Is there truly such a thing as a selfless act?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I believe people can and do make selfless decisions all the time, but if you analyze everything from the point of a rational/logical mind, as Sklansky does, then such a thing isn't possible.

Selfless decisions to me are where you put aside your wants for the benefit of others. This can be as simple as being polite to someone you dislike, even though you'd rather make him feel like crap and would suffer no consequences if you did so. Or getting your girlfriend off even though you'd rather just fall asleep. Understanding and considering the feelings of others, and making a conscious choice to act differently for their benefit, even though it causes you distress, discomfort, cognitive dissonance, or annoyance, is a purely selfless act IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

But wait. I DO most of those things. In fact I do one of those things quite a bit. So where exactly do you think we disagree? Maybe it is that don't fool myself into thinking that the reason I do those things is anything other than the fact that for one reason or another, I am getting some sort of satisfaction, that more than makes up for the discomfort.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is so simple and obviously correct that its bizarre it keeps coming up.

I wonder if people confuse 'acts are not purely selfless' with 'acts are purely selfish'.

chez

[samsonite2100]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I believe people can and do make selfless decisions all the time, but if you analyze everything from the point of a rational/logical mind, as Sklansky does, then such a thing isn't possible.

Selfless decisions to me are where you put aside your wants for the benefit of others. This can be as simple as being polite to someone you dislike, even though you'd rather make him feel like crap and would suffer no consequences if you did so. Or getting your girlfriend off even though you'd rather just fall asleep. Understanding and considering the feelings of others, and making a conscious choice to act differently for their benefit, even though it causes you distress, discomfort, cognitive dissonance, or annoyance, is a purely selfless act IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

But wait. I DO most of those things. In fact I do one of those things quite a bit. So where exactly do you think we disagree? Maybe it is that don't fool myself into thinking that the reason I do those things is anything other than the fact that for one reason or another, I am getting some sort of satisfaction, that more than makes up for the discomfort.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is so simple and obviously correct that its bizarre it keeps coming up.

I wonder if people confuse 'acts are not purely selfless' with 'acts are purely selfish'.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, it's really just down to semantics. As far as that goes, I definitely fall on the "anything you do, you must be getting some pleasure/satisfaction/utility from" side.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I believe people can and do make selfless decisions all the time, but if you analyze everything from the point of a rational/logical mind, as Sklansky does, then such a thing isn't possible.

Selfless decisions to me are where you put aside your wants for the benefit of others. This can be as simple as being polite to someone you dislike, even though you'd rather make him feel like crap and would suffer no consequences if you did so. Or getting your girlfriend off even though you'd rather just fall asleep. Understanding and considering the feelings of others, and making a conscious choice to act differently for their benefit, even though it causes you distress, discomfort, cognitive dissonance, or annoyance, is a purely selfless act IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

But wait. I DO most of those things. In fact I do one of those things quite a bit. So where exactly do you think we disagree? Maybe it is that don't fool myself into thinking that the reason I do those things is anything other than the fact that for one reason or another, I am getting some sort of satisfaction, that more than makes up for the discomfort.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is so simple and obviously correct that its bizarre it keeps coming up.

I wonder if people confuse 'acts are not purely selfless' with 'acts are purely selfish'.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, it's really just down to semantics. As far as that goes, I definitely fall on the "anything you do, you must be getting some pleasure/satisfaction/utility from" side.

[/ QUOTE ]
It does come down to semantics as long as we get past the mystical idea that we chose to do things we don't want to.

Then it seems straightforward to understand the selflessness componant of any act as being the part that is due to our concern for others. I've seen others say that everything is selfish but they extend the concept of self to include other people - seems a bit wierd to me but amounts to the same thing.

chez

[Taraz]

I think a lot of the problem is that you guys are defining "selfish" to include things that you do for other people. While it's strictly true that it makes you happier, it sounds funny when altruistic actions are labeled selfish.

Basically, it's kind of a dumb argument on both sides. If you want to call someone selfish for donating half their earnings to charity, be my guest.

[samsonite2100]

[ QUOTE ]
I think a lot of the problem is that you guys are defining "selfish" to include things that you do for other people. While it's strictly true that it makes you happier, it sounds funny when altruistic actions are labeled selfish.

