Is pleasure always a selfish act

CousinVinnie

I'm brand new here, please be patient with me. First a little about me to supply context. I'm a 55 year old scientist without a PhD. I wanted to get as far as an MS and then work for government or industry. Academia did not interest me. My plan worked and i"m very good at what I do. I have read many books on philosophy, ranging from our founding fathers in the field up to Kant and Wittgenstein. Philosophical subjects related to teaching and learning have helped me immensley be a better lab chief and mentor. That having been said, i realize I have barely scratched the surface of this complex subject. Here is my delimina, if one does an act that brings pleasure to another individual or group of individuals and that very act also brings immense pleasure to the individual performing the act, is the act selfless or selfish? For example I love to cook for my family. We have different days off. Frequently when I'm home I will prepare a special meal for my family. Generally they enjoy the meal and we have a lovely evening together. Is my act selfless because I prepared a meal for people I love with the hope that it will ibring them genuine pleasure and mprove their day (perhaps even turn it around if they've had a rough day). Ot is my act selfish because ultimately I experience a great deal of satisfaction and pleasure from the entire experience? This may seem trivial but I'm determined to understand my motivation. One last point, I enjoy being of service to others. I frequently refill coffee cups at breakfast, take care of gassing up my families cars, etc. I'm not claiming to be a saint - many issues are quite clear. I am conflicted over this issue and would be happy to hear any opinions you may wish to share. Thank you for taking the time to read my post. Respectfully, Thomas

SonJnana

↪CousinVinnie

Interesting post. I think that you are acting in self-interest. It is your interest to make your family happy/to get satisfaction from making your family happy.

Whether an act is selfish or selfless depends on motivations. If you cooked for them only because you know they'll then do something for you and that's want you want, in that case you would be selfish. In this case you cook because you genuinely care about them, so that makes make you selfless. And in either of those cases, selfish or selfless, you would be acting in self-interest.

This may not be proper usage of the words if you get really technical, I'm not really sure. But this is how I like to look at it.

unenlightened

It's almost as if the act of asking the question makes, or at least exposes, the selfishness of the act. That is, the concern to be unselfish is itself a selfish concern. Is it not enough that there is a good meal and a lovely evening? Let it go at that, you don't need virtue points.

Rich

selfless or selfish? — CousinVinnie

It is exactly as you described. It brings pleasure to some people and probably doesn't to others, pleasure being a feeling in response to something being observed. That's it. Selfish and selfless had no meaning because results and effects are totally unpredictable. The next time everyone might be bored. It all depends.

bahman

There should be a minimal amount of self-interest, otherwise we wouldn't be here to live. That is another matter if you don't like life.

_db

↪CousinVinnie

This is the question of altruism. I think it's probably the case that most or no actions are entirely either selfish or altruistic. But I think it's wrong to call selfish what we otherwise normally would call altruistic just because you derive pleasure from it. If the ancient Greeks are to be believed, then a good person does the right thing, or lives virtuously, because they want to do the right thing.

This is, of course, relevant to Kantian ethics as well. A common misconception is that Kant thought only actions motivated by the purely rational Categorical Imperative were morally praiseworthy. As is commonly thought, Kant held that most actions are motivated by desires and that these desires corrupt the moral "perfection" of a good will. Hence the picture a lot of people have of Kant's ethics as involving a person who genuinely hates doing the right thing as the most morally pure person. This is a misconstrual of Kant's moral philosophy, but whatever.

T Clark

Is my act selfless because I prepared a meal for people I love with the hope that it will ibring them genuine pleasure and mprove their day (perhaps even turn it around if they've had a rough day). Ot is my act selfish because ultimately I experience a great deal of satisfaction and pleasure from the entire experience? This may seem trivial but I'm determined to understand my motivation. — CousinVinnie

It gives me deep pleasure to give pleasure to other people. It also gives me great pleasure to be recognized for what I have done. It also gives me great pleasure to be around people I care about. Sounds like you have similar feelings. None of these things are contradictory. They don't interfere with each other. They are neither selfless nor selfish.

In my experience, the only possible sin here is if, when I don't get the level of appreciation I wanted or anticipated, I am resentful. Resentment is one of the worst human vices and the most destructive to loving relationships and friendships. To my shame, I have a lot of experience with that. Pleasure offered freely and without expectation or resentment is never selfish.

mcdoodle

↪CousinVinnie

For me 'selfless' and 'selfish' are words in a moral system I don't subscribe to. Acts done without some element of self-love...what would that even mean? So they aren't descriptive words, they are judgments, and who is to be the judge? Best to do what feels right, and if that eventually turns out not to make you feel it was right, modify it next time.

cruffyd

I am also new to this forum (and to forums in general). I believe we are all 'philosophers' by nature, so it seemed the logical place to start.

It may take some measure of self-love in order to love another person. Hence, in understanding our own needs or wants, we then understand what others might want or need. This, of course, is the essence of the 'golden rule'. This could technically be called 'selfishness'. However, where 'selfishness' and 'selflessness' do not exist side-by-side, there may be imbalance.

TheMadFool

↪CousinVinnie

I call upon Newton's third law and Locard's principle of exchange.

Any interaction between two objects, people in your case, involves an exchange. It can never be a one-sided affair. So, selflessness, if it means complete absence of benefit for the actor, is a meaningless concept. However, selfishness can be one-sided with benefit accruing to the actor and harm to who is acted upon.

So, to be reasonable one has to define ''selflessness'' in a different way. One could define it as having interest in the welfare of others to the same degree or more than your self. This definition is more realistic and it applies to your question. In my opinion, you're acting out of love, which is, by my definition, selfless. So, yes you are selfless when it comes to yoir family.

We could view it in another way of course. What is family but simply an extension of your self? So, your actions re your family are, well, self-serving. One may then say that a truly selfless act would be to aid an unknown homeless man with some food or money.

Pseudonym

When we use the terms 'selfish' and 'selfless' it seems that there is an inherent meaning to both terms that we rarely have to come to terms with.

Consider someone of little wealth deciding to give all their money to an already wealthy dictatorial tyrant. Would anyone really describe such an act as selfless, merely because it dismisses the well-being of the subject in favour of another? Even if we were to concede that we'd be forced, by linguistic consistency, to say that the term applied, it would be uncomfortable to use it in such a way.

So it seems, in our common usage, we're not simply defining selfless as benefitting another 'self', but rather dissolving the 'self' in favour of the community at large. If we take this definition it resolves many of the conflicts about pleasurable (but apparently selfless) acts because the actor themselves is a member of the community they are helping, and so it is via the increase in the community's well-being that they derive their own pleasure.

Essentially the difference is not between acts that cause the actor pleasure and those that don't (but do cause pleasure to another), it is between acts which cause the actor pleasure directly and those which cause the actor pleasure simply by virtue of their being a member of a community which the act has benefitted.

charleton

↪CousinVinnie

I prefer to think that altruistic acts are acts that work to the advantage of one's chosen group; be that friends, family, country, race, nation, species, or ecosystem.
Helping others is what we call altruism, reducing it to self interest simply misses the point of why we have the word, as there are so many more acts that are truly selfish.
The argument that altruism is selfish is often found on the lips of truly selfish and non altruistic people, psychopaths and sociopaths.
Pay them no mind, and do them no favours.

Cavacava

↪CousinVinnie

if one does an act that brings pleasure to another individual or group of individuals and that very act also brings immense pleasure to the individual performing the act, is the act selfless or selfish?

I think it is the ends or the goals of our actions which determine whether or not they are selfless or selfish, and not the intensity of pleasure or lack thereof that determines an action's goodness or badness.

Is pleasure always a selfish act

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions