-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Are There Selfless Acts?
- Thread starter Buttons*
- Start date
PureX
Veteran Member
We are social creatures. What happens to our fellow humans, effects to us, too. So when we express love for others, we feel that love, ourselves. And when we hurt others, we hurt ourselves as well. This is often even more true than we realize.Buttons* said:
So in a way, there is no such thing as a "selfless" act.
zombieharlot
Some Kind of Strange
PureX said:
Which is exactly what I mean by my quote in the OP.
Sunstone said:
Phil, I see you keep using the word 'agape'; of course I have heard it many times, but would you please tell me your definition of it ? (we are debating "what is Love", and I don't honestly know the full connotations of the meaning of 'agape'; I am sure I am missing something..
Fluffy
A fool
A complex question. I cannot prove my answer but I can demonstrate my line of reasoning which I shall do below 
.
When is something selfish?
First I think we need to outline what components need to be in place for an event to be described as selfish as opposed to selfless:
A motive or intention to be selfish
A potential result of the event must contain some aspect of self-gratification.
The ability to choose between a selfish course and a selfless course
I feel the first is necessary because if a person does an action and it turns out to be hugely beneficial to himself then we cannot deem it selfish. For example, if I give a tramp five pounds and he then wins the lottery and gives me a million, my action cannot be deemed selfish since I could not have known of this beneficial outcome for myself.
The second is obviously key since this is what being selfish is all about. However, note that the term "potential" still means that I can take a selfish course of action without actually receiving any self-gratification. As long as that course of action had the potential of providing me with self-gratification (and it agrees with the other two requirements) then it can be deemed selfish. For example, if I give a tramp 5 pounds in the hope that he wins the lottery and pays me a million pounds, yet this rather inventive plan does not work out and I simply lose 5 pounds does not mean that my action was not selfish.
I feel the third is necessary because occasionally, we are forced to go down the selfish path or the selfless path is severely restricted. For example, a tramp asks me for money and I am unable to give him any because I have no money on me. True I could go home and get some but most would argue that this is an unreasonable expectation and I am not being selfish since I effectively cannot give any money.
Additionally, if an action does not contain all three of these prerequisites, then it must be deemed selfless.
Is every action selfish?
In order to demonstrate this, I would have to show that every action has the above three components and I shall take each in turn.
Well a motive or intention requires some sort of self awareness so that immediatly rules out actions such as volcanoes exploding. If you like, we have limited what can be deemed selfish to those actions caused by beings that are able to think (ie animals).
However does the motive or intention have to be concious? For example, many people go into denial over some actions and so do not conciously accept that their motives or intentions are selfish. Does this mean that their action should not be considered selfish? I would argue that their action should be considered selfish regardless of whether they are concious of this fact or not. As long as some part of their psych realises that the course of action is selfless then it should be considered selfish.
Furthermore, what about byproducts of this action? For example, if my intention in helping someone was to make them feel better and this benefitted me in some way and I conciously or unconciously knew that it would benefit me, should my action be considered selfish? To answer this one, we will assume that there were a variety of factors that led to my decision to help this person. If the factor of "helping them will benefit myself" was the overiding (critical) factor then I could be named selfish. If it was a smaller factor, then I would not be selfish. I will label this premise A.
Now onto the tricky one, that of self-gratification. According the idea of causality, an action must have a reason behind it. For example, if I ask you why you helped those starving children by giving them some food, you might respond that it was because you felt that it was right to do so or because you felt sorry for them or because you had decided that suffering should be eradicated wherever possible. However, I would then respond by asking for the cause of these varying reactions. Eventually, they would all come down to one thing, a desire to take that particular course of action (ie helping the children).
This can be proved quite simply by contradiction.
1) I have no desire to do action X
2) In order to do an action, I must have decided upon doing it
3) I do action X
4) Therefore, I must have decided to do action X
5) However, in order to make a decision, I must have wanted to do one choice over another otherwise I would not have made that decision.
6) Therefore I must desire to do action X
So as we can see, all actions must be caused by a desire to do that action since 1 and 3 cannot be simultaneously true. Therefore, when we take a course of action, we are doing it because of our desire to do so. This is also must be the critical factor behind that action since without (via this argument) we would be unable to take that action. Therefore every action is selfish as long as the premise A is accepted.