Basically, it's kind of a dumb argument on both sides. If you want to call someone selfish for donating half their earnings to charity, be my guest.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why is it a dumb argument? Realizing that self-interest governs all human decisions and actions really helps you understand the world. And yes, the person who donates half their earnings to charity is being selfish. Do you think they'd do that if it didn't bring them pleasure and make them feel good about themselves? More to the point, do you think they'd do it if there was something they wanted to spend their money on that would bring them more pleasure than donating it?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
YES.
There is a species of beetle that eats it's mother from the inside and explodes out of her when it is born. Evolution is ABSOLUTELY NOT YOUR FRIEND.
We are NOT evolved to life happy, healthy lives. We are evolved to reproduce and make sure our children survive. A lot of the time that means living a miserable life because our genes tell us to.

The semantical argument of "oh well you wouldn't make that choice if it didn't make you happy" is utter BS. Do you really think that a father diving in front of a bus receives a "happiness" reward for diving in front of a bus to save his child? Obviously not. Furthermore, he does NOT believe that he will receive a happiness reward either.



[/ QUOTE ]

Happiness = things that aid in survival/reproduction. Its silly to claim we aren't evolved to be happy...we wouldn't be happy if it wasn't to encourage us to do the things we are supposed to do.

[/ QUOTE ]

yes well happiness is secondary or tertiary or whatever. The primary thing is passing on genes, not living a rewarding life. Think for a minute or two about how dangerous and painful childbirth is, then multiply that by ten or whatever because for most of human history, women kept having kids regardless of the fact that:

1. Kids suck, A LOT
and
2. You might die in childbirth.

The only reason menopause exists is because nature doesn't like to lay too big of odds, i.e. a woman getting pregnant at 50 could die and then be unable to rear the rest of her idiot kids, so after having a certain number of kids, nature says "ok, that's enough, we're not gonna lay those kind of odds"

Living a rewarding life often contradicts your reproductive imperative. Most of humanity have lived terrible existences, and many today continue to live terrible existences. (Just a quick example: imagine a world without any kind of anaesthetic). However, their negative life EV doesn't lead them to committ suicide, and I doubt it's because of religious reasons. I think it's because of our survival instincts and our reproductive imperative.

In conclusion: life is absurd and to be born is an insult.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, childbirth sucks, and all that, and yet we keep having kids. Why? Because sex is AWESOME. And leads to happiness. At least for men. Children lead to happiness for women. Excuse the broad strokes. You've sort of made my point for me.

[samsonite2100]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
YES.
There is a species of beetle that eats it's mother from the inside and explodes out of her when it is born. Evolution is ABSOLUTELY NOT YOUR FRIEND.
We are NOT evolved to life happy, healthy lives. We are evolved to reproduce and make sure our children survive. A lot of the time that means living a miserable life because our genes tell us to.

The semantical argument of "oh well you wouldn't make that choice if it didn't make you happy" is utter BS. Do you really think that a father diving in front of a bus receives a "happiness" reward for diving in front of a bus to save his child? Obviously not. Furthermore, he does NOT believe that he will receive a happiness reward either.



[/ QUOTE ]

Happiness = things that aid in survival/reproduction. Its silly to claim we aren't evolved to be happy...we wouldn't be happy if it wasn't to encourage us to do the things we are supposed to do.

[/ QUOTE ]

yes well happiness is secondary or tertiary or whatever. The primary thing is passing on genes, not living a rewarding life. Think for a minute or two about how dangerous and painful childbirth is, then multiply that by ten or whatever because for most of human history, women kept having kids regardless of the fact that:

1. Kids suck, A LOT
and
2. You might die in childbirth.

The only reason menopause exists is because nature doesn't like to lay too big of odds, i.e. a woman getting pregnant at 50 could die and then be unable to rear the rest of her idiot kids, so after having a certain number of kids, nature says "ok, that's enough, we're not gonna lay those kind of odds"

Living a rewarding life often contradicts your reproductive imperative. Most of humanity have lived terrible existences, and many today continue to live terrible existences. (Just a quick example: imagine a world without any kind of anaesthetic). However, their negative life EV doesn't lead them to committ suicide, and I doubt it's because of religious reasons. I think it's because of our survival instincts and our reproductive imperative.

