Someone recently brought to my attention a statement that bothers me so much, there is potential of insanity. He said, “everyone is selfish.” When asked to elaborate he went on, basically saying that anything that someone does is for their personal benefit in some way.
For example, one who gives to the poor or helps out at the soup kitchen is doing it to make themselves feel good. I went over this in my head 101 different ways and it looks like, in a ridiculous sense, he might have been right.
I was wondering if anyone had a scenario that might help ease my mind about this. Or…I maybe I should just get a hobby.
I suppose I do think about the good karma I am creating for myself by doing good deeds. But isn’t that a better philosophy than just railroading over everything in your way and strong-arming your way through life?
We do this once every while in GD. See for example this thread. Hope it helps. Getting a hobby is good, too, if you have time left with the SDMB and all. 
Of course it is, but my concern is not that someone will realize this and decide that it is justifiable grounds to be a selfish asshole. I think that genuinely good people (on all levels) are pretty much naturally who they are. I would just like to know if someone might have a different way of looking at this that would make it false. A statement that proves acts of kindness to be truly unselfish.
Thank you Tusculan, I had no idea that this idea was so “played out.” (you can thank Mtv for the Ebonics lesson.) Sorry people.
Oh, you don’t have to apologize (well, except for posting it in GQ instead of GD ). Lots of subjects reappear on a regular basis. And a second time around there will be different (often newer) posters who react, with different arguments, which may be instructive as well. I just consider it good form to offer a link to an earlier debate for those who are interested.
So go ahead with the debate, if you so desire, though you might ask a mod to move it to GD. Can’t say whether you’ll get much response; how many dopers do you believe are vain enough to think they are wise? So maybe a title change to something more descriptive would help, too.
Wow, you focussing so deeply on the technicalities of my post makes me wonder just how boring it is in the first place, or at least it would have if I had not read the post attatched to your link. You raise a few really good points. Not only should I worry about how many dopers are vain enough to think they are wise, but who am I to think that MY question could be answered only by such a person? Thanks to you, looks like my mind is wandering from this thought after all.
I think my questions have been answered as much as posible after reading silkstar’s thread.
<sneaks into this meeting of sages>
That “feel good buzz” one gets from selfless acts is the reward for such behaviour (though it is often meagre and insufficient compensation in itself).
The greater compensation comes from the fulfilment of the desire to live in world where good deeds are done – in giving selflessly we adequately demonstrate that the world is such a place.
It is sophomoric to conclude that because even apparently selfless people are acting “selfishly” that there is some moral equivalence between selfish and selfless people – selfish people want to take without giving, they wish to reap the benefits of a more giving society without “paying their dues”.
Ultimately, if we all chose to live by a self-serving code of conduct there would be no rewards to reap, it is an untenable lifestyle when practiced en masse – where would you prefer to live?
<disclaimer> I do not consider myself “wise”, and indeed, I’m more often wrong than not. But I just wanted to offer my opinion anyway… read it if you like </disclaimer>
I believed in the same thing before, too, and when I first thought about it, it drove me crazy. Eventually, I came to the conclusion that yes, just about everything I do is selfish in some way or another. For example, let’s say I see a starving boy on the side of the street and give him some food. I do it because I sympathize with his situation and feel sorry for him. However, if I did not feel sorry for him, I would not have done anything. Doesn’t that mean that all I’m really doing is satisfying my own desire to help him? I’m really doing it for me, not him.
I think the only things that I am capable of doing without being selfish are random acts done without concious thought. Anytime I think or feel something, I cannot commit selfless actions because anything I do will be in direct response to my thoughts or feelings, making them the things I’m truly concerned about.
That’s me. I had to accept that I am completely selfish. Fortunately, however, I can live with that due to some other reasons. First, while I know this is how I feel and how I think, I can’t say the same thing applies to other people. Perhaps, somewhere in the world, somebody, somewhere is committing an act that’s entirely selfless. I cannot imagine how this can be possible, but just because I can’t grasp the idea doesn’t mean that somebody else won’t be able to. Thus, it’s really just a blind hope that perhaps somebody out there will be able to do what I cannot.
The other thing is that it doesn’t really MATTER that you do things out of selfishness. As long as both parties benefit, what’s the loss? And if it really bothers you, simply tell the other person something like “I’m doing this only because it makes me feel good” or “I’m doing this only because I care about you, and I’m trying to calm my own worries.” You both still receive benefits, emotional or otherwise, and you don’t have to attribute it to selflessness. It’s simply a mutually beneficial experience.
Well, anyway, I’m sorry to have been so long-winded, and I hope that made some sense.
As suggested by other folks, it’s worth looking at the definitions of ‘selfish’ and ‘selfless.’ Under the normal definitions of those words, there are plenty of selfless acts out there. Under a more strict, philisophical definition of selfish, it’s a more difficult question, but I still think that there are selfless acts.
For example, a couple years ago I was driving through Harlem. A little girl ran in front of my car and I slammed on the brakes avoiding her by 10 or 20 feet. Of course, there were many selfish reasons to hit the brakes, but there was no time to consider any of those issues. In the split second between seeing another human being in front of my car and jamming my foot on the brake pedal, the only thing on my mind was that I didn’t want this person to be hurt.
And I don’t believe that I’m a particularly giving person. It’s just that helping other people – whether instinctive or learned – is a basic human motivation.
Wasn’t there some sci-fi writer many years ago, who said something to that effect, that “everything man does is done in self-interest.” At least that’s what a school-mate told me a quarter of a century ago. Unfortunately, I don’t remember the name of the writer he cited.
