I have recently come across the idea that every decision we make (not made for us) is ultimately to result in feeling good. When we make a decision for ourselves, it is because we think that that decision will benefit us whether directly or not. This led me to the question: “What about when we choose to go out of our way to help others? That doesnt benefit us, it benefits another person?” Well it turns out that helping other people yields a good deal of satisfaction to some of us, which is why we help others in the first place. So, that said, does selflessness really exist?
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
-
Congrats to the winners of the 2023 Smog Awards!
Can someone actually be selfless?
- Thread starter mvtc
- Start date
"Selfless' and "selfish" are labels we ascribe as third-parties to the nature or actions of others, and sometimes to our own based on what we believe people to mean by them colloquially. Obviously we all act in whatever we judge our own self-interest to be, consciously or not, but that's not synonymous to being selfish and, as such, is not mutually exclusive to being selfless. Effectively, "selfless" and "selfish" are descriptions pertaining to what we perceive others to value and judge to be in their self-interest, not assessments of whether or not others are acting according to what they believe to be in their self-interest.
Selfishness and selflessness are two sides of the same coin.
You don’t give money to homeless people solely because you think it will benefit them; you give it to them, at least in part, to boost your own ego and reassure yourself that you aren’t a completely shit+selfish human being. You do it for that little shot of dopamine that you get from hearing them say “thank you” or, failing that, you do it for the little shot of dopamine you get from the people you’re with praising your generosity. Or perhaps you do it to look good in front of strangers (or, in the case of multi-million-dollar business owners, because it bolsters your PR).
Are some of these things more innocent than others? Sure; some are societally labelled to be selfless, and others as selfish. But in every single case it’s helping others for the purposes of helping yourself—being selfish by being outwardly selfless. It all comes full circle.
Ultimately I think that people should strive to do what they consider to be the right thing—after all, that’s what separates so-called selfless people from selfish assholes. So I guess in a sense selflessness is defined as the act of performing an action that helps another for at no cost to them and for no personal gain beyond happiness, whether that means helping the homeless, donating to charity or simply offering to do the washing up.
You don’t give money to homeless people solely because you think it will benefit them; you give it to them, at least in part, to boost your own ego and reassure yourself that you aren’t a completely shit+selfish human being. You do it for that little shot of dopamine that you get from hearing them say “thank you” or, failing that, you do it for the little shot of dopamine you get from the people you’re with praising your generosity. Or perhaps you do it to look good in front of strangers (or, in the case of multi-million-dollar business owners, because it bolsters your PR).
Are some of these things more innocent than others? Sure; some are societally labelled to be selfless, and others as selfish. But in every single case it’s helping others for the purposes of helping yourself—being selfish by being outwardly selfless. It all comes full circle.
Ultimately I think that people should strive to do what they consider to be the right thing—after all, that’s what separates so-called selfless people from selfish assholes. So I guess in a sense selflessness is defined as the act of performing an action that helps another for at no cost to them and for no personal gain beyond happiness, whether that means helping the homeless, donating to charity or simply offering to do the washing up.
Almost all known mainstream philosophers try to discuss the idea of "the good". I'll try to break them down for you in a simple way, and then you can continue your own research and make your own conclusions:
plato's conception of the good life:
read this: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plato-ethics/ for additional information on Plato's philosophy.
aristotle's conception of the good life:
next, it's important to gain a fundamental understanding of the two prevalent moral ethical theories that govern the decision-making of most of the western world:
Utilitarianism attempts to outline how to achieve "the Good" by underlining that maximizing "happiness" is the most important thing... why and how is happiness considered to be so damn important? Read this: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mill/#MillConcHapp - if you want, read the whole thing as it'll make that section easier to understand.
Deontology, or Kantian Ethics, pretty much disagrees with everything mentioned above. Kant believes that happiness is not the unique possession of human beings. Nor does he think that reason is the best way of achieving it. To him, the function of reason is not, primarily, to make ourselves or others happy, but to live rightly, come what may. So what is the right way? Read this: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-moral/#CatHypImp - again, if you want read the whole thing as it'll make this section easier to understand.
now, if I'm being honest, all of this only scratches the surface. Exploring other important outlooks, such as Virtue Theory, Pragmatism, Care Ethics are all great ways of exploring morality, ethics, and "the Good". The idea of "the Good", happiness, and their place in morality is a discussion that's taken place since time immemorial so there is naturally an abundance of literature.
