I think I’ve had this discussion quite a few times but it’s always interesting. Of course everyone remembers the Friends episode that it was in too. Basically though I think it’s fairly simple and I’ve never heard an argument that shows that an act can be selfless because of course to mean to do something selfless leads to self-satisfaction like you said.
It’s also made me think of another little scenario: Imagine you and your best friend are in a room together and some guy walks in with a gun and says to you “I’m going to kill one of you, which one’s it gonna be?” Take it from your point of view. According to convention, the morally better thing to do is to say “kill me so that my friend can live” but then your friend has to spend the rest of his life: a) grieving your death and b) aware of the fact that he’s only alive because his best friend died for him. That’s not an existance I’d like to lead - surely you’d feel permanently guilty. For the other guy once you’re dead you’ve got nothing to worry or grieve about. Surely it’s more commendable (and in a way less selfish although you do get a sense of having done the right thing) to say “kill him” and I’ll take the burden of knowing that he’s dead and that he died for me. What do you all think?
It is not possible to be a totally selfless person. Anyone who claims to be is a liar. Feel free to disprove me by giving me all your worldly posessions. Whether one can perform a singular selfless act is slightly more complicated.
I do not believe that an entirely selfless act is possible. Where is the logic, rationality, common sense in performing ANY act which does not benefit you in any way whatsoever. Genetically we are certainly not selfless and if we are programmed to act in such a way to keep our genes alive then our actions will usually result in some sort of benefit for us.
However, my argument does not end there (there’s a surprise.) BEING SELFISH IS NOT WRONG. We’ve already established that being completely selfless is an impossibility and so all of us are selfish at certain times. However, when we use the word selfish, this does not mean doing things that benefit you AT THE COST OF OTHERS ← key phrase. Being selfish means doing things that are for your own good but do not infringe on other people. If it does then your action is wrong.
If you are giving to charity or helping an old lady across the road because it gives you a sense of satisfaction, what is wrong with that? The fact is, money has been given and an old lady has been helped. Would it be better to NOT do these things because you didn’t have the ‘right’ intentions? Certainly not. Charity is Charity whatever the intentions and I’m certain the people receiving the charity are not going to be too fussed about your intentions.
Here’s a quotation to chew on:
I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man nor ask him to live for mine." - John Galt, Atlas Shrugged
Yeah … agreeing with Ben. There’s far too much focus on intention, which I believe is the fault of - you guessed it - religion. If you believe in a God that can see what you’re thinking etc, then fine, panic that you’re only helping an old lady cross the road to feel good about yourself. Otherwise, chill out. You’re doing something good.
And yeah … I think the world’s shitty enough that we should be happy for anything good that happens, motive regardless.
[This message has been edited by nicola (edited 20 January 2002).]
First of all I’m going to have to disagree with Ben…i simply do not believe that human beings r as selfish as u claim them to be. I think it is possible for an act to be committed which might not benefit u in any way shape or form. I think there is a strong urge for us to keep our genes alive, but not neccesarily that we r programmed to keep our genes alive (why r ppl homosexual then if they r programmed to keep their genes alive ?!)
I also think that intention is very important indeed in the judging of whether or not an act is slefless or slefish. Ultimately the only person who truly know whether what they did was a selfish act or a selfless act is the person him/herself (and God !) Its impossible for us to judge that.
Nicola:
Yeah … agreeing with Ben. There’s far too much focus on intention, which I believe is the fault of - you guessed it - religion. If you believe in a God that can see what you’re thinking etc, then fine, panic that you’re only helping an old lady cross the road to feel good about yourself. Otherwise,
chill out. You’re doing something good.
That is a far too simplistic view, I don’t believe any religious person will consciously go out and help an old lady across the road simply so that they can get some brownie points from God. Such acts are usually done because they r the right thing to do.
I would argue that a religious person is more likely to think twice about doing a wrong action simply because he/she would feel a sense of accountability (to God !).
I think here we’re really undermining human beings as a whole and the whole human spirit idea…it is possible to do a selfless act, whether its possible to judge a selfless act is another matter.
i dont think anyone can be completely selfless all the time, but i think it must be possible for people to do totally selfless acts now and then. maybe not everyone is able to but there must be some people out there who are able to do that.
but then again that could just be me not wanting to believe that everyone is always selfish. it is not a very nice truth to have to live with
I’d prefer to say I lean more to the objectivist perspective rather than saying I’m a Rand fan. She seemed like a bit of an old witch to be honest but her writing is superb even if I don’t agree with all of it.
