True Altruism: Does it exist?

[triad]

Q:

Is there such thing as a purely selfless act?

As in, there is absolutely no personal gain, no recognition, no motive to do something to help another person.

Explain your answer.


My answer:

No. Everyone does everything for some sort of personal gain, even if it is an indirect acquisition of a better image. We thought images only existed in Hollywood, but is anyone genuinely a good person anymore? I don't think so. I think there is a lot to hide behind the mask of kindness, and underneath lurks sadness and an emptiness. Helping others to make oneself feel better? Personal gain. Helping others to make others feel better? Impossible.

[Gods_Mercenary]

First of all, if no ones a truly good person now, then no one has ever been.

Second, I do think selfless acts can take place, even if it's out of instinct. A mother saving her child. Even, say, saving a comrade in war is out of instinct, but I'd say it is still selfless.

[??!]

Wow. I find this truly interesting. I'm not really sure about true altruism. Maybe the mother, out of instinct, saves the child because she wants to enjoy her son/daughter. The enjoyment is for her personal gain. Therefore, it's not absolutely selfless. I dunno though. Just a thought..

[Okieslims]

I think selfless acts are rare.. but they do happen.
I'm sure somewhere at some point in time an atheist gave his life in an attempt to save another. There's no gain there..well I guess if he would have lived... but it's on in an individuals head. Different folks have different motives and some folks motive is just to be a "good" person and contribute to society.

[The Bacon Guy]

Every decision is made in one's own self interest. I'm not cynical enough to say that everyone thinks out their actions in terms of personal gain, but the fact remains that every decision a person makes is done in accordance with the person's moral values.

For example if I give money to charity, it's only because I personally think that it's the right thing to do. If I didn't give the money to charity I would feel bad about it and am therefore acting in my own interests by giving the money away. I don't necessarily think of it that way when I make the decision, but the underlying motive is always one of satisfying my own moral needs.

[SoylentGreen]

triad Is there such thing as a purely selfless act? As in, there is absolutely no personal gain, no recognition, no motive to do something to help another person. Explain your answer.

Can I first ask the question of , who actually defined altruism in such a way?
A common mistake so your answer is moot.

Altruism - What Is It?

What Is Altruism? Altruism 1. Loving others as oneself. 2. Behaviour that promotes the survival chances of others at a cost to ones own. 3. Self-sacrifice for the benefit of others [Italian: altrui others] French philosopher Auguste Comte coined the word altruisme (with meaning 3) in 1851, and two years later it entered the English language as altruism. Many considered his ethical system - in which the only moral acts were those intended to promote the happiness of others - rather extreme, so meaning 1 evolved. Now universal in evolutionary theory, meaning 2 was coined by scientists exploring how unselfish behaviour could have evolved. It is applied not only to people (psychological altruism), but also to animals and even plants.

It exists within the animal kingdom. They do not use reason but instinct.
So yes altruism does exist as in meaning 1. It exists in meaning 2 But in your definition it does not.

[triad]

Quote by: ??! Wow. I find this truly interesting. I'm not really sure about true altruism. Maybe the mother, out of instinct, saves the child because she wants to enjoy her son/daughter. The enjoyment is for her personal gain. Therefore, it's not absolutely selfless. I dunno though. Just a thought..

You read my mind completely. If a mother saves her child, then she will not have to feel the grief of losing that child, therefore feeling better for herself.

Personal gain? Maybe selflessness is just an illusion, because ultimately everything is done to make ourselves feel better.

Quote by: The Bacon Guy Every decision is made in one's own self interest. I'm not cynical enough to say that everyone thinks out their actions in terms of personal gain, but the fact remains that every decision a person makes is done in accordance with the person's moral values.

Morals are just someone's idea of what is right, and if they ever act against their morals, they will feel regret, one of the worst feelings of all. Therefore, obliging by your morals is personal gain, especially since everyone's morals differ from each other...

I don't necessarily think of it that way when I make the decision, but the underlying motive is always one of satisfying my own moral needs.

Satisfying your own moral needs. Doesn't sound too selfless, does it?

Quote by: SoylentGreen Can I first ask the question of , who actually defined altruism in such a way? A common mistake so your answer is moot. It exists within the animal kingdom. They do not use reason but instinct. So yes altruism does exist as in meaning 1. It exists in meaning 2 But in your definition it does not.

So unless someone's instinct is dictating their actions, they then must be switched into 'reasoning' mode. I'm not talking about plants, I'm talking about humans. Our instinct is to survive, just like in the animal kingdom... survival of the fittest sound familiar? That caters to our modern society; the rich get richer and the poor die trying. Cliché, yes. Still true, however. That is why plants are not destroying the earth through wars and global warming. If we live truly altruistic lives, even by your given definition, we would not advance as mankind and therefore we would not be polluting the earth with our technological engineering of combustion of fossil fuels.


Don't you see it?? No one, and I correct myself from my OP, has EVER done a truly selfless act.


Don't agree? Show me something.

[SoylentGreen]

triadsurvival of the fittest sound familiar?

Yep, sounds like someone doesn't understand what it means.
I wasn't talking about just plants either, so where did you get that from?
Here's a couple of examples. A bee will sting an invader of the hive. It sacrifices it's life to save the hive.
Another would be an monkey giving a warning call to the tribe when a predator appears . The ape may attract the attention and be killed by the predator , but the tribe is warned and can escape.
The survival of that tribe is greater because within that tribe altruism exists. A tribe showing no such altruism has less chance of survival.
That example is what is meant by survival of the fittest.
The fact that it exists in the animal kingdom means that altruism does exist. And that yes it can also exist among humans as a survival trait.

