Are All Good Deeds Inherently Selfish?

[Slartibartfast]

I getcha, and I think we're hung up on the thought process involved (or lack thereof). Let's keep it simple for both of our sakes.

Every action that we do is because we WANT to do it. If you break down ANY action that any person does, it will eventually break down into an "I want... ".

I essentially agree. Provided we agree that there is no coersion in this scenerio.

That doesn't mean that immediately prior to an action we have a full on conversation with ourselves and determine what it is we want and why we want it. That doesn't need to happen.

Its not so much a conversation. I just described it that way because this forum is primarily verbal. Its a series of quick feelings and thoughts as the information about the situation is being processed in my brain. But they do tend to happen in that sequence.

The very fact that you WANTED to open the door means that internal conversation has already taken place. You already have that value system in place. You didn't need to think about it at that point in time.

Yup. But we do think about it, even if we don't make a conscious effort to do so. We are constantly evaluating our environment and generating responses. Again, I just brought up to a verbal level for two reasons.
1. To detail what is going on in my brain (i did some translating from pure thought to something more verbal, again due to the limitations of this communications medium)
2. To expose what happened so I can analyze it and see if I can crack the chicken and egg thing.

 

[rivrrat]

I agree...I think the incident you are describing is not a logical or thought out moment...it is pure instinct. In that example you are by your actions, without thinking about things, analyzing things or weighing pros and cons simply BEING...this is who you are.

But it's not "pure instinct". It may be a "part of who you are" because those values are already in place. No, you don't always have to have a conversation with yourself or think it through like that. Because the values that motivate the behavior already exist. That internal conversation has already taken place at some point.

 

[Slartibartfast]

But it's not "pure instinct". It may be a "part of who you are" because those values are already in place. No, you don't always have to have a conversation with yourself or think it through like that. Because the values that motivate the behavior already exist. That internal conversation has already taken place at some point.

For me it happens a lot because I don't always give the same responses to similar situations. In some cases, helping may be warrented, in some cases it may not be, depending on the details of the situation. So, part of the reason for that conversation is to assess the situation and determine the appropriate response. Again, its not a conversation so much as it was me verbalizing the assessment of and response to a situation. Its not in words, but in feelings and I think its something we all do since that "conversation" (a bad word for it really) also does things like go "if I help this person, will it hurt me in some way?" "Do I have the resources necessary to accomplish the action being evaluated?" etc. All very situational stuff. Some of it may draw from instinct, but it draws from other things as well, such as available resources, cost-benefit analysis (I could cheer that guy up, but if I lose a leg, its not worth it), social appropriateness, etc all stuff that draws from life experience.

 

[rivrrat]

Its not so much a conversation. I just described it that way because this forum is primarily verbal. Its a series of quick feelings and thoughts as the information about the situation is being processed in my brain. But they do tend to happen in that sequence.

Yup. But we do think about it, even if we don't make a conscious effort to do so. We are constantly evaluating our environment and generating responses. Again, I just brought up to a verbal level for two reasons.
1. To detail what is going on in my brain (i did some translating from pure thought to something more verbal, again due to the limitations of this communications medium)
2. To expose what happened so I can analyze it and see if I can crack the chicken and egg thing.

Yes, I would consider that an internal conversation, though. Perhaps there's a better term for it, but it's a thought process, however rapid it may be. It's amazing what can go through your mind in mere milliseconds. But sometimes it's more in depth, and thought out, and reasoned. And other times it's a more of a reaction to the situation presented. When it's a "snap judgement" or whatever we'd like to call it, those actions are being motivated by a value system already in place. That's all I meant. It's not like you sit there and think, "I should open the door for this person because it will make me feel good". You just open the door, because that's who you ARE. That value system is already there. Other times, yes, you ARE thinking and reasoning out because the situation calls for it and/or you have the time to.

But either way, the motivation to act must be present. And that motivation comes from within, and stems from YOUR desire to do something. It stems from your "I want... ".