However, after you do all this you need to start penetrating the realm of epistemology, because when it comes to knowing what "the Good" is, and what "Good" even means you start to ask bigger questions. Some of these questions may include: what does knowledge means, what does it mean to know something, who are the knowers and what knowledge is known with experience vs what is known via just reason and what are the barriers of knowing (not just for myself, but for each individual and group by extension). Reading Plato->Aristotle->Descartes->Spinoza->Hume->Locke->Leibniz->Kant->Hegel->Schopenhauer->Nietzsche->John Stuart Mill->Heidegger will really, really, really, really, REALLY deepen your knowledge of... everything.
In my opinion, epistemology and ethics go hand in hand, because it's one thing to assign value onto things and argue what's more valuable (ethics), but it's another to discuss what those things are worth assigning value in the first place, based on what it means to know something (epistemology).
tl;dr - you unknowingly asked the biggest question in philosophy, so expect some big, explorable answers and be willing to do as much research as possible in order to reach an informed conclusion on what "the Good" means to you.
plato's conception of the good life:
In his work Apology, Plato gives an account of a speech given by Socrates while defending himself against allegations of impiety and corrupting the youth in the year 399 BC. When being asked by the court why Socrates simply cannot stop questioning the way people live, Socrates responds with a simple, yet profound answer. According to Socrates the unexamined life is not worth living. Living life without ever reflecting upon it is not worth living. The person who unquestioningly and continuously repeats the cycle of waking up, working and going back to sleep, is not living the good life. Even further, people that do not reflect on the nature of things are not living a worthwhile life. If a person is not examining what they value and why, the chances of them being able to live a good life are reduced.
Examining, reflecting and questioning the nature of things, however, is not enough. Similarly, it’s not enough to reflect on your personal values. Living the good life requires you to become a Master of yourself. Socrates compared this process to a charioteer directing two horses. Socrates argued that each and every one of us is such a charioteer. We all have to handle two horses. The first horse is stubborn. It is a direct reflection of our animal instincts with a boundless appetite for lust and pleasure. The first horse goes in whatever direction it pleases, if not tightly controlled. It is egotistical and does not reflect what it does. It simply does. The second horse is of a much nobler and more sensible spirit. It resembles reason and man’s capability to reflect upon that which he does.
If the charioteer ever wants to live the good life, the stubborn appetites of the first horse must be controlled. Only by using your reason to reign in your passions, the two horses will lead you on the path of the good life. In line with this arguing, not being able to control your desires and passions will make you behave like an uncontrolled and misdirected stubborn horse. Socrates concluded that by living a just life, based on reflection, examination and servitude to society, a person can truly live the good life. But those who allow desires and passions to guide their actions, are most likely not living worthwhile lives.
Examining, reflecting and questioning the nature of things, however, is not enough. Similarly, it’s not enough to reflect on your personal values. Living the good life requires you to become a Master of yourself. Socrates compared this process to a charioteer directing two horses. Socrates argued that each and every one of us is such a charioteer. We all have to handle two horses. The first horse is stubborn. It is a direct reflection of our animal instincts with a boundless appetite for lust and pleasure. The first horse goes in whatever direction it pleases, if not tightly controlled. It is egotistical and does not reflect what it does. It simply does. The second horse is of a much nobler and more sensible spirit. It resembles reason and man’s capability to reflect upon that which he does.
If the charioteer ever wants to live the good life, the stubborn appetites of the first horse must be controlled. Only by using your reason to reign in your passions, the two horses will lead you on the path of the good life. In line with this arguing, not being able to control your desires and passions will make you behave like an uncontrolled and misdirected stubborn horse. Socrates concluded that by living a just life, based on reflection, examination and servitude to society, a person can truly live the good life. But those who allow desires and passions to guide their actions, are most likely not living worthwhile lives.
read this: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plato-ethics/ for additional information on Plato's philosophy.