In the OP it was stated as a fact that everything anyone did was for selfish reasons. This statement was based off of the premise that there was no example of something a person would do that would not result in a positive physical or emotional feedback. In essence the theory states that whatever reason you thought you were doing an action, you were actually doing it because of whatever good for yourself would come out of it.
I believe this theory to be wrong, at least in certain cases. It is an all too common occurrence for one person to give their life for another, knowing there was no hope of survival. Barring belief of spiritual benefit, such an action cannot fail to be selfless.
Beyond such a clear-cut circumstance, the theory is largely impossible to prove. How can it actually be determined if you are performing an action for the reason you think, or for a side-effect of said action? The clearest way to find out would be to consider the action without the side-effect considered to be the motivation.
Consider an act of charity. The performer of such an act will almost certainly feel good, as a result of having performed an action he/she thought was good. If you remove the pleasurable feeling, it calls into question if the action is still approved of intellectually.
Here is my take on the subject:
A person has an intellectual and subconscious position on how events in the world should be, and how people including him/herself should behave. This person would prefer that his/her behavior as well as others matched such a view, such conformation bringing pleasure and the opposite pain. This is an essential law of thought, as the lack of such a reaction would indicate that the person had views, but did not care in the slightest if they were followed or not.
A person can believe either intellectually or subconsciously that he/she should be selfless in some sort of act. By conforming to their belief such a person would feel pleasure, but how can such pleasure be separated from the cause? Either the person follows their beliefs so they can feel good, or because they are conforming to what they believe they feel good. I believe the latter, but I do not think that such a deep-rooted portion of the psyche can be proven as the same for everyone. This could very well be dependant on the person.
Anyway, I hope that helps somewhat.
Well, slamming the breaks… couldn’t that be the result of effects like, say, conditioning? You might simply have grown used to treating other people nicely and considering them important, even little kids that you do not know.
And even if that were not the case, well, in that split second, you saw the girl, determined that you didn’t want her to be hurt, and then acted to make that happen. Isn’t it your own desire (of her safety) that you’re fulfilling?
There have been documented cases of soldiers throwing themselves on grenades to protect their buddies. Clearly, this is in no way for the benefit of himself. It is purely an altruistic act.
Why not? What if that other person were held in higher regard than life itself? I may give my life for somebody I love or care about because, to me, they are more valuable than my life. Yet I’m still doing it for myself, since in the end it’s because I don’t want them to be hurt. It is what gives me pleasure, even if my own life is the cost. I’m doing it so that they will be okay, which is what I want.
If somebody commits an act of charity that he does not feel good about, that doesn’t immediately mean it’s a selfless act. You can remove the pleasurable feeling and still have other possible factors. What if he was doing it out of guilt? Or because he perceived it as the traditional “right thing to do” (in which case, he would be doing it just to conform to his beliefs)?
Well, I think that conforming to what you believe, regardless of whether you feel good, is itself a motivation. You’re doing it in order to conform to your beliefs. Whether you feel good about it is not relevant, since in this case you would be perfoming the action for a different type of reward – the knowledge that you’re holding on to your beliefs.
Q.E.D., I posted my reply to Phage’s post before I saw yours, but I would like to ask you the same question that I asked him, if that’s okay.
Why do you think surrendering’s one life necessarily equates selflessness? Perhaps life simply wasn’t what that person considered the most valuable, and he was willing to give it up to defend what he DID find more valuable (his buddies’ lives). Isn’t he still doing it to satisfy his own desires?
This is more of a debatable question than a factual one, so I’ll move this thread to GD.
I have edited the title of this thread. Please try to choose more descriptive titles in the future.
bibliophage
moderator GQ
In my opinion, you’re defining the ideas in such a way that an altruistic act is not just beyond human nature; it’s beyond logical reality. Maybe this is what you have in mind, but it’s not clear.
Let me explain. Say I believe that nobody should suffer. If I help someone, I would say the reason is nobody should suffer, but it sounds like you’re saying the reason is I believe nobody should suffer. It seems like a silly distinction, but from what I understand, the first one would be selfless, and the second one would be selfish. Furthermore, for any selfless motivation X, you seem willing to replace it with selfish motivation I believe X. For any selfless act I am doing this to accomplish X, you seem willing to replace it with selfish act I am doing this to conform to my beliefs.
So I would like you to clarify. Are you, in fact, effectively defining selfless acts out of existence?
Yes, that is pretty much exactly what I mean, Achernar. Am I wrong?
I always thought it was beyond human nature (or at least what I knew of it), which is why I believe there are essentially no selfless acts. But you’re saying it’s beyond logical reality, too. Can you explain that? Maybe I’m just hopelessly confused.
Sorry, I knew it was confusing, but I couldn’t think of a better way to say it.
I myself believe that altruism (which I am using interchangably with “selflessness”) does exist. I think I am in the minority, though. (I think this is because people are taught to be cynical about humanity, but maybe that’s just me being cynical. ;)) So I disagree with you. To me, the arguments against altruism never seem to be more solid than “that’s how I feel”.
Anyway, it seems to me that there are at least two ways to go about claiming that altruism doesn’t exist. The first is by saying that it’s conceivable, that it’s physically possible, but that humans just aren’t like that. To me, this seems unlikely; I can think of no possible cognitive activity of which humans are utterly incapable.
The second is by saying that it’s physically and logically impossible. That is, putting committing a selfless act in the same class as moving while standing still. One means of doing this is to define every logical motive as being selfish. If there’s no such thing as a selfless motive, there’s no such thing as an act motivated by selflessness. However, I have yet to hear a means of doing this which I accept.