However, it does not end there since we now have to look at the third factor. If we have decided that every action is selfish, then that means that no action is selfless. In other words we cannot possibly do a selfless action. Therefore, we are unable to choose a selfless path because one does not exist. However, I stated that in order for an action to be selfish, there must have been a selfless path for one to choose instead of the selfless act since if there were not such a path then we were effectively forced down the selfish path.
Therefore, the conclusion I come to is this: Every action is caused by a desire for self gratification (since otherwise we would be unable to do that action). However, this is not selfishness. In fact, selfishness and selflessness are mere arbitrary distinctions and a man who gives to the poor is no more selfless than a man who steals from the poor. Selfishness and selflessness are not coherent concepts when we have decided that every action is caused by the desire for self gratification and so it is meaningless to use such terms.
.When is something selfish?
First I think we need to outline what components need to be in place for an event to be described as selfish as opposed to selfless:
A motive or intention to be selfish
A potential result of the event must contain some aspect of self-gratification.
The ability to choose between a selfish course and a selfless course
I feel the first is necessary because if a person does an action and it turns out to be hugely beneficial to himself then we cannot deem it selfish. For example, if I give a tramp five pounds and he then wins the lottery and gives me a million, my action cannot be deemed selfish since I could not have known of this beneficial outcome for myself.
The second is obviously key since this is what being selfish is all about. However, note that the term "potential" still means that I can take a selfish course of action without actually receiving any self-gratification. As long as that course of action had the potential of providing me with self-gratification (and it agrees with the other two requirements) then it can be deemed selfish. For example, if I give a tramp 5 pounds in the hope that he wins the lottery and pays me a million pounds, yet this rather inventive plan does not work out and I simply lose 5 pounds does not mean that my action was not selfish.
I feel the third is necessary because occasionally, we are forced to go down the selfish path or the selfless path is severely restricted. For example, a tramp asks me for money and I am unable to give him any because I have no money on me. True I could go home and get some but most would argue that this is an unreasonable expectation and I am not being selfish since I effectively cannot give any money.
Additionally, if an action does not contain all three of these prerequisites, then it must be deemed selfless.
Is every action selfish?
In order to demonstrate this, I would have to show that every action has the above three components and I shall take each in turn.
Well a motive or intention requires some sort of self awareness so that immediatly rules out actions such as volcanoes exploding. If you like, we have limited what can be deemed selfish to those actions caused by beings that are able to think (ie animals).
However does the motive or intention have to be concious? For example, many people go into denial over some actions and so do not conciously accept that their motives or intentions are selfish. Does this mean that their action should not be considered selfish? I would argue that their action should be considered selfish regardless of whether they are concious of this fact or not. As long as some part of their psych realises that the course of action is selfless then it should be considered selfish.
Furthermore, what about byproducts of this action? For example, if my intention in helping someone was to make them feel better and this benefitted me in some way and I conciously or unconciously knew that it would benefit me, should my action be considered selfish? To answer this one, we will assume that there were a variety of factors that led to my decision to help this person. If the factor of "helping them will benefit myself" was the overiding (critical) factor then I could be named selfish. If it was a smaller factor, then I would not be selfish. I will label this premise A.
Now onto the tricky one, that of self-gratification. According the idea of causality, an action must have a reason behind it. For example, if I ask you why you helped those starving children by giving them some food, you might respond that it was because you felt that it was right to do so or because you felt sorry for them or because you had decided that suffering should be eradicated wherever possible. However, I would then respond by asking for the cause of these varying reactions. Eventually, they would all come down to one thing, a desire to take that particular course of action (ie helping the children).
This can be proved quite simply by contradiction.
1) I have no desire to do action X
2) In order to do an action, I must have decided upon doing it
3) I do action X
4) Therefore, I must have decided to do action X
5) However, in order to make a decision, I must have wanted to do one choice over another otherwise I would not have made that decision.
6) Therefore I must desire to do action X
So as we can see, all actions must be caused by a desire to do that action since 1 and 3 cannot be simultaneously true. Therefore, when we take a course of action, we are doing it because of our desire to do so. This is also must be the critical factor behind that action since without (via this argument) we would be unable to take that action. Therefore every action is selfish as long as the premise A is accepted.