aristotle's conception of the good life:
In Aristotle’s best-known work, Nicomachean Ethics, the philosopher adds important insights about the good life. Very early in this work, Aristotle seeks to construct a framework by developing an understanding about the highest good for human beings. He points out that to most people, the highest good consists either in the acquisition of wealth, the pursuit of honor or the satisfying of bodily pleasures. As a result, most people act accordingly. They seek wealth, honor or satisfaction and thereby hope to ultimately attain happiness. Aristotle, however, points out that none of these aspects can ever serve as the highest good. Firstly, he argues that wealth is primarily used to acquire other things. In itself, wealth cannot make happy. Secondly, honor might not necessarily contribute to a person’s happiness. Instead, honor is primarily sought to change how people think of us. Thirdly, the desire to fulfill one’s (bodily) desires is not something limited to human beings alone. Animals are seeking pleasure, too. Even more so, by orientating one’s life primarily to the satisfaction of bodily pleasures, a human being behaves no differently than an animal. According to Aristotle, such a life is neither fit nor meant for human beings.
From this Aristotle concludes that the highest good cannot consist primarily out of these three aspects. Instead, the highest good should be something that aims to maximize the inherent faculties of man. It helps human beings to develop that which separates them from animals. In line with this arguing, the capacity for reason is that which separates man from cattle.
Based on his reflections, Aristotle highlights the essential qualities of the good life. These qualities primarily consist of contemplation and learning. It is through the process of contemplating and learning that intellectual virtues are steadily acquired. These virtues can for instance stem from the acquisition of knowledge about the fundamental principles of nature. Furthermore, this knowledge can be expanded by applying the principles of nature.
However, contemplation and acquiring knowledge is not enough to live the good life. Solely understanding nature’s principles and contemplating on these does not contribute the highest good. It is only through right action that knowledge can be put to its proper use. Hence, the development of a strong and virtuous character is necessary to perform right actions. Aristotle therefore concludes that the highest good consists of the acquisition of both intellectual and personal virtues. And, by living in accordance to the highest good, happiness (or Eudaimonia) can be attained. Consequently, a person achieves happiness by contemplation, learning and the mental strength to perform right actions. Such a person does not only know what is right, but also acts accordingly and derives happiness, fulfillment and purpose from it.
From this Aristotle concludes that the highest good cannot consist primarily out of these three aspects. Instead, the highest good should be something that aims to maximize the inherent faculties of man. It helps human beings to develop that which separates them from animals. In line with this arguing, the capacity for reason is that which separates man from cattle.
Based on his reflections, Aristotle highlights the essential qualities of the good life. These qualities primarily consist of contemplation and learning. It is through the process of contemplating and learning that intellectual virtues are steadily acquired. These virtues can for instance stem from the acquisition of knowledge about the fundamental principles of nature. Furthermore, this knowledge can be expanded by applying the principles of nature.
However, contemplation and acquiring knowledge is not enough to live the good life. Solely understanding nature’s principles and contemplating on these does not contribute the highest good. It is only through right action that knowledge can be put to its proper use. Hence, the development of a strong and virtuous character is necessary to perform right actions. Aristotle therefore concludes that the highest good consists of the acquisition of both intellectual and personal virtues. And, by living in accordance to the highest good, happiness (or Eudaimonia) can be attained. Consequently, a person achieves happiness by contemplation, learning and the mental strength to perform right actions. Such a person does not only know what is right, but also acts accordingly and derives happiness, fulfillment and purpose from it.
next, it's important to gain a fundamental understanding of the two prevalent moral ethical theories that govern the decision-making of most of the western world:
Utilitarianism attempts to outline how to achieve "the Good" by underlining that maximizing "happiness" is the most important thing... why and how is happiness considered to be so damn important? Read this: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mill/#MillConcHapp - if you want, read the whole thing as it'll make that section easier to understand.
Deontology, or Kantian Ethics, pretty much disagrees with everything mentioned above. Kant believes that happiness is not the unique possession of human beings. Nor does he think that reason is the best way of achieving it. To him, the function of reason is not, primarily, to make ourselves or others happy, but to live rightly, come what may. So what is the right way? Read this: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-moral/#CatHypImp - again, if you want read the whole thing as it'll make this section easier to understand.
now, if I'm being honest, all of this only scratches the surface. Exploring other important outlooks, such as Virtue Theory, Pragmatism, Care Ethics are all great ways of exploring morality, ethics, and "the Good". The idea of "the Good", happiness, and their place in morality is a discussion that's taken place since time immemorial so there is naturally an abundance of literature.
