There are all kinds of reasons people may provide assistance to other people. Sometimes it is just because they empathize and wish to help. For those who have empathy for others, they understand what I just said, but I am not saying categorically everyone had empathy nor am I saying that people assist only or even primarily for empathy. But I know that sometimes people help others simply because they care.

Doing something for the benefit of others is the definition of selflessness, regardless of whether you happen to benefit yourself. Otherwise, you must define selflessness as those accidentally helpful acts.

Definitions derive not from word analysis, but from usage.

There are all kinds of reasons people may provide assistance to other people. Sometimes it is just because they empathize and wish to help. For those who have empathy for others, they understand what I just said, but I am not saying categorically everyone had empathy nor am I saying that people assist only or even primarily for empathy. But I know that sometimes people help others simply because they care. — Rich

I can understand where you're coming from, but it seems like if we ask a soldier why he saved his comrades, he wouldn't disagree that he did so because he couldn't live with himself if he didn't. In other words, the guilt that he would face if he let his friends die is something that makes dying in their place more preferable. And it could be argued that this sort of thinking applies to every person who wishes to help others. The idea that they provided assistance to avoid guilt sounds just as appropriate as saying that they did so because they wished to help.

On a related note, it can also be argued that perhaps the motivations of our seemingly selfless actions can be subconsciously geared towards our self-interest as well, despite our own seemingly conscious selflessness. I am not sure if this would mean that altruism is an illusion, but this is a point I've heard as well from those wishing to argue for psychological egoism.

Doing something for the benefit of others is the definition of selflessness, regardless of whether you happen to benefit yourself. Otherwise, you must define selflessness as those accidentally helpful acts. — Hanover

But my question has to do with whether or not there are actual examples of people doing something solely for the benefit of others and not their own interest. In other words, are all actions done out of concern for oneself?

@Alec
I think its clear that all actions are driven by self-interest.

But Hanover is suggesting something I did not consider.

Doing something for the benefit of others is the definition of selflessness, regardless of whether you happen to benefit yourself. Otherwise, you must define selflessness as those accidentally helpful acts.

Definitions derive not from word analysis, but from usage. — Hanover

Saving someone who wants to be saved becuase you wan't to save them constitutes "selflessness".

Saving someone who does 'not' want to be saved, because you want to save them constitutes "selfishness".

Selflessness does infact exist and take place all the time, given that it satisfies the interests of both you and the other person.

Thats what I take from this discussion. Before; I thuaght seflessness was defined as an act of doing something purely becuase it benefitted another(impossible). But it's really "doing somthing that benefits another on behalf of the fact that it satisfies your own interests.

But my question has to do with whether or not there are actual examples of people doing something solely for the benefit of others and not their own interest. In other words, are all actions done out of concern for oneself? — Alec

Sure, but they're not what we would consider selfless. If I trip over a wire and save you from electrocution, I did something for you and nothing for me.

In all of these situations, it can be argued that there is an ulterior motive behind these actions and that they were thus never really selfless to begin with. — Alec

Psychological egoism is pretty much rejected by most moral philosophers and moral psychologists. Just because you have a desire to do something doesn't make it selfish. Selfishness isn't defined in terms of desire-satisfaction, it's defined by the contents and orientation of desires. Motivation is the determinate factor here.

Sure, but they're not what we would consider selfless. If I trip over a wire and save you from electrocution, I did something for you and nothing for me.

Right, so as you were saying, it would have to be by accident, because people don't do things they have no interest in doing, you have to have sufficent interest in order to be driven to voluntarily them in the first place.

By "self-interest" I mean anything that benefits you or prevents harm on yourself.



Come on. Are all conscious decisions that we make done out of concern for oneself?

Come on. Are all conscious decisions that we make done out of concern for oneself?

How couldnt they be? Unless we accidentally "tripped over a wire" like Hanover said. If you do something voluntarily, its becuase you had an interest in doing it, satisfying that interest is a self serveing motive.

If you found this to be true, would it bother you? If so, why?

Come on. Are all conscious decisions that we make done out of concern for oneself? — Alec

You're creating a tautology here. If I do what I want to, then I'm selfishly doing what I want, even if what I want is to save your life from a burning house. If I didn't want to save you, I wouldn't have.

My point is that you're misdefining the word.