There was a split in Objectivist thought because people considered themselves objectivist (little o) but did not follow all of Rand’s teachings. There is now a split in the community and both sides dislike each other. I’m more of an objectivist than an Objectivist if anything at all but I don’t like to label myself
Atlas Shrugged and The Founainhead are both good philosophical fictional novels.
Back to the selfish/selfless argument… An act such as helping an old lady across the road I think can be selfless. I thought until I read this forum and thought more about it that everything we do is motivated for selfish reasons (agreeing with Ben here that this is not necessarily a bad thing). However, during the split second when you are deciding whether to help the lady or not, do you think “I am going to feel good for doing this”? Occassionaly maybe one does (especially when giving to charity) but in a situation like this, mostly one thinks “does she need help?”. That is what goes through my mind. Any good feelings afterwards are just a bonus.
What a question! My answer would be selfish, but whether in a good or bad way depends on how many lives would be lost or ruined either way - making war or not.
What do you mean? Killing yourself is the only selfless thing you can do? Thats complete b****cks. Think of all the people who miss out on your company! Commiting suicide is a selfish thing to do, because you are not thinking of others in doing it. Unless you are of unstable mind in which you probably don't realise how important your life is to others, or your name is Hitler.
I think we’re trying to fit all situations into two extremes here. An action can never be completely selfish or selfless. People will always have both selfish and selfless motivations to do things.
Also, it is illogical to use the result of an action to determine whether the motivations for it were selfish or selfless. Not even the actor himself consciously knows all the motivations for his action.
Consider the following situation:
A certain village has a rat infestation. One day, a man passes through the village and kills all these annoying creatures. People praise him endlessly and yet the man doesn’t understand why. His motive for the killing spree was simply that he enjoys killing animals and he did not know people were having troubles with the rats.
You can’t possibly call this man selfless just because the result of his actions appears to have originated from a selfless motive.
There are probably similar situations in which an action seemed selfish but the motives, however, were mostly selfless.
“Animal altruism is a myth. Even in the most spectacular cases of selflessness it turns out animals are serving the selfish interests of their own genes – if sometimes being careless with their bodies.”
– Matt Ridley after reading Nicholas Humphrey and George Williams and rejecting Wynne Edwards.
That’s absolute rubbish, the man doesn’t know the meaning of selfish. Selfish implies intention and there is intent of an unselfish act in all animal altruism. That they are rewarded for it and thus their genes propogate is irrelevant.
Well I am a “religious” person and I don’t mean I just go to church, but I read and study my bible diligently. In any case, as I know the bible itself teaches that we are born selfish creatures, and that we have to reprogram ourselves to be unselfish. I don’t agree that I have to run the streets in search of old ladies in order to get points so I can go to heaven or make God not destroy me. Being selfless is just being not selfish, and unlike what others say, selfishness can cause lots of harm. In that you program selfishness to take more control over you, and selfishness is expressed in a broader way. It’s not just the fact that you didn’t share your cookie with your little brother or your stingy with your money. Selfishness can be expressed in cheating against a spouse, at work with a position, or even in thoughts. The point is that once it spreads its roots within a person it begins havok. Now i read the point of that other fellow in which he said if your not selfish then give me all you have. That is the very expression of selfishness in that you want things for yourself for mere satisfaction or gain. Selflessness is to be expressed at all times, but not because its a “shiny star” for you if you do. God makes it clear that what he gives a man is for him to be at peace, and never to squander or desire more of what you recieve. Selflessness should be as natural as the good feelings we as humans share for ourselves if there be any. See if you want to get exaggerated I can say, “don’t breath because your wasting someone elses oxygen”, but thats just way too silly. We must live, and have our lives, but selfishness manifest itself when we step over others to gain some sort of pleasure or satisfaction. We may recieve some sort of pleasure in a selfless act, but that doesn’t mean we desired it or planned it out so it could be that way. For example if someone gave a kiss to someone that other person might blush and feel satisfaction, but not because he selfishly wanted to feel like that, it naturally happened. Now, if that same person went out of his way for the mere pleasure of a kiss then he sought for himself self satisfaction. Thus it was done from mere feelings or impluse and that drives selfishness greatly. Because it’s not given cause It’s my wife or significant other but because I need to satisfy my cravings. There is always a choice, and to say that your just selfish and you can’t do anything about it is taking the lazy way. I mean I try to be as selfless as I can be, and not because I am gonna win a medal, but it enriches life by making it more peaceful and sweet. Being selfish doesn’t give rest because there it is always growing desire more and more. I believe you can be selfless or else this world would literally become more crappier by the minute if everyone just thought being selfish is the way to go.
