Acts of charity, generosity, and volunteerism are correlated with activation in the brain’s reward centers (ventral striatum, medial prefrontal cortex). Helping others feels good, biologically. The altruist experiences hormonal reinforcement through dopamine and oxytocin — demonstrating that “good deeds” literally reward the doer. — Copernicus

Selfish people no doubt experience the same reward when they perform acts of greed and meanness and bullying. The difference is not in the hormonal reward, but in what acts stimulate the hormonal release. By focusing on the same reward that follows altruistic and selfish acts, you eliminate the distinction. Clearly, to you, the distinction is not important. Fair enough. But you can't prevent other people finding the distinction important.
No doubt people who harm themselves (cutting themselves, starving themselves) experience some sort of hormonal reward. You would no doubt call those acts of self-interest in the same way and ignore all the reasons why such actions are problematic and fail to understand why other people want to help, not merely observe. Addicts perform actions that are similarly harmful to themselves, and experience a certain reward. For the rest of us, it is not about the reward, but what stimulates the reward.
Your way of looking at these actions does not enable you to see such actions as problematic. That's your prerogative. Other people see things differently, and they are entitled to their view even if you cannot understand it.

I don’t deny that we are motivated to achieve k personal satisfaction, emotional fulfillment and meaning. — Joshs

Yes, but I think it is important to add that the differences at stake here are not about those rewards as such. They are about what gives us personal satisfaction, emotional fulfilment and meaning. People find those things in different ways, and that is where the moral questions arise.

When I perform an active of ‘selfless’ altruism or generosity, it is made possible by my ability to expand the boundaries of my self, — Joshs

In a sense you are right, of course. But that way of putting it doesn't distinguish what's going on from individualistic self-interest. It's more complicated than that. When I empathize or sympathize with someone else's predicament, I do not lose sight of the fact that it is not me that is sleeping in the streets.

Fair enough. — Ludwig V

Yes.

The more narrowly we are defining "selfless", the less importance the claim that selfless acts don't exist has.

That's on top of the fact, as already pointed out, that the conception of "selfless" as literally meaning having no concern for the self whatsoever, is nowhere related to what the word actually means.
(NB: I would guess some dictionaries might give a very terse definition, that implies no concern for the self, but they would also probably define words like "monopoly" or "democracy" in similar simple terms that would imply they don't exist either, if taken literally)

So if you want to create a term that means a willful action that's not willed, and not even originating in biology, possibly even causality...then sure, that doesn't seem to exist (or even make coherent sense). I'm with you on that.
Meanwhile back in the real world, people can be motivated by a desire to help others, putting their own needs second (within reason), and that's what people actually mean by the term selfless.

Meanwhile back in the real world — Mijin

...people call mass "weight".

...people call mass "weight". — Copernicus

That mistake is probably due to the opinion that they're acting in their self interest, whether they know it or not.

Yes.

And I believe you grasped what I meant here.

people call mass "weight". — Copernicus

Every thread now is just pithy responses. Why are you on a discussion forum, if you're unwilling to discuss the points being put to you?

Anyway, I'll give your response the courtesy you didn't give mine.

The difference with "weight" is that both the technical and colloquial meanings of weight are useful self-consistent terms, used by people speaking English to refer to actual phenomena.

Whereas the idea of "selfless" meaning very literally having no concern for the self, and not even having any biological basis for the behaviour, isn't a term anyone actually uses. Outside of threads like this, that is.
Threads claiming that there is no such thing as a selfless act is the only time we seem to encounter this extreme meaning of the term.

Incidentally, I also noticed a significant asymmetry in this discussion among people claiming there is such a thing as a selfish act, but no such thing as a selfless one.

Say we take the example of a man spending all his money on a flash car and fine clothes while his children go hungry...we'd call that selfish, right? Because that person was satisfying his want of nice things and putting that ahead of others that depend on him.

However, if we flip it, and talk about a father that sacrifices because he wants the best for his children, suddenly we can't talk about his wants and motivation in this simple way.
No, we instead now need to go super reductionist, and try to find neurochemical underpinnings, or even the whole evolutionary history of the species, to find an agency-free description.

IMO you can't have it both ways: if you want to take the agency out of selfless acts, you need to do the same for selfish acts and claim there's no such thing as a selfish act either.

A man is working a hand pump. A simple physical description. What is his intent?

Is it to replenish the water supply? Is he exercising? Is it to mix the poison so as to kill the town's population? Or is he just amusing the kids by making funny shadows on the wall behind him?

Notice well that the intent is at a very different level to the action. The very same act can have different intentions under different descriptions.