I can understand where you're coming from, but it seems like if we ask a soldier why he saved his comrades, he wouldn't disagree that he did so because he couldn't live with himself if he didn't. In other words, the guilt that he would face if he let his friends die is something that makes dying in their place more preferable. And it could be argued that this sort of thinking applies to every person who wishes to help others. The idea that they provided assistance to avoid guilt sounds just as appropriate as saying that they did so because they wished to help. — Alec

Even if the soldier would feel guilty if they didn't perform their action, was that what was on their mind when they saved their comrades? Were they thinking "Oh dear, my friends are going to die and it would be such a pain if I have to deal with the resulting guilt" (which is the sort of thinking they'd have if they were really being self centred) or were they more concerned with the fact that their friends are actually in danger? In addition, wouldn't the fact that they felt guilty be a signal that there is more to their decision to save their friends other than the pain that comes from this guilt?

You're creating a tautology here. If I do what I want to, then I'm selfishly doing what I want, even if what I want is to save your life from a burning house. If I didn't want to save you, I wouldn't have. — Hanover

I don't see how I am creating a tautology. A conscious decision to do what you want doesn't necessarily mean that what you want is in accordance with your own self-interest. If the things that you want are to your own benefit (either by acquiring pleasure or avoiding harm) then that means it's selfish and if not then it's selfless. Doing what you want to do is compatible with the latter, but my question is if there are any true cases of such behaviour.

Doing what you want to do is compatible with the latter, but my question is if there are any true cases of such behaviour. — Alec

As I've accused you of a tautology, the disproof would be for you to hypothesize the very example you seek. That is, if you can't imagine a hypothetical case of conscious, non-accidental selflessness, then what you are looking for exists in no possible world and is thus a contradiction. To assert its absence would be a tautology. So you tell me, using your definition of "selfless," when does it occur?

Any time someone wants something that isn't to their own benefit. Compare I simply want to save someone from a burning house vs. I want to save someone from a burning house in order to protect myself from the guilt of not doing so. The definition itself should be clear enough for imagining what it is like. Or is there something that you find impossibly unclear here?

The problem is not in imagining it, it's whether or not we can give any example of its actual occurrence that I am questioning. I really don't know how I can be more clear on that.

There will always be a reason. I want to save someone from a burning house because it will satisfy some desire in me.

That doesn't sound reasonable because then you face a regress. Why do you want to satisfy that desire? Because it will satisfy some other desire in you. And why do you want to satisfy that other desire? Because it will... and so forth. So either the buck stops somewhere or else we have to have an infinite chain of reasons.

Or here's another way of putting it: You're saying that I want to do x because it would satisfy my wanting to do x. That sounds circular.

Thanks for the link. I'll set aside some time for it tonight, so I'll get to you then if I have any thoughts.

Or here's another way of putting it: You're saying that I want to do x because it would satisfy my wanting to do x. That sounds circular. — Alec

My initial objection to your inquiry was that you were searching for a tautology, and here you're just recognizing my objection.

The question is: When is an act not selfish?

My response is not to look at this analytically, but simply to ask in which instances do we call something selfless. Saving kids from fires, rescuing the drowning, etc. are all such instances. It's not significant to me whether the rescuer were a passerby who would have had a strong sense of guilt had he ignored the victim or whether it was a paid emergency worker for hire. In either case, they saved another, and in both cases they had underlying motives, in both cases they were heroes, and in both cases they were not selfish..

Your inquiry has, however, been to try to derive that which is selfless from analyzing terms as opposed to simply looking for instances of term use. I first pointed out that all acts occurred for a reason except for those that were accidental, which meant that you'd be left with the absurd conclusion that the only selfless acts would be those like tripping over a wire to save people. You then wished to correct me by asking when were conscious acts selfless, and by conscious, you meant intentional.

You distinguished between two sentences:

#1: I simply want to save someone from a burning house vs.
#2: I want to save someone from a burning house in order to protect myself from the guilt of not doing so.

The problem is that #1 is an incomplete sentence. There is some reason you want to save someone because, tautologically, every intentional act has a corresponding intent. In order to find an act without an underlying intent, you must look for accidental or random events, not the sort we're at all interested in here.

So, to your question, when does #1 occur, asking very specifically as you have when do you intentionally save someone from a burning house for no reason, I'd say never, but that's based upon a logical problem in trying to explain how one can act intentionally for no reason. That just doesn't make sense. If you acted intentionally, you had a reason, and that reason formed the basis of your intent.

I would like to consider the possibility that every human action is the byproduct of selfish motives. — Alec

I think this was the premise behind the Selfish Gene book by Richard Dawkins. I believe his contention was that altruistic actions serve to promote the survival of the species and are therefore ultimately selfish, with self defined at that population.