However, it does not end there since we now have to look at the third factor. If we have decided that every action is selfish, then that means that no action is selfless. In other words we cannot possibly do a selfless action. Therefore, we are unable to choose a selfless path because one does not exist. However, I stated that in order for an action to be selfish, there must have been a selfless path for one to choose instead of the selfless act since if there were not such a path then we were effectively forced down the selfish path.
Therefore, the conclusion I come to is this: Every action is caused by a desire for self gratification (since otherwise we would be unable to do that action). However, this is not selfishness. In fact, selfishness and selflessness are mere arbitrary distinctions and a man who gives to the poor is no more selfless than a man who steals from the poor. Selfishness and selflessness are not coherent concepts when we have decided that every action is caused by the desire for self gratification and so it is meaningless to use such terms.
EnhancedSpirit
High Priestess
Well, sort of. When you love someone, the gift is in the giving. So, it's not really a 'selfless' act, because you do get something out of it, even if it's unconditional, and you have no expectations of that person, you still get something out of loving them.Buttons* said:
Unfortunately, most of us love conditionally. And when our love is conditional, then it is for self gratification, and not just for the sake of love.
"Love is very patient and kind, never jealous or envious,
never boastful or proud, never haughty or selfish or rude.
Love does not demand its own way. It is not irritable or touchy.
It does not hold grudges and will hardly even notice when others do it wrong.
It is never glad about injustice, but rejoices whenever truth wins out.
If you love someone you will be loyal to them no matter what the cost.
You will always believe in them, always expect the best of them,
and always stand your ground in defending them."
I Corinthians 13:4-7
never boastful or proud, never haughty or selfish or rude.
Love does not demand its own way. It is not irritable or touchy.
It does not hold grudges and will hardly even notice when others do it wrong.
It is never glad about injustice, but rejoices whenever truth wins out.
If you love someone you will be loyal to them no matter what the cost.
You will always believe in them, always expect the best of them,
and always stand your ground in defending them."
I Corinthians 13:4-7
ChrisP said:
Self ?.......ah, yes, I remember.:biglaugh:
Not much self here; I live because others want me to. I try to make people at home happy. I try to make sure that there is enough money for their needs. I dress the way my wife and son tell me to dress, because I have no 'dress sense'.
In the evening, I watch the programmes my wife chooses.........oh, she asks me if there is something I would like to see; when I have said "yes" and I have chosen it, I feel such guilt, and can't enjoy it.
I love to sing; I must not (because I might offend and bother our neighbours )- I annoy those around me, and am told so whenever I forget- an d have a sing.
The only thing I do, for me, is come here, on the forum; believe me, that is not a popular choice on my behalf.
michel said:
The ancient Greeks distinquished between several kinds of love, the main ones being, Eros, or erotic love, Philos, or most kinds of love, and Agape, or selfless, mystical, altruistic love. Today, we tend to lump all these kinds of love together, which might in part explain why therapy is a booming business.
Melody
Well-Known Member
Yes there are selfless acts. The person who runs into a burning building to save a complete stranger...or jumps into a frozen river to rescue a drowning stranger. I doubt it enters their head when they do it that they're going to get their 5 minutes of fame out of it. It's a selfless act. They see someone in need and meet that need with nothing in it for them.
Whether one agrees with the notion there are purely selfless acts or not, I think it is commonly agreed to by most people that some acts are significantly more selfless than others.
For instance, suppose an older person gives a no strings attached gift to a younger person. While it is true enough that the older person might be deriving personal satisfaction from helping out someone younger than him, or personal satisfaction from giving back to his community some of the things he feels he has received from others over the years, it is also true that a no strings gift is a fairly selfless act, especially when compared to gifts with strings attached.
So, if we demand that gifts be completely selfless in every way, are we not setting a impractical, naive and even juvenile standard for gift giving?
For instance, suppose an older person gives a no strings attached gift to a younger person. While it is true enough that the older person might be deriving personal satisfaction from helping out someone younger than him, or personal satisfaction from giving back to his community some of the things he feels he has received from others over the years, it is also true that a no strings gift is a fairly selfless act, especially when compared to gifts with strings attached.
So, if we demand that gifts be completely selfless in every way, are we not setting a impractical, naive and even juvenile standard for gift giving?
standing_on_one_foot
Well-Known Member
So...what we're saying here is that, essentially, no one acts without some sort of motivation? That the existence of a self in the process rules out selflessness (technically true, I suppose)? Only if you take the concept to such an extreme that it's worthless.