Selfless Acts.

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

Morality likes to pretend that is “innocent” by pronouncing its ideology as consisting “selfless” acts rather theatrically.

My arguement is that “selfless actions” do no exist as everything is surrounded by personal gain and desire.

Example:

A person sacrificing their lives for another is a selfish action because they do so in the hope that they will be remembered after life infamously or because they hope their “moral” perceivement on life will effect people in some way after their own death.

If morality can’t prove it’s ideology as being “selfless”, why should anyone embrace anybody’s morals in a serious manner?

2

comfort is a good enough reason.

i suggest there there are no morals… only comfort.

what are morals but something that tells you how to act otherwise face discomfort.

selfless acts can be percieved as , like you said, the ultimate comfort

3

Comfort is relative. Your arguement can’t go any further by understanding that reality.

4

Morality is not necessarily ideological. I believe morality is organic and natural to people. Set rules of behavior are related to yet different from morality and are called ethics. When morality is claimed to be fixed in value and based on absolute metaphysically existing principles - that is the hallmark of some religions and worldviews only.

Do you believe that ‘selflessness’ either exists or not? I think it is simply a word describing a quality of mind. Do you think that morality and happiness have no relationship at all to each other? Do you think they are in some sort of eternal tug of war?

5

:laughing: what makes you think it needs to go further?

6

I didn’t say it would which is why I said it can’t.

7

Morality is very much ideological.

Prove it.

Rules and ethics might as well be synonymous with the definition of preference.

And when it is created through secular governments it is a expression of collective preference.

I would say that it does not exist.

Another expression of preference.

Happiness is superfluously relative. Another expression of preference.

No. Sociopaths certainly wouldn’t think so.

8

You can not know the motivations of any individual at any given point in time. Assuming an alternate motivation for an action does not verify it.

Or, as you have required of others unsupported suggestions, prove it.

9

I made this thread for people to prove that their “selfless” belief systems have any merit to reality and for them to also prove why obedience from all people to them is such an imperative.

It is people with these beliefs who have somthing to prove in this thread not I and although I cannot know any individual thought at any given point in time that same reality goes for the moralist too beyond myself.

Although I can say that every belief of every individual is one of preference therefore everyone and myself shouldn’t do anything that we don’t feel is necessary for ourselves leaving morality once more as nonsensical with it “selfless” ideologies.

10

There is no truly selfless act, and since we don’t have free will, we’re only slaves to the goals that our instincts set for us. I may help a beggar because I feel bad for him, I feel the way I do and out of a desire to rid myself of that feeling and think that I did something, I help him. Morality is not being selfless, it’s minimizing harm to others, or even helping, as a result of selfishness. If someone feels no pity for a 10 year old that is raped, I think it safe to say that they are in the minority.

11

Agreed.

Debatable.

Possible.

Assumption. Of course if noone knew the 10 year old it would just be another sad sobbing story on the media news channel where after glimpsing the television screen people would go out for a beer like nothing happened at all.

12

Just take the capital “M” and change it to a small “m”.

If you valuate you at least implicitly use the words ‘good’ and ‘bad’. For instance right now you are saying morality is ‘bad’. That is your morality.

Now I don’t understand where you’re coming from. You’re against your own valuations but don’t mind external systems of ethics? You’re confusing me.

Likely, at least in democracies.

Ok. You’re using the word in a binary philosophical sense (denial of metaphysics) rather than a psychological sense which is how many people use it.

Just a psychological definition of the word. I’m not too interested in spending copious amounts of energy fighting a metaphysical sense of the word.

What are you trying to say? Do morality and happiness relate to each other at all or not?

Does “no” mean you do believe there is a relationship between morality and happiness?

13

Are we going to have a sentence structure debate now? :sunglasses:

Actually I am describing genuine morality as not existing much like the absolute rhetorical moral commandments of the bible from a objective fictional god in the sky.

Sure millions of people blindly accept it as actuality but just because they claim that it is doesn’t meaning anything really.

We could call morality a interesting representational claim on existence. But that is all it is. It’s just a relative claim made out of subjective preference.

I am merely describing all subjective perceptions as being relative preferences. It really is not that hard to understand.

All types of governments actually.

Actually I am making my point by both.

What is that supposed to mean? :sunglasses:

No. People can be happy after killing someone in battle which is very amoral in comparison.

Look at previous post.

14

I do not believe there is a “selfless” act in the world. All acts are motivated by personal gain. I hold to an entirely selfish morality.

15

I guess you really aren’t that moral afterall! :laughing: :unamused: I’ll make a amoralist out of you yet.

16

No. You are claiming that morality must be a selfless thing.

I disagree.

It’s very simple. I’m a moral person who recognizes that morality benefits me as much as it does everyone else…and I’m not much concerned with everyone else except in the sense that if one person is the victim of immorality, we are all at risk.

17

My point is that you seem to not be able to imagine personal ethics apart from religiously validated morality. My question is why not? I’ve already determined that you have a value system of your own much as you claim otherwise.

Battle? Maybe. Morality and ethics (however you define them and differentiate them) in application aren’t black and white in my opinion, at least from an external perspective. What about murder for money? Do you think that makes a person happy?

18

Well, you’re right in that there are no truly altruistic actions, but it isn’t quite as direct as in your example.

