I’d suggest that selfless acts are those that benefit the species or society ahead of the individual. The latter case is iffy, IMO, as it could, in certain circumstances, be said to be insurance - ‘one day it might be me’.
As TTT points out, this is a subject where there’s almost a built in trap for a true scotsman: shifting from a claim that actually risks falsification by some theoretical situation, to one that’s true simply by definition, without acknowledging that the truth of the second claim does little to inform the first claim.
Check this out from silkstar’s OP: “If someone volunteers their time helping others is this selfless…or by doing it does it not make the volunteer feel good about themselves…thus sliding into the selfish mode.”
That later part of that requires examining a person’s state of mind: are they are doing something because it makes them feel good, or just because it is good? Gorsnak has the best initial response to that: just because someone also felt good about doing an act doesn’t prove that this good feeling was what motivated the act.
Now, if your response to THAT is “well, but the motivation MUST be because of some value a person gives to, say, a principle” then you are simply saying that the question is true by definition: all acts other than utterly random, thoughtless acts (which can’t be altruistic, since they weren’t actually chosen with any end in mind) are selfish. If that’s true, though, what “selfish” means has to be seriously downgraded to the point where being selfish can sometimes be laudable, if anything is. Which totally defangs any complaint about a person being “selfish.”
We don’t have to agree on any one definition for “selfish,” but you can’t switch to a claim that’s true by definition “that act was selfish” and not acknowledge the difference.
Is suicide a selfless act? You might be killing yourself to alleviate your pain and suffering, so it kind of fits TTT’s #2 although there is obviously no long term benefits.
Some may say it is selfish because the suicider is hurting others, but I don’t buy that one.
So suicide in a sense is neither selfless or selfish.
I remember reading these five human needs in my management class. The had a pyramid looking figure to illustrate their priority. Food, shelter, security etc were three of them. The last one, on the very top was self-actualization, which I believe you’re calling selflessness. The example book used was of Mother Theresa.
Self-actualization is a human need, not necessarily a need for survive and hence not many people possess it. But the point is, it’s as far as you can go in terms of selflessness. Selflessness in fact, in my opinion, is defined at that threshold level and thinking that selflessness would have some absolute definition without even providing emotional wellness of a good deed to the good doer is not not accurate.
This is Maslow’s Hierarchy.
What if you were the single parent of a 3-month old baby ?
Posted by ** Gyan9**
If you were a paedophile, a rapist and very violent you’d be doing the kid a favour, but I don’t think it would be considered a “selfless” act, even if your suicide turns out to be the best thing for child.
Can someone on the edge of committing suicide be a good parent? If they don’t kill themselves they may turn out to be an excellent parent. But if they do, what has the kid missed out on? No one knows.
Selfish and selfless acts are defined and relative to the circumstances in which they are perceived to occur which are a function of the relation of the individuals involved.
Is there such a thing as a truly, totally selfless act?
No.