In that case, selfishness is so broadly defined that the search is meaningless.
I agree, at that level I think the act is actually pre-moral
Selfless acts do happen.
They happen by mothers, not all mothers mind you, but many a mother puts aside her own self interest and comfort for the interest and comfort of her child. She does so when she gets up in the middle of the night to answer her child’s cry. She acts selflessly when she postpones her own dreams and desires for the welfare of her child. She does so when she puts her own life in danger to protect her child.
Perhaps this may be inate or instinct, but does that make it any the less selfless?
-b
In fact, that does make it less selfless (more selfish)
A mother reacting to her own child and thus satisfying her own instinct is definitely acting more selfishly than if she is feeding someone to whom she isn’t biologically attached at 3 AM or whatever.
that being said,
She puts aside her own lower needs temporarily to satisfy a higher need of hers which is to parent her child.
Really, it’s best thought of as a percentage of selfishness, some acts are more selfish than others, but nothing would ever reach that 0% mark.
This would be a whole lot easier to deal with if we could just let go of the moral implications of self service.
“Is there such a thing as a selfless act?”
I sure hope not.
In other words, the person applies their own instinct of survival on behalf of the kid. The kid might have wanted to commit suicide for whatever reason, which then would make your action incompatible with the kid’s wishes.
They key counterargument being made here is that selflessness is defined in terms of morality and not basic instinct.
Of course, the very act of perceiving that others subscribe to the same basic morality itself seems like an esteem-redeeming selfish act.
"Is there such a thing as a selfless act?"
I think the word selfless has to be defined.
Greck said- quote:
Really, it’s best thought of as a percentage of selfishness, some acts are more selfish than others, but nothing would ever reach that 0% mark.
I like this idea- i know when i do something good, i feel good about it. Maybe i had that end in mind when i did it , maybe i would have felt guilty if i hadn’t done it. Whether consiously or subconsiously, the thought of how i might feel about it afterward has probably crossed my mind so in some respect i am fulfilling myself.
But to reach that 0% mark, i suppose you would have to completely disreguard how you might feel about doing the deed. Maybe we could say (amount of satisfaction) divided by (amount of effort put into deed) = percentage of selflessness,- ha ha- or something like that…
Thats the basic idea anyway.
A quick question though: what would mankind be like if nobody ever aquired any fulfillment in helping others?
Even if a person performs an act that makes them sad - say, giving up a child for adoption so that he may have a better life, even though you desperately love him - it’s not truly “selfless”. True, it makes them sad. However, if they kept the child, knowing the child could have it better, wouldn’t they feel like an absolute heel? Wouldn’t they, in fact, feel worse than if they just gave the kid up? Bottom line, people perform the actions that make them feel happy. Some people are made happy by doing things that are deemed “nice”. Some people are made happy by doing things that are deemed “selfish”. We choose to like the former people, for obvious reasons, not the least of which is an inherent survival instinct. Would you choose to hang around with someone who may risk their life for you, or would you choose someone who would push you in front of a bus if it served their interests? We’re more likely to get something from someone we consider “nice” and “selfless”, therefore, we choose to associate with them.
That being said, is there anything wrong with that? Not that I can see. Society rewards those who act to preserve their fellow man, and shuns those who don’t. Seems to have worked so far.
Jeff
Eljeffe wrote:
Even if a person performs an act that makes them sad - say, giving up a child for adoption so that he may have a better life, even though you desperately love him - it’s not truly “selfless”. True, it makes them sad. However, if they kept the child, knowing the child could have it better, wouldn’t they feel like an absolute heel? Wouldn’t they, in fact, feel worse than if they just gave the kid up? Bottom line, people perform the actions that make them feel happy. Some people are made happy by doing things that are deemed “nice”. Some people are made happy by doing things that are deemed “selfish”. We choose to like the former people, for obvious reasons, not the least of which is an inherent survival instinct. Would you choose to hang around with someone who may risk their life for you, or would you choose someone who would push you in front of a bus if it served their interests? We’re more likely to get something from someone we consider “nice” and “selfless”, therefore, we choose to associate with them.
That being said, is there anything wrong with that? Not that I can see. Society rewards those who act to preserve their fellow man, and shuns those who don’t. Seems to have worked so far.
