Therefore every action is selfish as long as the premise A is accepted.

However, it does not end there since we now have to look at the third factor. If we have decided that every action is selfish, then that means that no action is selfless. In other words we cannot possibly do a selfless action. Therefore, we are unable to choose a selfless path because one does not exist. However, I stated that in order for an action to be selfish, there must have been a selfless path for one to choose instead of the selfless act since if there were not such a path then we were effectively forced down the selfish path.

Therefore, the conclusion I come to is this: Every action is caused by a desire for self gratification (since otherwise we would be unable to do that action). However, this is not selfishness. In fact, selfishness and selflessness are mere arbitrary distinctions and a man who gives to the poor is no more selfless than a man who steals from the poor. Selfishness and selflessness are not coherent concepts when we have decided that every action is caused by the desire for self gratification and so it is meaningless to use such terms.