 

[imagep]

But it's not "pure instinct". It may be a "part of who you are" because those values are already in place. No, you don't always have to have a conversation with yourself or think it through like that. Because the values that motivate the behavior already exist. That internal conversation has already taken place at some point.

yea, I dont think that there is anything instinctive about jumping on a handgranade.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Yes, I would consider that an internal conversation, though. Perhaps there's a better term for it, but it's a thought process, however rapid it may be. It's amazing what can go through your mind in mere milliseconds. But sometimes it's more in depth, and thought out, and reasoned. And other times it's a more of a reaction to the situation presented. When it's a "snap judgement" or whatever we'd like to call it, those actions are being motivated by a value system already in place. That's all I meant. It's not like you sit there and think, "I should open the door for this person because it will make me feel good". You just open the door, because that's who you ARE. That value system is already there. Other times, yes, you ARE thinking and reasoning out because the situation calls for it and/or you have the time to.

But either way, the motivation to act must be present. And that motivation comes from within, and stems from YOUR desire to do something. It stems from your "I want... ".

I think we are on a tangent, lets get back to the topic. But it is neat how fast our brains can think.

I don't think the mere presence of wanting to do something has any bearing on whether an action is selfish or not. The reason I say this is because an action is selfish is it helps you and harms another person as a known consequence (provided that consequence isn't a greater good, like jailing a criminal). Ultimately the determination is the effect the act has on another, regardless of what goes on in our heads.

It is the harm to another that is the immoral piece. If you are doing something just for you, like making a sandwich to ease hunger, than it is not selfish since it is essentially a neutral activity (in regards to your interaction with society). (assuming of course you did not steal the stuff to make a sandwich with)

I think it is essentially impossible to define selfishness if you are only looking at your interaction with yourself since the term is really about how one deals with society. But I think that is the wall you are hitting.

 

[VanceMack]

But it's not "pure instinct". It may be a "part of who you are" because those values are already in place. No, you don't always have to have a conversation with yourself or think it through like that. Because the values that motivate the behavior already exist. That internal conversation has already taken place at some point.

I know its sort of picking at nits...I dont think we disagree...much...but I have never had the internal conversation "if this then that"...but I suspect instinctively (sure...based on who I am/have become over the course of life) I will behave a certain way. I dont see that as being selfish or having a selfish or self serving goal, which is what the OP was about. And I also agree...there is nothing wrong with the being selfish in a healthy way.

 

[VanceMack]

yea, I dont think that there is anything instinctive about jumping on a handgranade.

You dont??? You think that is a logical and well thought out process?

 

[rivrrat]

I think we are on a tangent, lets get back to the topic. But it is neat how fast our brains can think.

I don't think the mere presence of wanting to do something has any bearing on whether an action is selfish or not. The reason I say this is because an action is selfish is it helps you and harms another person as a known consequence (provided that consequence isn't a greater good, like jailing a criminal). Ultimately the determination is the effect the act has on another, regardless of what goes on in our heads.

It is the harm to another that is the immoral piece. If you are doing something just for you, like making a sandwich to ease hunger, than it is not selfish since it is essentially a neutral activity (in regards to your interaction with society). (assuming of course you did not steal the stuff to make a sandwich with)

I think it is essentially impossible to define selfishness if you are only looking at your interaction with yourself since the term is really about how one deals with society. But I think that is the wall you are hitting.

Hmm... I believe that something is selfish if it benefits the self. And everything we do benefits the self in some way. You're attempting to place a value judgement on actions and only calling actions that you deem morally "wrong" as selfish. I still think this stems from the notion that selfish = bad/wrong. People are loathe to agree that something is selfish because they perceive that to be morally "wrong". I don't agree. If the self benefits, it is selfish. But that doesn't make the action wrong or bad. I agree with you that we could say that something is morally 'wrong' or 'bad ' by determining who was harmed, how much, and in what way. But, IMO, that has nothing to do with the selfishness of the act.

 

[imagep]

You dont??? You think that is a logical and well thought out process?

I see your point, I know it sounds crazy. But yes, perfectly logical - if not well thought out.