What do you guys think of this? I look forward to hearing your thoughts. — Alec

Seriously, have you never just done something to help someone because you put yourself in their position, felt compassion, and saw there was something you could do? Not to avoid guilt. Not to make them grateful. Just because you like other people and want them to be happy. We are humans. We are social animals. We are built to like each other. It doesn't always work, but sometimes it does.

I think this was the premise behind the Selfish Gene book by Richard Dawkins. I believe his contention was that altruistic actions serve to promote the survival of the species and are therefore ultimately selfish, with self defined at that population. — MikeL

Dawkins would refute that a "purer" altruism is not possible in humans, and does so explicitly in the later (I think) editions of "The Selfish Gene" as a response to all the hoohaa. I think he says that human beings can transcend their genes in a sort of gestalty way.

Okay, I just got to reading it. I do agree that the very existence of guilt itself would imply a deeper desire that may not be selfish, which was what your Feinberg paper and @Mr Bee earlier had pointed out. It sounds more likely that those desires are what influenced their action rather than some secondary guilt avoidance. At least, that is where I stand ATM, though I'll be open to hearing other people's opinions if they disagree.

It is also interesting to note that selfless actions comprise more than just the usual cases of helping others. A person may for instance act based upon curiosity and strangely enough even on hatred for another person, especially if such malevolence is self-destructive. These cases too can also be considered "selfless", as they are not in the best interests of the individual.

You distinguished between two sentences:

#1: I simply want to save someone from a burning house vs.
#2: I want to save someone from a burning house in order to protect myself from the guilt of not doing so.

The problem is that #1 is an incomplete sentence. There is some reason you want to save someone because, tautologically, every intentional act has a corresponding intent. In order to find an act without an underlying intent, you must look for accidental or random events, not the sort we're at all interested in here.

So, to your question, when does #1 occur, asking very specifically as you have when do you intentionally save someone from a burning house for no reason, I'd say never, but that's based upon a logical problem in trying to explain how one can act intentionally for no reason. That just doesn't make sense. If you acted intentionally, you had a reason, and that reason formed the basis of your intent. — Hanover

I disagree that intentional acts must always have underlying reasons to them. If I were to have the sudden urge to jump on one foot and someone asks me why I did it, I would say "I don't know, I just wanted to do so". It's an intentional act clearly, but it was made on impulse.

You may say that I wanted to jump on one foot due to wanting to satisfy my desire to jump on one foot, but again, I should point out that such reasoning would lead to a regress. The idea that we wanted to do X to satisfy our desire would lead to an infinite chain of desires and wants. Indeed, that was even a point that @Πετροκότσυφας's linked paper makes on Pg. 8. The point here is that there is nothing wrong, so far as I can tell, with saying that I simply wanted X for its own sake.

Finally, the two sentences I gave were in order to demonstrate a selfless conscious decision, but it seems like you were too focused on the fact that #1 was an intentional act that lacked any reason, which I feel misses the point of what I am saying. If you want an example of an selfless intentional act that has a reason, then it is very simple to provide one. Compare "I want to save someone from a burning house in order to protect myself from the guilt of not doing so" to "I want to save someone from a burning house because it is the right thing to do". If you still think that the latter is somehow impossible then please tell me what is wrong here.

You provided examples of how altruism can be a product of selfishness, but not proof.

I disagree that intentional acts must always have underlying reasons to them. If I were to have the sudden urge to jump on one foot and someone asks me why I did it, I would say "I don't know, I just wanted to do so". It's an intentional act clearly, but it was made on impulse. — Alec

My understanding of the word "intent" is that it refers to an action with a goal, while your jumping on one foot apparently doesn't have one. Isn't there a difference between "voluntary" and "intentional?"

My understanding of the word "intent" is that it refers to an action with a goal, while your jumping on one foot apparently doesn't have one. Isn't there a difference between "voluntary" and "intentional?" — T Clark

Sure there is. The jumping on one foot is it's own goal, because you wanted to jump on one foot.

Sure there is. The jumping on one foot is it's own goal, because you wanted to jump on one foot. — Alec

This seems inconsistent with what you said earlier:

I disagree that intentional acts must always have underlying reasons to them. If I were to have the sudden urge to jump on one foot and someone asks me why I did it, I would say "I don't know, I just wanted to do so". It's an intentional act clearly, but it was made on impulse. — Alec

So, a goal is different from a reason?

"[You] want them to be happy. . ."

Sounds self serving to me.

Human action is a byproduct of several factors, like for example gravity.

If anything human action is always a combination of things rather than moved by a single influence. I think it is a bit dumb to try and reduce it to only one thing.