Don't you see it?? No one, and I correct myself from my OP, has EVER done a truly selfless act.

Did you not see it. I have pointed out that your definition does not exist, so why are you still claiming that it is?
Comte coined the term and within a few years changed the definition to loving others as oneself.

Don't agree? Show me something

The definition of altruism is "loving others as oneself."
Don't agree? Show me something

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: triad Morals are just someone's idea of what is right, and if they ever act against their morals, they will feel regret, one of the worst feelings of all. Therefore, obliging by your morals is personal gain, especially since everyone's morals differ from each other... Satisfying your own moral needs. Doesn't sound too selfless, does it?

Yah, that was kind of the point I was making.

[Eraldo Coil]

A mother saving her child. Even, say, saving a comrade in war is out of instinct, but I'd say it is still selfless.

A mother saving her child doesn't count because she is gaining something from it. She's gaining the life of her child. If she sacrificed her life for the child, well that would be a different situation in which it would be selfless because she is gaining nothing from it.

[??!]

I'm wondering another thing. Is there really such thing as a completely selfish act?

Hypothetical situation:

I take my brother's Playstation 2. He gets mad. Though the action benefits me, it also benefits him, as it teaches him to control his temper. Therefore it's not a completely selfish act, as it improves my brother's character.

[??!]

Quote by: Eraldo Coil If she sacrificed her life for the child, well that would be a different situation in which it would be selfless because she is gaining nothing from it.

It still isn't completely selfless. She saved her life because she wants her son/daughter to live. That want is personal. Therefore, it's a personal gain.

[Rog]

Hum that guy that jump on the subway to save some stranger. I dont think he did that just so he could some cheering. that was a totally selfless act.

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Rog Hum that guy that jump on the subway to save some stranger. I dont think he did that just so he could some cheering. that was a totally selfless act.

But he did it because he thought it was the right thing to do. Hence, he did it to satisfy his own moral needs and the act was therefore in his own self interest.

[RSN]

Have none of you done something nice for someone and not told anyone about it? Damn... I guess not. Of course their is true altruism, being selfless is not losing your own identity, but making an attempt to anticipate the needs of the other. You never held a door open for someone? You think that was your self image? It doesn't get you popularity points... there is no one keeping track.

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: RSN Have none of you done something nice for someone and not told anyone about it?

Other people don't have to know about your good deed in order for you to get benefit from it: it could make you feel good about yourself.

Any action we take is done based on our own moral code. We do something good, such as giving to charity, because not doing something good would be at odds with our moral needs and would make us feel guilty. I don't think this reasoning process necessarily consciously goes on in someone's head prior to them doing a good deed, but the underlying motive is always the self-serving fulfilment of personal morality

[??!]

Quote by: RSN Have none of you done something nice for someone and not told anyone about it? Damn... I guess not. Of course their is true altruism, being selfless is not losing your own identity, but making an attempt to anticipate the needs of the other. You never held a door open for someone? You think that was your self image? It doesn't get you popularity points... there is no one keeping track.

You're missing the point. Yes, holding a door, etc. is an act that isn't selfish. We're saying that all acts that are commited are for personal gain. There's no such thing as a selfless nor selfish act. Every action is commited for the gain of the individual. As for "self-image," it's more because of a person's moral obligation. It is what they believe is right. They want to hold the door for the person. The "want" is for their personal benefit. Do you get it?

[RSN]

Quote by: The Bacon Guy Other people don't have to know about your good deed in order for you to get benefit from it: it could make you feel good about yourself. Any action we take is done based on our own moral code. We do something good, such as giving to charity, because not doing something good would be at odds with our moral needs and would make us feel guilty. I don't think this reasoning process necessarily consciously goes on in someone's head prior to them doing a good deed, but the underlying motive is always the self-serving fulfilment of personal morality

But I'm an amoral person. I do it for no reason what so ever except a classically conditioned social habit.

Quote by: ??! You're missing the point. Yes, holding a door, etc. is an act that isn't selfish. We're saying that all acts that are commited are for personal gain. There's no such thing as a selfless nor selfish act. Every action is commited for the gain of the individual. As for "self-image," it's more because of a person's moral obligation. It is what they believe is right. They want to hold the door for the person. The "want" is for their personal benefit. Do you get it?

Cool, but oh, I don't get the point, assuredly. Holding a door for me, its like when someone with turrets screams out an obscenity. It certainly doesn't make him feel better, he is acting strictly on classically conditioned impulse. I open doors for people because I am a lab rat, there is no reward, its simply a spasm.

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: RSN But I'm an amoral person.

No one is amoral. Morality is a code used to make decisions. Everyone must have one otherwise no decisions could be made.

[??!]

Quote by: RSN Cool, but oh, I don't get the point, assuredly. Holding a door for me, its like when someone with turrets screams out an obscenity. It certainly doesn't make him feel better, he is acting strictly on classically conditioned impulse. I open doors for people because I am a lab rat, there is no reward, its simply a spasm.

First off, Tourettes is a neuropsychiatric disorder. Individuals with Tourettes cannot control their outbursts. And secondly, Tourettes is not limited to the random screaming of obscenities. Many people with Tourettes suffer from rhythmic tics and spasms.