In conclusion: life is absurd and to be born is an insult.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, childbirth sucks, and all that, and yet we keep having kids. Why? Because sex is AWESOME. And leads to happiness. At least for men. Children lead to happiness for women. Excuse the broad strokes. You've sort of made my point for me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not to mention the fact that people have historically had children to help plow the fields.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
YES.
There is a species of beetle that eats it's mother from the inside and explodes out of her when it is born. Evolution is ABSOLUTELY NOT YOUR FRIEND.
We are NOT evolved to life happy, healthy lives. We are evolved to reproduce and make sure our children survive. A lot of the time that means living a miserable life because our genes tell us to.

The semantical argument of "oh well you wouldn't make that choice if it didn't make you happy" is utter BS. Do you really think that a father diving in front of a bus receives a "happiness" reward for diving in front of a bus to save his child? Obviously not. Furthermore, he does NOT believe that he will receive a happiness reward either.



[/ QUOTE ]

Happiness = things that aid in survival/reproduction. Its silly to claim we aren't evolved to be happy...we wouldn't be happy if it wasn't to encourage us to do the things we are supposed to do.

[/ QUOTE ]

yes well happiness is secondary or tertiary or whatever. The primary thing is passing on genes, not living a rewarding life. Think for a minute or two about how dangerous and painful childbirth is, then multiply that by ten or whatever because for most of human history, women kept having kids regardless of the fact that:

1. Kids suck, A LOT
and
2. You might die in childbirth.

The only reason menopause exists is because nature doesn't like to lay too big of odds, i.e. a woman getting pregnant at 50 could die and then be unable to rear the rest of her idiot kids, so after having a certain number of kids, nature says "ok, that's enough, we're not gonna lay those kind of odds"

Living a rewarding life often contradicts your reproductive imperative. Most of humanity have lived terrible existences, and many today continue to live terrible existences. (Just a quick example: imagine a world without any kind of anaesthetic). However, their negative life EV doesn't lead them to committ suicide, and I doubt it's because of religious reasons. I think it's because of our survival instincts and our reproductive imperative.

In conclusion: life is absurd and to be born is an insult.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, childbirth sucks, and all that, and yet we keep having kids. Why? Because sex is AWESOME. And leads to happiness. At least for men. Children lead to happiness for women. Excuse the broad strokes. You've sort of made my point for me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not to mention the fact that people have historically had children to help plow the fields.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, it doesn't usually take too long for species to figure out, based on their environment, whether having as many low-quality kids as possible is preferable over having a smaller number of kids whom you can invest more in. This 'having kids to plow the fields' thing is probably just a good example of a situation where quantity was more important than quality. My guess is they still had kids because sex feels good and they didn't have any condoms.

[thylacine]

[ QUOTE ]
Is there truly such a thing as a selfless act?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. Selfish genes create sometimes-altruistic people, who sometimes commit altruistic selfless acts. This is very standard evolutionary theory.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]

Why is it a dumb argument? Realizing that self-interest governs all human decisions and actions really helps you understand the world. And yes, the person who donates half their earnings to charity is being selfish. Do you think they'd do that if it didn't bring them pleasure and make them feel good about themselves? More to the point, do you think they'd do it if there was something they wanted to spend their money on that would bring them more pleasure than donating it?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's a dumb argument because it basically eliminates the usefulness of the words selfless and selfish. It's vacuously true that we do everything to "please ourselves" in some sense, but that doesn't really give you much explanatory power.

When I say someone is selfless I don't mean that he's a masochist. I mean that he would prefer to sacrifice something he has for the wellbeing of others. Yes he does this because it makes him feel better than being a selfish ass, but it's often implied that selfless acts therefore aren't praiseworthy. I dunno, it just seems like this argument is also often used as justification for those who don't like helping others.

There are much more interesting questions. Why do people get so much satisfaction out of helping other people? Is it an effective strategy to be "selfless"? Would society function better if people cared more about the wellbeing of others?