However, after you do all this you need to start penetrating the realm of epistemology, because when it comes to knowing what "the Good" is, and what "Good" even means you start to ask bigger questions. Some of these questions may include: what does knowledge means, what does it mean to know something, who are the knowers and what knowledge is known with experience vs what is known via just reason and what are the barriers of knowing (not just for myself, but for each individual and group by extension). Reading Plato->Aristotle->Descartes->Spinoza->Hume->Locke->Leibniz->Kant->Hegel->Schopenhauer->Nietzsche->John Stuart Mill->Heidegger will really, really, really, really, REALLY deepen your knowledge of... everything.
In my opinion, epistemology and ethics go hand in hand, because it's one thing to assign value onto things and argue what's more valuable (ethics), but it's another to discuss what those things are worth assigning value in the first place, based on what it means to know something (epistemology).
tl;dr - you unknowingly asked the biggest question in philosophy, so expect some big, explorable answers and be willing to do as much research as possible in order to reach an informed conclusion on what "the Good" means to you.
Last edited:
Selflessness and Selfishness are not mutually exclusive. It's entirely possible to be both at the same time. A selfless act for a selfish reason isn't an entirely rare occurrence. Neither is the opposite. Giving someone 100$ may be seen as a selfless act but if that was because you were offered 1000$ if you give someone 100$, ultimately even if the act of giving someone 100$ is a selfless act, it was done out of selfish intentions. The opposite is interesting because it could be seen as more of a context thing than anything else. Someone robs a store and takes a ton of money. Ultimately a selfish action however, this was done to feed their family. A selfless reason.
All that said, I believe the question this thread poised may be a bit more simple than that. As in, is it possible to be selfless for the sake of selflessness. Performing an act where you get absolutely nothing out of the deal, not even an ego boost. Immediate ramifications that can never be spun in a positive light. Hrm...... That's a bit difficult to pin down. Ultimately even, dying for someone can be seen as a selfish act, unintentionally or no. I'd have to put more thought into it but in this context, given how I feel about it right now, I'd have to say no. Even if unintentional or unconscious, what benefits you or your group is always in the back of your mind when making any decision. Even something as benign as "it's good to do" can be seen as a selfish act. You're only doing this thing so you can "feel good about yourself".
That said, depending on the context, I'd rather have someone do something selfless for a selfish reason than the other way around. Doing something right when you gain from it is better a majority of the time than doing something for yourself to benefit other people.
All that said, I believe the question this thread poised may be a bit more simple than that. As in, is it possible to be selfless for the sake of selflessness. Performing an act where you get absolutely nothing out of the deal, not even an ego boost. Immediate ramifications that can never be spun in a positive light. Hrm...... That's a bit difficult to pin down. Ultimately even, dying for someone can be seen as a selfish act, unintentionally or no. I'd have to put more thought into it but in this context, given how I feel about it right now, I'd have to say no. Even if unintentional or unconscious, what benefits you or your group is always in the back of your mind when making any decision. Even something as benign as "it's good to do" can be seen as a selfish act. You're only doing this thing so you can "feel good about yourself".
That said, depending on the context, I'd rather have someone do something selfless for a selfish reason than the other way around. Doing something right when you gain from it is better a majority of the time than doing something for yourself to benefit other people.
Last edited:
Actions matter more than intention is a general rule of life I follow. If Bill Gates wants to donate 10M to charity or disease research just to flex, people really shouldn’t be mad as it contributes to the overall betterment of society. No one is “purely selfless” but no one really needs to be. The human mindset can’t be tinkered with either, what we feel is what we feel and is what makes life interesting. We should judge people on their actions, not their character but not everything is black and white.
Am I the only one completely bewildered by people asking this question? 
I've had many selfless moments. People have acted selflessly for me. Saying that people do this to boost their ego says more about how you act than what it says of how people actually act.
e.g. I've never met a pet owner who owned a pet for "ego boosting" reasons
I've had many selfless moments. People have acted selflessly for me. Saying that people do this to boost their ego says more about how you act than what it says of how people actually act.e.g. I've never met a pet owner who owned a pet for "ego boosting" reasons
Last edited:
110% agreeAm I the only one completely bewildered by people asking this question?
e.g. I've never met a pet owner who owned a pet for "ego boosting" reasons
For someone so confident and condescending in your stance, you've provided no argument at all. The question is about selflessness, and "ego boosting" is only one example of not being selfless. People can and do own pets for companionship, entertainment, protection, breeding, sport, a symbol of status, something to look at, and so on. None of these are selfless. Is that terrible thing? Not necessarily.Am I the only one completely bewildered by people asking this question?
e.g. I've never met a pet owner who owned a pet for "ego boosting" reasons
Honestly I've always thought this argument was a load of crap. Just a rationalization for bad people.
