Is their no such thing as a unselfish act??

Written by: brodieman_X

---

I had a debate a few weeks ago, a friend of mine believes their is no such thing as a unselfish act,
So i said what about someone who devotes their life to others ie children in a third world country... his responce was that they recieve self gratification so the act is selfish.
So if you do a nice thing are you just doing it for your self hmmmmm i dont like this one what does everyone else think??

---

I've got a degree in philosophy and this question is one that I thought about a fair bit at the time.

I'd say that if you want to answer it, the first thing is to work out what is meant by a 'unselfish' act ie define it; the rest will then fall into place.

Your friend is coming at it from the angle that whatever you do is done for a reason- even if you're helping out someone else and putting yourself at risk, unltimately you're choosing to do it, so you must want to do it, you must have an agenda; therefore it's selfish.

This would mean that all acts are indeed selfish.

However, though this makes sense, I'm inclined to question it.

Firstly on the grounds that philosophy is rife with examples of a well functioning everday concept/word, which are taken, analysed in some obscure direction, and end up being unusable.

I would suggest that this is what has happened here- we have a word 'selfish' that we know how to use i.e. we can usually tell a selfish individual from an unselfish one; then along comes your friend, and suddenly the word applies equally to everyone and is therefore rendered useless.

Secondly, we can question the definition of 'selfish' that your friend appears to be using i.e. defining a selfish act as one that provides 'self gratification'.

However, I'd want to say that that is just one aspect of what we mean by selfish, surely another equally important aspect is that it is an act that benefits others?

So if we take two individuals: -

a) is a person who lives their life primarily trying to get what they want, regardless of who they have to trample over to get those things

b) is a person who helps others, maybe out of a sense of duty, or maybe just because they love helping others

Your friend is picking up on the fact that both individuals are acting in accord with their natures and getting benefit out of their acts- concluding that both are selfish.

However, to me, and I suspect to you- the two are clearly different, and we'd say that a is selfish (because they trample over others) and b is unselfish (because they respect and help others).

Like I say, that's just a first draft attempt- I'm sure that your friend can come up with a clever answer to it

I'd suggest that it would be of more benefit for them to reflect on why they find their view so appealing, what is it in themselves that makes them want to believe that everyone is selfish.

By doing that they are stepping out of the field of philosophy/debate of a topic that can go futiley round and round in circles for ever; and into the field of self understanding and transformation.

Written by: Firepoise

---

We're all selfish, and the people who aren't (unfortunately) are the ones who get walked over.

---

Just briefly point out that the fact that 'we're all selfish', is logically incompatible with the existence of 'people who aren't (selfish)'

Sorry (I'm still in 'philosophy mode' )

Written by:

---

selfish

\Self"ish\, a. 1. Caring supremely or unduly for one's self; regarding one's own comfort, advantage, etc., in disregard, or at the expense, of those of others.

They judge of things according to their own private appetites and selfish passions. --Cudworth.

In that throng of selfish hearts untrue. --Keble.

2. (Ethics) Believing or teaching that the chief motives of human action are derived from love of self.

Hobbes and the selfish school of philosophers. --Fleming.

---

Written by:

---

self·less
.
Having, exhibiting, or motivated by no concern for oneself; unselfish: “Volunteers need both selfish and selfless motives to sustain their interest” (Natalie de Combray).

selfless

\Self"less\, a. Having no regard to self; unselfish.

Lo now, what hearts have men! they never mount As high as woman in her selfless mood. --Tennyson.

selfless

adj : showing unselfish concern for the welfare of others [syn: altruistic] [ant: egoistic]

---

Written by:

---

There is nothing wrong with an action for another 'that makes you happy too' - but taking pleasure in your good deed, by definition, is selfish, because it shows that your agenda for doing that 'good deed' in the first place was to take pleasure (try to distance yourself from the idea that to be selfish is 'wrong').

---

Written by:

---

I help you, now I feel good. Did I know i'd feel good before I helped you? Did it influence my decision to help you. If I knew it wouldnt feel good to help you, would I have done it anyway?

---

Written by: Firepoise

---

For a philosopher, Dave, I think you've really over-simplified the argument with your two examples

---

just briefly,

After many years and a degree of studying philosophy, I came to the conclusion that the very essence of finding truth was to simplify.

So many arguments that have been going round and round for centuries do so because of an insistence on seeing complexity as the mark of good philosophy.

Define the terms properly (so you know what you're talking about) then simplify- there's not a problem in philosophy that won't dissolve instantly when you do that

Written by: Firepoise

---

Lol... the only problem with philosophy is that it can, occasionally, detract from drinking time (tis hard to do both at the same time, and hugging while thinking (or drinking) is just wrong)

---

Hard to do both?? I find they go hand in hand. A little wine goes a long way to help loosen the mind from the routine thinking one has to do to survive a day. A LOT of wine on the other hand...

OWD, I fully agree man. I took a philosophy of mind course this year and I was blown away at how silly some of the theories were. I find the mark of "good" philosophy is not only complexity but the attempt to compartmentalize all that which cannot be strictly defined (or at least that which exists on a continuum).

Back on topic, I agree largely with ado-p's chicken and egg thang. I can definitely following the argument that there is no such thing a selfless act because we're just doing what we know will make us "feel good inside"; thus, it's a benefit to us and not selfless. The tricky bit is that, as Dom says, we've been made for that to make us feel good, so you get the whole problem of which came first.

It's funny that people talk about original sin, as though people were perfect up until that point and sin tainted everything. Given the nature of evolution, sin would be expected, and "original altruism" would have tainted everything for the better.

Written by: Paddy

---

Curious, Lightning...I can defintely see how that might be considered the *most* selfless act, but the *only* one? Why would you discount similar kind actions?

---