 

[imagep]

Hmm... I believe that something is selfish if it benefits the self. And everything we do benefits the self in some way. You're attempting to place a value judgement on actions and only calling actions that you deem morally "wrong" as selfish. I still think this stems from the notion that selfish = bad/wrong. People are loathe to agree that something is selfish because they perceive that to be morally "wrong". I don't agree. If the self benefits, it is selfish. But that doesn't make the action wrong or bad. I agree with you that we could say that something is morally 'wrong' or 'bad ' by determining who was harmed, how much, and in what way. But, IMO, that has nothing to do with the selfishness of the act.

Well by your definition, then everything is selfish. If everything is selfish then there is no actual meaning to the word.

Like if there was a word that ment that every object is made out of some type of particples, lets call this word "bluto". Why would we ever need to say the word "bluto"? Would we go around saying that I need to go to the bluto bathroom, or hand me that bluto pen please, or I like bluto hamburgers, or I am wearing bluto shoes. There would be no significances to it because everything would be "bluto", so the word would never come up in conversation and most likely if the word was never spoken, then why would anyone bother to include it in the dictionary. A word has to have a meaning that makes it a worthwhile or nessasary word to use. I assume that "selfish" is usually used as an adjective. Why would we have a meaningless adjective?

I think that there has to be a little more to the meaning of selfish or else we would not need the word.

 

[rivrrat]

Well by your definition, then everything is selfish. If everything is selfish then there is no actual meaning to the word.

Everything is not selfish since everything cannot perform an action with forethought. So of course the word has meaning.

Like if there was a word that ment that every object is made out of some type of particples, lets call this word "bluto".

Or... atoms?

Why would we ever need to say the word "bluto"? Would we go around saying that I need to go to the bluto bathroom, or hand me that bluto pen please, or I like bluto hamburgers, or I am wearing bluto shoes. There would be no significances to it because everything would be "bluto", so the word would never come up in conversation and most likely if the word was never spoken, then why would anyone bother to include it in the dictionary. A word has to have a meaning that makes it a worthwhile or nessasary word to use. I assume that "selfish" is usually used as an adjective. Why would we have a meaningless adjective?

I think that there has to be a little more to the meaning of selfish or else we would not need the word.

It's not meaningless. It has meaning. It means benefiting the self. The actual meaningless word in relation to what we are discussing is 'altruism'. Because it actually doesn't exist.

 

[imagep]

When would an action not be selfish then? Only when someone does something out of instinct? And does that mean that the word unselfish does not have a meaning?

 

[ricksfolly]

When politicians, activists, and/or ordinary individuals attempt to make life more enjoyable for those less fortunate around them, isn't it true that in most cases (if not all cases) the good deed is done to make the generous individual feel better about him/herself? Under any normal circumstances, the kind soul who gives a dollar to a peddler on the street knows full well that the money will be wasted on toxic substances rather than spent on vital necessities. The act of giving a dollar to a beggar on the street is no more "good" for the beggar than it is "good" to reward others for the mistakes and/or harmful habits that they themselves create.

Under normal circumstances, individuals have the capability to rise out of poverty and to improve the lot of their own surroundings. Given that a person is not born with blindness or disability, or acquires a debilitating condition later on in life, the resources and opportunity is out there if their character is ambitious enough to reach for them. It is up to the individual to make the right decisions and to act responsibility. When they are at fault for their own bad habits, their own careless judgments and their own living conditions, you can't point the finger at CEOs, bankers, and corporations as if they were the masters over the enslaved poor. In some cases, the poor are poor because of horrible, unpredictable circumstances. For the most part, however, the poor are poor because they failed to make the right decisions and/or they failed to break their own bad habits.

Back to the subject of this post: Isn't it true that all the busybodies out there who believe in living a life of selflessness (in order words, living your life for the sake of serving others) only believe in such a misguided foundation because they, themselves, wish to feel better about themselves.

The whole idea of life is to feel good about yourself. What better way than doing things for others. When I see a homeless person on the streets I always give him five dollars because it makes both of us feel good for that moment. I never ask why or wherefore, or judge him in any way, but I often say to myself. There but for the rub of the green go I.

ricksfolly

 

[rivrrat]

When would an action not be selfish then? Only when someone does something out of instinct? And does that mean that the word unselfish does not have a meaning?