Jeff
I really like that, i agree 100%…
The fact is, there is such a thing, but they are so incredibly rare, as to be almost non-existant. Clearly, if one’s motivation is because it makes him feel good, then it is clearly not selfless. But what if the act doesn’t make one feel good, what if it makes one feel bad. The example of a mother nursing her child at 3AM, while it makes her feel bad, it is still clearly for selfish reasons, as it benefits her child, which is within her instincts, satisfying her own self need. Or perhaps, her motivation might be that she’d feel worse having not taken care of her child, which is often a justification in itself. And while one must not necessarily have time to think it over, that doesn’t mean it isn’t part of the subconscious reasoning for performing the act. But what about a just act for a stranger, that doesn’t leave one feeling good, like giving blood, or giving up a kidney, or a rescue mission, or whatnot. The fact is that in the vast majority of these cases, the motivation is because one is supposed to do the right thing, or because one wants to do the right thing. Acting out of want, is clearly selfish, and acting out of obligation is even worse. So only one possibility remains, to do the right thing because it is the right thing. Not because it is what one is supposed to do, or because it makes one feel good, or because one wants to do it. The problem is plainly that our morality, as humans, is so poorly developed, that we cannot simply do things because they are right, we have to be told they are right and that they are supposed to be done.
So what have we learned? I suppose that no person is able to acheive a truly selfless act, and so only one more morally attuned is able to do so… perhaps God? In fact, I would argue that only God is capable of such a thing. Whether one believes in him or not, this example is the only example in written history of such an act. That God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, so that all who believe in him shall not perish but have everlasting life. Clearly, Jesus’s crucifiction was not pleasant. And even in his dying breath, he asked God to forgive them, for they knew not what they were doing. But why would he die, knowing that so many would hate him. Because he loved them. And don’t let your distorted society tell you what love is. For what is love, my friends, but selflessness. One love.
No, it is impossible to do good, show compassion, help others without helping yourself at the same time.
“As ye sow, so shall ye reap.”
“Don’t ask for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee.”
Love
Leroy
I visit my Mom, even though I hate to do it. She bugs the crap out of me.
She’s not rich, I’m not hoping to cash in on some serious change.
I don’t visit her out of some “guilt” or “obligation”.
I just do it because I know she likes to see me.
Once you find the self and realize it’s made of emptiness then you will be ontologically
self--------less
doing actless acts.
or should that be
selfless
I am rather certain there have been several times in my life where I did something without considering my own welfare. I think that would fit the OP’s use of “selfless” though not the ontological madness Iamthat is selling. 
madness you say, 
Before you can do a selfless act you have to find the self. I think what people really mean is, egoless, which is a tad hard to believe, unless it is very, very spontaneous.
This is a standard philosophical question (try teaching first-grade philosophy at University).
It depends exactly, as Gorsnak and Iamthat pointed out, on the definition.
-
Selfless = without any personal motivation for the act.
In this definition, and assuming that any act needs a driving motivation, it follows from the definition that selfless acts are impossible. (psychological egoism) -
Selfless = without any personal gratification (positive feeling) deriving from the act
In this definition a lot of acts are selfless, such as taking out the garbage, going to your drudgy job, going to the dentist for root canal treatment. I do not believe this is a current definition. Remark that although there is no gratification, the actor is motivated to do it out of objective long-term interest -
Selfless = without deriving an objective material interest
This is, I believe, the common definition of selfless acts. It is quite obvious that an act can be selfless in this sense, regardless whether the actor derives gratification out of it. He must necessarily be motivated to do the act.
The common misunderstanding in saying no selfless acts exist is that people are working with definition 1, and combine it with definition 2 and 3. They postulate that every motivation must derive from an expectance a positive feeling (gratification), and assume that such gratification is an objective (instead of a psychological) material interest. The second assumption is incorrect: there is a significant difference between objective interests and happy feelings. The first assumption is also incorrect: a lot of acts do not give happy feelings.
Usually the response is that definition 2 is amended to include future happy feelings. But that is not the normal definition of selfish/selfless. Gratification is a bonus, the defining characteristic is whether the act leads to objective material benefits or not. Giving money to charity does not give such benefits and therefore is a purely selfless act.
So is giving an explanation of the above is, although my personal gratification in showing off is quite sufficient motivation.
I just sent a check off to the American Heart Association. I am completely ambivalent about doing so. All I know is my bank account now has less money in it. For all I know my donation could pay for some office supplies or Bagel Tuesday. Frankly, I don’t care. I don’t have heart disease and doubt I ever will. If that donation helps some nameless slob, meh.
How’s that for selfless? I gave my precious resources away to possibly save lives and I could give two shits about it.
EGO,
All voluntary action is motivated by emotion.
You made the decision to write the check, you decided upon an amount, you wrote the check, put it in an envelope, mailed it, then wrote about it on a discussion board.
at whatever minimal level, those things don’t happen without some motivation.
so maybe you reaped less reward for your kindness (sucker, you should at least enjoy being a good person ) but the motivation was there as was emotion, so at very least you sent the check to return to a state of emotional equilibrium.