It’s more like this:

Bob does an “altruistic” action that benefits Dave. Dave thinks, “Hey, I’m going to do that”, and does “altruistic” action that benefits Suzie. Suzie thinks “hey, I’m going to do that”, and then does “altruistic” action that benefits Bob. Though Bob’s action didn’t benefit him directly by getting anything out of Dave, he’s created a positive feedback loop that benefits him (Bob). Bob might not notice this benefit, but because of it he produces more offspring than non-“altruistic” counterpart Jimmy. These offspring are either given Bob’s “altruism” gene (if it’s genetic), or somehow absorb this characteristic in their childhood with Bob, and so the “altruism” spreads. Jimmy’s non-“altruistic” off-spring die out. We are left only with “altruistic” Bob-spawn, which are only dominant because of the benefit that Bob’s original “altruistic” action had, and their “altruistic” actions are really indirectly done because of the benefit that the “altruism” had in the first place. So it’s not altruism.

Gee, this post is made of fail, but I’ll post it anyway for laughs.

19

Wow a riddle! I’m too burnt out after work to get through that one Zeus!.. ](*,)

20

Selfishness vs. Selflessness

This is a great thread and it actually brings up some thoughts I’ve been having for awhile now.

People are selfish first and foremost. We are this way due to one thing–the meaning of life. What is the meaning of life? That’s an easy question. The meaning of life is to survive! This explains why people are selfish first and foremost… A living organism values survival above all other things, such is the will of life itself. All meaning and purpose come from this willpower to live in the face of imminent death! So, it makes sense for people to be selfish, simply because we are living beings. All living beings share survival in common. It is the ultimate truth of life.

Living beings evolved into our present situation today, while never forgetting (or maybe we did forget?) that survival comes before everything. What humans represent is the culmination of untold years of progress through basic living organisms. Cells united and evolved to form tissues, which formed organs, which formed bodies, which formed minds, etc., but why? Why did life evolve? Life changes in order to survive–it must adapt and evolve. If life did not change, then 1) it would not be living and 2) it would not survive. You may ask, “are living and surviving separate concepts?” No, they are not. At the roots of living is surviving, and at the roots of surviving is living. At some point, these two concepts are so intertwined that they are really one form (in my mind at least). Only when a person realizes the meaning of life will the line between living and surviving blur into one unified concept. Understanding the subtleties and secrets of ‘survival’ is more important than ‘life’, because people as living beings ignorantly assume that we have the living part figured out. We don’t… In fact, when we realize that we are ignorant to what living means, we can find answers in what it means to survive.

As the human animal adapted and evolved within the category of species known as ‘mammals’, we evolved to survive (i.e. live) differently than other animals. Within our so-called ‘individual selfs’, we represent a ‘single’ living being. This is an illusion, because the human body is actually comprised of many different living beings. The label ‘single’ is just a categorical/semantic tool that helps us build foundations of knowledge. Anyway, our individual self is selfish, because as individuals, we want to survive first and foremost. Human beings, like all living beings, want to live!

However, being the humans that we are, we have evolved to become social animals. Human beings are fundamentally dependent on other people. Hypothetically, if you were the only living human being on the planet, you would die and the specie known as ‘human beings’ would die. From birth, the single person would die without care. From childhood, the single person would die unable to defend itself. From adulthood, the single person would die from depression/suicide/insanity.

So humans aren’t so “self”-ish after all, because we need other people to live. Humanity exists only within constant relation with other people as social animals. This is where the concept of ‘selflessness’ comes from.

Selfless acts may or may not exist. It’s hard to determine how/what/why they are what they are, if in fact they even exist…

Yet, we have clues and urges toward the concept of ‘selflessness’. What this concept means to me (as I’ve personally defined it) is connection between people. Do I believe selflessness exists? I cannot say for sure, but I have faith that it does. To say that it exists definitively one way or another seems to be a metaphysical leap from my point of view. What even is it in the first place?

When selflessness is conceptualized as ‘connection’, then it makes more sense under the actuality of humanity’s existence as social animals. We need other people, while remaining selfish. Though, our selfishness is not the extent of our own lives, because if it were, then there would be no need for other people. Selfishness cannot exist as an absolute drive for a human being, because it would not accurately reflect the nature of human beings. We seek connection to other individuals. This may seem selfish and it probably is, but where does ‘selflessness’ come from? I view ‘selflessness’ as a leap of faith that other people exist–that there are other people in this world, and I am connected to them.

To me, selflessness is beyond a subjective or objective view of the world. All I know is that I exist as a selfish living being and that other people exist as a selfless living being. I have not yet bridged the gap to a subjective or objective ideology, because ‘other people’ cannot be objects unless I consider myself an object as well. With this metaphysical foundation, objectification of a person is irrelevant and redundant anyway. Selfishness and selflessness are reflections of living and survival…

The problem with saying what is or is not selfless is that humans as individuals see the world through our selfish perspectives. It’s truly hard to say example X is a selfless act. But, let’s get pragmatic/practical and say, “fuck it!” Let’s finish things here…

A man sees a bus coming down the street and a young child balancing on the sidewalk. The child loses his/her balance and begins to fall while the bus is approaching at full speed. The child stumbles out into the street while the man runs up and pushes the child out of the way of the bus with all his strength and speed. The child rolls out of the path of the bus, but the man dies.

You are a bystander that wasn’t paying attention until it happened. You were just a witness. You can say, “blah blah blah he acted out of selfish interests,” now on the ILP boards. But if this event actually happened, how would you truly feel and react? I know how I would react, I would say, “HOLY, FUCKING, SHIT!” I’m going to take a wild stab at it and would say that the action would change you, your thoughts and your actions, because it is an example of selfishness, selflessness, living, and surviving all rolled up into one ball. The simple fact is that there was some kind of connection between the man and the child that speaks louder than any text of philosophy. It goes beyond words and ignorantly reducing the situation to just a degree of selfishness does not speak truly to the enigma of life.