For starters if you had empathy, you'd understand that when you see a homeless person asking for money, you are hurt. And giving one homeless person whatever change you have (if you have any) won't make you feel so good that it's a net positive. There is too much wrong in this world for anyone to feel like they've done enough (if they do, they're probably not selfless) but also take care of yourself (and if you can't take care of yourself, you can't take care of others).
The least stupid thing a utilitarian might say about the subject is that selflessness is a survival mechanism for a society. That's not describing it in a way that makes it sound like a conscious decision. Of course on the other hand, this doesn't seem like it's been very effective for the last century.
If there are at least two kinds of selfless people, then one kind is probably very naive. I don't know if that person exists but probably lots of people exist (this whole argument assumes that you can explain one kind of behavior one way for all people who behave that way which is insane). But I know that one kind of selfless person is the one that just physically can't bring themselves to intentionally do wrong, and that being smart and selfless brings you absolutely no net positives in the world we live in. The works of Dostoevsky go into great detail about this kind of selfless asshole, the conscious man who is constantly paralyzed into inaction by weighing the effect he has on the world on around him. For starters, in our capitalist society, there are startlingly few careers that you can get ahead in when selfless because our society is so intrinsically based around screwing others over. Need to start somewhere? Better not work retail, because you're going to have to sell credit cards to people and you're going to ruin at least one person. Better not work fast food because it promotes unhealthiness and none of those places really adhere to any health standards. Construction can't be bad? Better hope your boss doesn't want you to cut corners. "Wow you sound like a fucking buzzkill" Yeah, but not somebody who can prioritize their own advancement. "I can only do what I will allow myself to do" as a certain novel says. I work data for medical insurance because I sure as fuck can't be the person who looks for any and all ways to deny people their coverage (and if you wondered, yes, that is priority number one. They'll deny coverage even when they know they can't just to see whether people will spend a year fighting it). If you're smart and selfish, good for you, you can rape the whole world, then when you have money, donate a little bit about it to feel better about yourself. But you can't project your own shit onto everyone.
Let's get ahead of obvious responses
"Oh so all these people with jobs are so bad"
People are taught by their managers to selectively ignore bad things. It's a societal problem.
"I bet you do some selfish things"
1. On accident, more often than I'd like, like everybody.
2. I won't donate a kidney to someone I don't know.
3. I need a minimum level of self-care to be able to help others, and that's something you have to weigh.
The thing you should take from this is that people aren't black and white, not "rationalization achieved"
"It's pretty bad to work for insurance anyway then?"
Something I worry about all the time. Strictly speaking I'm 3rd party but still.
"You just don't get ahead in life and tell yourself you are selfless to find meaning"
Too bad there is no such thing as meaning.
For starters if you had empathy, you'd understand that when you see a homeless person asking for money, you are hurt. And giving one homeless person whatever change you have (if you have any) won't make you feel so good that it's a net positive. There is too much wrong in this world for anyone to feel like they've done enough (if they do, they're probably not selfless) but also take care of yourself (and if you can't take care of yourself, you can't take care of others).
The least stupid thing a utilitarian might say about the subject is that selflessness is a survival mechanism for a society. That's not describing it in a way that makes it sound like a conscious decision. Of course on the other hand, this doesn't seem like it's been very effective for the last century.
