True Altruism: Does it exist?

[SoylentGreen]

inriHow can I possibly 'define' what a 'selfless act' is, when I don't believe that it exists??

But how can you believe something doesn't exist when you don't have a definition of it?
every all possible; the greatest possible degree of
word an expression or utterance:
has a 3rd pers. sing. pres. indic
a not any particular or certain one of a class or , group
definition the formal statement of the meaning or significance . .. of a word,

In order for an act to be called 'selfless' is would have to be committed completely free from motive of any kind....this is impossible.

Would that not depend on how you defines selfless in the first place?

Im confused as to why you keep thinking that i'm saying that people committ 'selfless acts"...
.I agree that people sometimes commit 'seemingly kind acts' - that will bring benefit to another as well as to themselves.

Well actually the truth is I am just pissing you about . sorry about that

What you have shown is that calling altruism a selfless act is just nonsense. The better definition is as you have said "a seemingly kind act" or as Comte later put it "Loving others as oneself".

[inri]

But how can you believe something doesn't exist when you don't have a definition of it?
every all possible; the greatest possible degree of
word an expression or utterance:
has a 3rd pers. sing. pres. indic
a not any particular or certain one of a class or , group
definition the formal statement of the meaning or significance . .. of a word,


Would that not depend on how you defines selfless in the first place?



Well actually the truth is I am just pissing you about . sorry about that

What you have shown is that calling altruism a selfless act is just nonsense. The better definition is as you have said "a seemingly kind act" or as Comte later put it "Loving others as oneself".

Yes, I guess in summation, I would personally define a 'selfless act' as one that was committed without any perceived benefit to self...something that I don't believe exists....
Re: the 'pissing me about stuff', I quite enjoy it actually, hence my presence here on this forum! lol
(nothing better than an intelligent, well-thought out argument in my books! - thanks for engaging me!)

[Derek Wolff]

We are not discussing selfless acts, we are discussing altruism. I don't recall much of any thing about selfless acts in soylent green's posts. I believe what he was getting at is there are no selfless acts but acts of love that are self sacrificing.

[Winter wind]

So we get back to the paradox. Sometimes people do commit a selfless act, but then there is no such thing as a selfless act.

I don't think there is such a think as a selfless act simply because we are cause and effect creatures. Humans, never ever ever ever ever do anything for no reason. They do a good act for the rush of dopamine in their body.

However the closest thing to a selfless act I know is an act of sympathy. It is proven that watching someone else do something (like eat a hamburger) will make some neuron fire in the watchers brain simulating that action. So if someone else is in pain, people with stronger sympathies will also feel that pain (literally) so to stop that pain in themselves, they will end the pain in others.

Another close one is a selfless act for the species. When a mother sacrifices herself for a child, that's instinctual, but also selfless.

[Derek Wolff]

Read my post winter wind, it might help.

[inri]

We are not discussing selfless acts, we are discussing altruism. I don't recall much of any thing about selfless acts in soylent green's posts. I believe what he was getting at is there are no selfless acts but acts of love that are self sacrificing.

I believe the intial question was: Does true altruism exist?..is there really such a thing as a selfless act?..therefore within the question is the supposition that true altruism involves acts that are selfless...

[Thanatos]

If an atheist sacrifices himself for the greater good I suppose that's utterly selfless, and so is a theist who is not thinking about heaven. Love or something else may have motivated you but you won't be around to experience that love. Or perhaps its just our tendency to be irrational.

Also of note is that there are very, very few atheist suicide bombers.

[Winter wind]

Read my post winter wind, it might help.

The original post (what I'm responding to) asked if there was a truely selfless act. The use of the word "Altruism" is a misnomer.

[Derek Wolff]

Oh ok, I think we already nailed down there is no such thing as a purely selfless act. All things have a motivation that drives you. Whether you receive anything beneficial is regardless if you have motivation it is for yourself in some manner.

[SoylentGreen]

I don't think there is such a think as a selfless act simply because we are cause and effect creatures. Humans, never ever ever ever ever do anything for no reason. They do a good act for the rush of dopamine in their body.

That's a very one dimensional view of humans. Have you never heard of spontaneity. A rush of dopamine is not a reason it is a chemical reaction.

However the closest thing to a selfless act I know is an act of sympathy. It is proven that watching someone else do something (like eat a hamburger) will make some neuron fire in the watchers brain simulating that action. So if someone else is in pain, people with stronger sympathies will also feel that pain (literally) so to stop that pain in themselves, they will end the pain in others.

What about instances when there is instant reaction? The soldier throwing himself on the grenade. More than 1 or 2 seconds and he will be to late. No time to reason and not enough time for anything but a rush of adrenaline perhaps. But then again that same adrenaline may have given him the strength to jump away from the grenade, so why instead jump on it?

Another close one is a selfless act for the species. When a mother sacrifices herself for a child, that's instinctual, but also selfless

Again , not all mothers will do that.. Within the animal kingdom a reaction is classed as instinct when it is the normal reaction that occurs among the species, but to act in a way that is unusual or different is not.

Thanatos
Also of note is that there are very, very few atheist suicide bombers

The japanese kamikaze bombers would be one lot. Patriotism is as big a drug as religion.

[inri]

That's a very one dimensional view of humans. Have you never heard of spontaneity. A rush of dopamine is not a reason it is a chemical reaction.



What about instances when there is instant reaction? The soldier throwing himself on the grenade. More than 1 or 2 seconds and he will be to late. No time to reason and not enough time for anything but a rush of adrenaline perhaps. But then again that same adrenaline may have given him the strength to jump away from the grenade, so why instead jump on it?



Again , not all mothers will do that.. Within the animal kingdom a reaction is classed as instinct when it is the normal reaction that occurs among the species, but to act in a way that is unusual or different is not.



The japanese kamikaze bombers would be one lot. Patriotism is as big a drug as religion.

In cases of what seems to be an 'instant reaction' we are still in that moment acting in such a way that somehow fulfills a need within us. Often these seemingly 'instinctual' actions, such as a mother sacrificing her life to throw a child out of the way of an oncoming vehicle, (for example) are a result of a compilation of many desires on the part of the mother - that have likely been put into place over the course of many years. ie; the need to feel good knowing her offspring is protected, the need to feel like a good mother, the need to do what she believes is right, so once again she can feel good about herself. Just imagine the opposite scenario...for some reason a mother neglects to throw herself in the child's path and the child dies. She knows very well that if she had sacrificed her own life - the child would be alive....could she live with that?...pretty tough I'd imagine - that is exactly the feeling she'd be attempting to avoid experiencing by taking the action of saving her child. No she's not consciously thinking about ALL of that at that moment, however it's a factor nevertheless.

[SoylentGreen]

inriIn cases of what seems to be an 'instant reaction' we are still in that moment acting in such a way that somehow fulfills a need within us.

Agreed , but the problem I still have is , what exactly is that need?

Often these seemingly 'instinctual' actions,

Seemingly, is the key word there. In the animal kingdom it is only an instinct if the action is common among that species, otherwise it is an aberration. Among humans though instinct isn't the only factor in a reaction. The dividing line between nature and nurture is quite gray.

No she's not consciously thinking about ALL of that at that moment, however it's a factor nevertheless.

True, but two women with the same feel good factor , but only one might jump the other will hesitate.
It's that that has me puzzled. What actually is it that makes the difference?