Any actions taken by a machine would be unselfish. At least until AI becomes better.

IMO, "selflessness" and "altruism" and their opposing words are just words for philosphical banter, really.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Hmm... I believe that something is selfish if it benefits the self. And everything we do benefits the self in some way. You're attempting to place a value judgement on actions and only calling actions that you deem morally "wrong" as selfish. I still think this stems from the notion that selfish = bad/wrong. People are loathe to agree that something is selfish because they perceive that to be morally "wrong". I don't agree. If the self benefits, it is selfish. But that doesn't make the action wrong or bad. I agree with you that we could say that something is morally 'wrong' or 'bad ' by determining who was harmed, how much, and in what way. But, IMO, that has nothing to do with the selfishness of the act.

It looks like we are talking about two different things. Whether it benefits the self, from my perspective, is only a piece of whether something is selfish. There is also a harm/neglect componant.

 

[ricksfolly]

Any actions taken by a machine would be unselfish. At least until AI becomes better.

IMO, "selflessness" and "altruism" and their opposing words are just words for philosphical banter, really.

I agree. Only words that lead to action have credibility.

 

[Helvidius]

When politicians, activists, and/or ordinary individuals attempt to make life more enjoyable for those less fortunate around them, isn't it true that in most cases (if not all cases) the good deed is done to make the generous individual feel better about him/herself? Under any normal circumstances, the kind soul who gives a dollar to a peddler on the street knows full well that the money will be wasted on toxic substances rather than spent on vital necessities. The act of giving a dollar to a beggar on the street is no more "good" for the beggar than it is "good" to reward others for the mistakes and/or harmful habits that they themselves create.

Under normal circumstances, individuals have the capability to rise out of poverty and to improve the lot of their own surroundings. Given that a person is not born with blindness or disability, or acquires a debilitating condition later on in life, the resources and opportunity is out there if their character is ambitious enough to reach for them. It is up to the individual to make the right decisions and to act responsibility. When they are at fault for their own bad habits, their own careless judgments and their own living conditions, you can't point the finger at CEOs, bankers, and corporations as if they were the masters over the enslaved poor. In some cases, the poor are poor because of horrible, unpredictable circumstances. For the most part, however, the poor are poor because they failed to make the right decisions and/or they failed to break their own bad habits.

Back to the subject of this post: Isn't it true that all the busybodies out there who believe in living a life of selflessness (in order words, living your life for the sake of serving others) only believe in such a misguided foundation because they, themselves, wish to feel better about themselves.

The only act I can think of that may be done without any personal gain would be to sacrifice one's life for anothers. Not a family member or friend, but dying for a complete stranger. This is assuming the person isn't doing it to become a martyr or no longer wants to live. That is the only situation I can think of where it may be a totally selfless act.

Your question reminds me of the movie It's A Wonderful Life. George Bailey spends his life trying to keep his father's bank open and protect the people of the town from Mr. Potter. He also stays at the bank so his brother, Harry Bailey, can pursue his own ambitions. George is miserable doing this until Clarence shows him what the world would be like if George never existed. It could be argued George was doing a selfless act he got no gratification from until he met Clarence.

 

[Ahlevah]

If you did it, you did it because you wanted to. That, in and of itself, is indicative of the personal motivation, the personal (i.e., selfish) payoff.

We should be careful about how we choose our words. If I threw myself on a hand grenade because I valued my friend's life above my own, I probably didn't want to die. Rather, I chose to die. So there's a difference between "wanting" and "choosing" in that sense. If we define a "want" as fulfilling a need, I suppose if I wanted anything it was to save my friend's life. But my sacrifice was not contingent upon my reception of a "positive feeling" or anything else. I didn't think ahead of time that I was striking a bargain. I didn't do it because I was trained to do it. I did it solely because I loved him and valued his life above mine--unconditionally. I can't envision an act in which I sacrifice my life unconditionally as being in any way "selfish" in the sense in which it appears the OP meant it, i.e. as a means to strike a bargain for my personal benefit.