If there are at least two kinds of selfless people, then one kind is probably very naive. I don't know if that person exists but probably lots of people exist (this whole argument assumes that you can explain one kind of behavior one way for all people who behave that way which is insane). But I know that one kind of selfless person is the one that just physically can't bring themselves to intentionally do wrong, and that being smart and selfless brings you absolutely no net positives in the world we live in. The works of Dostoevsky go into great detail about this kind of selfless asshole, the conscious man who is constantly paralyzed into inaction by weighing the effect he has on the world on around him. For starters, in our capitalist society, there are startlingly few careers that you can get ahead in when selfless because our society is so intrinsically based around screwing others over. Need to start somewhere? Better not work retail, because you're going to have to sell credit cards to people and you're going to ruin at least one person. Better not work fast food because it promotes unhealthiness and none of those places really adhere to any health standards. Construction can't be bad? Better hope your boss doesn't want you to cut corners. "Wow you sound like a fucking buzzkill" Yeah, but not somebody who can prioritize their own advancement. "I can only do what I will allow myself to do" as a certain novel says. I work data for medical insurance because I sure as fuck can't be the person who looks for any and all ways to deny people their coverage (and if you wondered, yes, that is priority number one. They'll deny coverage even when they know they can't just to see whether people will spend a year fighting it). If you're smart and selfish, good for you, you can rape the whole world, then when you have money, donate a little bit about it to feel better about yourself. But you can't project your own shit onto everyone.
Let's get ahead of obvious responses
"Oh so all these people with jobs are so bad"
People are taught by their managers to selectively ignore bad things. It's a societal problem.
"I bet you do some selfish things"
1. On accident, more often than I'd like, like everybody.
2. I won't donate a kidney to someone I don't know.
3. I need a minimum level of self-care to be able to help others, and that's something you have to weigh.
The thing you should take from this is that people aren't black and white, not "rationalization achieved"
"It's pretty bad to work for insurance anyway then?"
Something I worry about all the time. Strictly speaking I'm 3rd party but still.
"You just don't get ahead in life and tell yourself you are selfless to find meaning"
Too bad there is no such thing as meaning.
Last edited:
To me it is an invocation derived from the Holden Caulfield sentiment that 'youre all phoney, no one is real'. In this view, the 'selfless' actor is one that transcends the inherent selfishness of their existence as an individual, but evidence of such 'transcendence' occurring can never be accepted by those that hold this view.
In this view, the individual who acts ethically does so not because they 'will' that any individual in situ would act in accordance with the ethical principle the particular individual is applying to that situ (the Kant ideal). In their view, the individual acting according to the categorical imperative (if u will) is actually acting selfishly because their action is an expression of their identity, an expression of an identity that incorporates the following of ethical principles ( and as such can be viewed as 'virtue signalling'), rather than a purely selfless act done to help an other.
Because this view is empty of considerations for the mechanics of fellow feeling or 'empathy' (imo one does not need empathy, with it's accompanying dubious epistemological assumptions, u only need sympathy/pity, a shadow of a real shared sentiment, to get out of this view), it becomes inconceivable that people act selflessly even though on a material analysis, individuals frequently act in ways that do not benefit them in order to help others, even strangers. Selflessness and selfishness become indistinguishable, which, when ppl naively associate selflessness with the good, and selfishness with the bad, causes frequent cognitive dissonance as some people are tempted to imagine many selfish acts as being purely selfless ('I did it for my family's future'). In a capitalist society, these discourses have an effect of rendering the image of the richest, i.e the most selfish when acting to accumulate wealth, as the most selfless (the great philanthropist). In order to ever be able to give anything away, in this view, we are told that we must first steal it.
The problem in this discourse is not the blurring of a distinction between selfishness and selflessness, but that the people driven to engage in this discourse ('youre only doing good things so ppl will admire u or give u attention') are terribly and horribly afflicted by manichaen worldview in which selfless=good and selfish=bad. The association of selfishness with moral failure demands a cognitive response that re-permits (re-sanctions?) an individual to act selfishly. I maintain that, the impulse to construct a discourse for blurring selfless and selfishness is probably actually the impulse to break out of this world view, which is so toxic, that says that we should be afraid of selfish people and that we should avoid being selfish ourselves.
Well there's a reason I tried very hard to avoid using the word morality.
I brought it up because it relates directly to the confusion I perceive in this discourse, which rejects selflessness or finds it inconceivable or disavows it. The impulse to disavow selflessness, I reckon, stems from some misunderstanding of the moral value of selfishness. Selfishness, in the 'Kantian' case I glossed, turns into a requirement for moral action, which challenges the seemingly common sense perception that selfishness is immoral and selflessness=good.
You didn't use the word morality, but by bringing up 'bad people' it's moving towards it
And how deep of a rabbit hole would you want to go? I can argue "yes, this person is being selfless. Here is an example". Or, I can try to make a claim of "yes, selflessness is a normal part of the human experience". Both routes for argumentation is difficult for me to defend and you can very easily pull like eight different ad hoc arguments for reasons why somebody may own a pet and selflessness is not one of them.
This is why I feel that in order to understand any basis of the question OP asked, even for OP themselves, they need to start by understanding each and every discussed form of "the good". Once you understand that, you're able to make your own opinions on whether or not the dichotomy between selfish/selfless is worth thinking about, or even something that exists as a moral universal (which it does not lol a selfish action can produce a wide variety of good, and a selfless action can produce a wide variety of bad). A person is an individual agent, and because of that we're all individual knowers of certain knowledges. As a wise Peter Griffin said, while ripping off this amazing, yet brutally morally simplified quote, "the world does not beat to the sound of just one drum; what might be right for you, may not be right for some".
what do you mean by that?
in a lifetime, you have x amount of time. so, you should do actions to get whatever mind state you want to have in that amount of time.
Cresselia~~
Junichi Masuda likes this!!
I knew someone who nearly died because he tried to stop someone from committing suicide.
She had a gun. He was the one who ended up with the bullet in him.
I think he was probably completely selfless-- he nearly died. He could die. What gain would he have if he died?
She had a gun. He was the one who ended up with the bullet in him.
I think he was probably completely selfless-- he nearly died. He could die. What gain would he have if he died?
Depends... you cannot be selfless to everyone, just to a few people in your life
Where the analytics at?! Get my boys, Wittgenstein, Quine and Frege in there, at least; they contribute a lot to continental discourse without even really meaning to. I'd definitely put Kierkegaard in there as well, especially if you're including Nietzsche (whom you can't really go without, even if I tend to reject almost all of his ideas that aren't strictly cultural) and Schopenhauer.
It's pretty lofty, and to be honest I think irresponsible, to make a claim that every single act of what people would consider selflessness is done for a shot of dopamine, etc. You're speaking in absolutes by saying "in every single case it's helping others for the purposes of helping yourself" especially without any evidence to back your claim, when in reality I don't think motivations can be reduced to such simplifications.
People are complicated, and may be motivated to act for different reasons. I'm sure some people donate money because they want to feel better about themselves but it's certainly not the main reason for everyone. And sure, some people may have the secondary effect of feeling better about themselves after committing the act, but some people just want to help others so they could have a better life, even if they get no return.
That said, I do think it's important to acknowledge what you bring up - the "feel good" part of doing selfless acts. It can definitely be a factor and tbh, I think there should be more transparency about people admitting to feeling good when doing selfless things. I mean, we should do things that feel good especially if they have positive effects in our lives and the lives of others, no? Even if that is the main motivation for some, I think actions are in most instances more important than motivations, and if that's what it takes for some people to do good things, then so be it.
Also, I'm curious as to what role dopamine from helping others has in our progression through time as a species. Since humans are communal, I imagine feeling good from helping others would be a desirable trait in evolution to help societies thrive.
In general, I agree with you when you say people should strive to do what they believe is right and what helps others.
I think that, in the end, whether an action is done out of pure selflessness or not, we should try and promote actions that help others and improve society. This isn't to say that selflessness isn't important, but the important part in many cases isn't that it's done out of selflessness but rather that it's done, period.
Dollainthewoods
Breakfast, Lunch, and Dinner’s for Beginners
I think this is a great argument for this in general. I think the best example of selflessness in history, is the evacuation of Dunkirk in WW2, where over 300,000 soldiers were left holding a French beach trying to hold back the Germans until they could evacuate. There weren’t enough boats to evacuate them all however, so British citizens went on their boats on what might as well have been a suicide mission to get past the seemingly unstoppable luftwaffe. Many sacrifices were made, and many people died fighting the Germans, or even trying to hold them back. This is a prime form of selflessness, because people were fighting to help save their country and others. The “donation argument” in my opinion is kind of lazy, since charity work and philanthropy isn’t the only selfless act that you can do. All in all, I think it’s pretty obvious that there is a form of being selfless and selfishness, and the line between them is pretty clear.
Yes absolutely. Those heroic figures who decided to face their own martyrdom can be considered total selflessness. In Western literature and history the first figure that comes in mind is King Leonidas from the battle of thermopylae but as for modern day examples you can make the argument that firefighters who perished trying to extinguish flames can be considered true selflessness.