All you have done is to notice that any given action might be described in selfish terms. It simple does not follow, as you seem to suppose, that therefore all actions are selfish.

therefore all actions are selfish. — Banno

Yes.

Outside of threads like this — Mijin

Yes. My point was that words can have dumb meaning.

What do you think you are doing here? You want our responses, but don't reciprocate. Why? Should we respond to you respectfully, or ignore you?

a father that sacrifices because he wants the best for his children — Mijin

Serving his desire and agency to protect his children.

You captured it yourself. My view towards selfishness. Hence I said bravo.

The charitable explanation for your reply is that you did not understand my post.

Is it to replenish the water supply? Is he exercising? Is it to mix the poison so as to kill the town's population? Or is he just amusing the kids by making funny shadows on the wall behind him? — Banno

All serving the self. I can't see where not.

SO you didn't follow the argument?

All you have done is to notice that any given action might be described in selfish terms. It simple does not follow, as you seem to suppose, that therefore all actions are selfish. — Banno

Your OP is a signal to nefarious actors to institute their plans. We know this, despite your denials and protests. We can see the reality behind your post, and there is nothing that you might do to convince us that you are not part of the conspiracy.

All serving the self. I can't see where not. — Copernicus

Just to update you, the OP, or father of the discussion as to where the rest of us have reached or what the metaphorical child has grown into:

Most actions are self-serving either by intent or biological inclination that offers benefit or potential of benefit.

However not all actions, including misspeaking, unconscious reflexes or habits, have intent, which is required to constitute "selfishness."

The title of the OP is false. You have admitted multiple times that not all actions are selfish or self-serving (Which you did change from selfish to self-serving after being given comeuppance, mind you).

Or is he just amusing the kids by making funny shadows on the wall behind him? — Banno

This is a good example because, he might not care about the kids, personally, or kids in general, and just does it because it's "what society would want." Perhaps he couldn't care less about whether that society lives or dies or otherwise ceases to exist. You might argue, okay, sure, then he just did so to pass the time and make that moment a bit more interesting for his enjoyment. But you don't know that. You're one man with one brain, and you still fail to realize there's 8.2 billion people with 8.2 billion brains whose might work just a tad differently than yours. How is this so hard to understand?

This is a good example... — Outlander

Straight out of Anscombe.

But yes, the common problem in @Copernicus's threads is the failure to acknowledge the other.

You have admitted multiple times that not all actions are selfish or self-serving — Outlander

Look.

You're one man with one brain, and you still fail to realize there's 8.2 billion people with 8.2 billion brains whose might work just a tad differently than yours — Outlander

the core problem in Copernicus's threads is the failure to acknowledge the other. — Banno

Just like I don't measure everything in the universe but know that (a+b)²=a²+2ab+b². — Copernicus

You seem to think that post said something. I wonder what.

Individual observation isn't needed to find natural law. Something we call sampling.

What's the relevance of that?

More secret messages.

What's the relevance of that? — Banno

I can judge the nature of a nitrogen electron from Andromeda from the nature of an electron of oxygen here on Earth. The foundational nature is universally uniform.

Same with human selfishness.

I can judge the nature of a nitrogen electron from Andromeda from the nature of an electron of oxygen here on Earth. The foundational nature is universally uniform. — Copernicus

But you don't know that. You don't know any of that. Sure, it's a reasonable guess. You might even base a theory on that and it be proven correct. But you haven't done any of that, nor do you have the capability to. It might even be considered JTB (justified true belief), though I'm not sure as I don't read or rather immerse my virgin mind in established philosophy. But that's still just a guess. A reasonable one. A rational one, sure. But a guess all the same.

still just a guess. — Outlander

Everything is a leap of faith. True reality is forever unknown. But detected patterns often show uniformity.

That's quite incoherent.

I can judge that the chooks have laid an egg by their chortles. Therefor the villainous deed in which you are complicit starts next Tuesday.

You're now plainly trolling with irrelevant and illogical counterarguments.

Everything is a leap of faith. — Copernicus

Fried eggs, therefore, are a leap of faith. Cool.

True reality is forever unknown. — Copernicus

So the true reality is that true reality is unknown...

↪Banno You're now plainly trolling with irrelevant and illogical counterarguments. — Copernicus

No. I'm pointing out your part in the conspiracy. The more you deny it, the more certain we are of your complicity.

Just as you can point out the selfish reality behind any deed.

Fried eggs, therefore, are a leap of faith. Cool. — Banno

I hope you remember the spoon scene in The Matrix.

So the true reality is that true reality is unknown... — Banno

Exactly. It doesn't deny, only skepticizes.

I'm pointing out your part in the conspiracy. — Banno

How am I related to the chicken?