 

[rivrrat]

We should be careful about how we choose our words. If I threw myself on a hand grenade because I valued my friend's life above my own, I probably didn't want to die. Rather, I chose to die. So there's a difference between "wanting" and "choosing" in that sense. If we define a "want" as fulfilling a need, I suppose if I wanted anything it was to save my friend's life.

I chose my words perfectly. There is no supposing, that would definitely have been your "want", and your personal (selfish) motivation.

But my sacrifice was not contingent upon my reception of a "positive feeling" or anything else. I didn't think ahead of time that I was striking a bargain. I didn't do it because I was trained to do it. I did it solely because I loved him and valued his life above mine--unconditionally. I can't envision an act in which I sacrifice my life unconditionally as being in any way "selfish" in the sense in which it appears the OP meant it, i.e. as a means to strike a bargain for my personal benefit.

No need to strike a bargain. If you did it, you did it because you wanted to. That is a selfish motivation. It is for the self. The personal payoff doesn't necessarily have to be a good feeling afterwards, it can simply be the avoidance of negative feelings. (i.e., not being able to live with the guilt of NOT having done something) You didn't have to think ahead of time or negotiate anything. The internal dialogue took place a long time ago when your value system was put into place. Or should I say, the internal dialogue is ongoing, really. The value system was already in place, no need to think about the action or "negotiate" anything. You performed the action because your value system motivated you do so.

 

[rivrrat]

That would be an interesting circumstance: "I will throw myself on a hand grenade and sacrifice my life so I can avoid negative feelings." Somehow, I just don't view that as being any more realistic than the converse, which was I was trying to gain positive feelings when I blew myself up. Then there is the fact that it violates one of the conditions I set in my hypothetical: I choose ("want" in your vernacular) to sacrifice myself unconditionally because I love my comrade unconditionally. (True love , in order to be worth much, must be unconditional. If I told my wife I would love her only as long as she maintained her figure, that would be selfish; part of the beauty of the love we share is she knows I'd still love her even if she were the size of a walrus.)

Love is one of the most selfish emotions. You sacrifice yourself because you WANT to. Personal payoff. Period. There's nothing "conditional" about that at all.

 

[Ahlevah]

The personal payoff doesn't necessarily have to be a good feeling afterwards, it can simply be the avoidance of negative feelings.

That would be an interesting circumstance: "I will throw myself on a hand grenade and sacrifice my life so I can avoid negative feelings." Somehow, I just don't view that as being any more realistic than the converse, which was I was trying to gain positive feelings when I blew myself up. Then there is the fact that it violates the conditions I set in my hypothetical: I choose ("want" in your vernacular) to sacrifice myself unconditionally because I love my comrade unconditionally. (True love , in order to be worth much, must be unconditional. If I told my wife I would love her only as long as she maintained her figure, that would be selfish. Part of the beauty of the love we share is she knows I'd still love her even if she were the size of a walrus.)

 

[lizzie]

Back to the subject of this post: Isn't it true that all the busybodies out there who believe in living a life of selflessness (in order words, living your life for the sake of serving others) only believe in such a misguided foundation because they, themselves, wish to feel better about themselves.

Yeah, that, or maybe their guru told them they need to.

 

[Ahlevah]

Love is one of the most selfish emotions.

That depends. If it's self-love or erotic love, then, yeah, it can be selfish. If it's the kind of love I'd feel for my wife even if she weighed more than a freight train, then, well, we'll just have a difference of opinion.

 

[lizzie]

That depends. If it's self-love or erotic love, then, yeah, it can be selfish. If it's the kind of love I'd feel for my wife even if she weighed more than a freight train, then, well, we'll just have a difference of opinion.

Agreed. When talking of love, there are several types. The only one I know of which transcends the need for some type of self-gratification is the one referred to as Agape love. It's very difficult to attain that type of relationship and devotional persistence, as it generally applies to one's actions/ attitudes/ interaction with the entire human race.