Is there truly such a thing as a selfless act?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

So if he had worded his sentence as "Is there such a thing as a truly selfless act" as opposed to "Is there truly such a thing as a selfless act" would your answer have been the same?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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?

[/ QUOTE ]

Bingo. Those are the questions I'm interested in, and even more importantly, "What then are the implications to these answers for policy, society and personal interactions?"

[Jimmy Afternoon]

[ QUOTE ]
My whole question is this: If there is no such thing as a selfless act, and every rational act we make must have some utility, then are we all just Machiavellian when it comes to friends and loved ones? that is, do we do things for people only to benefit ourselves or to make a deposit that we plan on withdrawing later with interest? Does a rational person live by making a cost=benefit analysis of how greedy, selfish, and manipulative he can be without losing friends and the optimal selfish effeciency? And if that's the case, then isn't what we call sociopathic behavior optimal? Thanks for any insight.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Butcho22]

I think they answered this in an episode of 'Friends', but I don't remember the answer.

[chezlaw]

[ 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 ]
That's not what we're saying. Giving money to charity usually has a high level of non-selfishness because its something we do because we are concerned about others. However its not purely selfless because we give the money to satisfy our own concern.

It seems like you're equating 'not purely selfless' with 'purely selfish'.

chez

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]
That's not what we're saying. Giving money to charity usually has a high level of non-selfishness because its something we do because we are concerned about others. However its not purely selfless because we give the money to satisfy our own concern.

It seems like you're equating 'not purely selfless' with 'purely selfish'.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

See the next post I wrote after the one you quoted. I think it clears up what I was trying to say.

[Philo]

[ QUOTE ]


The semantical argument of "oh well you wouldn't make that choice if it didn't make you happy" is utter BS.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not only are there acts that are selfless in the sense that we don't feel happy afterward for having done them, but also anyone who claims that every act that makes one happy is performed because it makes one happy confuses the effect with the cause. Being happy because we did the right thing can simply be an effect of our action, rather than the cause or motivation for performing it.

It is not hard to show that psychological egoism, which claims that every act we perform is motivated by our own rational self-interest, is false.

See Bob Nozick's 'Experience Machine' argument against psychological hedonism, a species of psychological egoism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Experience_Machine

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My whole question is this: If there is no such thing as a selfless act, and every rational act we make must have some utility, then are we all just Machiavellian when it comes to friends and loved ones? that is, do we do things for people only to benefit ourselves or to make a deposit that we plan on withdrawing later with interest? Does a rational person live by making a cost=benefit analysis of how greedy, selfish, and manipulative he can be without losing friends and the optimal selfish effeciency? And if that's the case, then isn't what we call sociopathic behavior optimal? Thanks for any insight.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this view discounts the possibility that we might just plain enjoy seeing other people happy. That could be the end in and of itself. You're not necessarily looking for reciprocation in terms of goods and services. Maybe being surrounded by people who are happy makes you happy. That's all.

When my friends are having a good time, it makes me feel good. It makes me feel better when I know that I'm the reason they are having a good time. I don't give them a present because I'm hoping they give me one back. I give them a present because I like seeing them smile.

[vbnautilus]

I think the real issue at the root of this question is how you define the "self".

Richard Dawkins has written a great book called The Selfish Gene, in which he presents the
perspective that genes are out for themselves rather than individuals. For example if you
look at seemingly altruistic acts in nature they are more likely to be done for the benefit of those
who are closely related to us genetically. You can see this as the genes' way of making sure that
copies of themselves are doing well.

If you ultimately expand your notion of "self" to recognize that we are all interconnected and independent and that the welfare of each individual impacts the welfare of all the others, then there is no difference between benefiting yourself and benefitting others.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


The semantical argument of "oh well you wouldn't make that choice if it didn't make you happy" is utter BS.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not only are there acts that are selfless in the sense that we don't feel happy afterward for having done them, but also anyone who claims that every act that makes one happy is performed because it makes one happy confuses the effect with the cause. Being happy because we did the right thing can simply be an effect of our action, rather than the cause or motivation for performing it.

It is not hard to show that psychological egoism, which claims that every act we perform is motivated by our own rational self-interest, is false.

See Bob Nozick's 'Experience Machine' argument against psychological hedonism, a species of psychological egoism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Experience_Machine

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, that seems like a terrible refutation. His whole argument basically comes down to the fact that no one trusts or understands the hypothetical. "People want to actually DO things, not just have the experience of doing them" is a silly objection, since the experiment stipulates you cannot tell the difference. Basically, its a failure of imagination. We cannot imagine how this machine could be that convincing, so we think there is some actual difference between experiencing things and having things actually happen.

Underwhelming.