My two cents:

First, ought implies can: If there's a moral injunction that demands selflessness, it's absolutely necessary that it's possible to be so. I say this because there are folks who think that there's always something to gain in any act of kindness and ergo, there's no such thing as selflessness.

Second, since it's impossible not to personally benefit from being good, any notion of selflessness must factor in this truth. The best definition of selflesness I can think of is that a person is selfless when s/he, even if profiting from the act, does something that also benefits others.

There are two possibilties that are laid out before you:

1. Think of your welfare [it's impossible not to]
2. Think of your welfare + Think of the welfare of others

1 = Selfishness
2 = Selflessness

This view of selfishness and selflessness is fact-based and realistic unlike their more romantic alternatives which are sitting ducks for anyone with a little bit of common sense.

I very much enjoy that definition of selflessness. Again, my question is still taking form (which is why I posted here, to try to temper it). But I suppose then, what is the distinction between, say, someone doing a selfless act to shine their halos and an actually selfless person? The halo shiners are trying to benefit themselves while "thinking of the welfare of others"- but they are still selfish, and yet I can't help but think that they believe they need to do it, that they NEED to look out for others even if they otherwise wouldn't.

So, is that selfish or selfless, and are we all halo-shiners? Thank you for your input!

I think it depends on the balance of thinking about yourself and others. So if the halo-shining or whatever selfish motive weighs (considerably) more than some selfless motive, then most people would probably consider the person selfish.

I think the more one analyzes what it means for them to be truly happy, the more one will realize that what is truly good for oneself is also good for another.

are humans a selfish creature or a selfless creature? — dan0mac

Your ability or lack of ability for empathy comes from your maturation environment. Humans are what their environments shape them to be. There is no such thing as Human Nature, this is an old myth now laid to rest, there are personality structures that get shaped as they pass through social environments and take in nutrients. Conservatives and Christians hate this fact because it robs them of being able to talk about humans in idealistic terms and forces them to pay attention to social causation. It shatters both the conservative and religious ideology of man.

I very much enjoy that definition of selflessness. Again, my question is still taking form (which is why I posted here, to try to temper it). But I suppose then, what is the distinction between, say, someone doing a selfless act to shine their halos and an actually selfless person? The halo shiners are trying to benefit themselves while "thinking of the welfare of others"- but they are still selfish, and yet I can't help but think that they believe they need to do it, that they NEED to look out for others even if they otherwise wouldn't.

So, is that selfish or selfless, and are we all halo-shiners? Thank you for your input! — dan0mac

The way I formulated the notions of selfishness & selflesness allows some of their nuances to be captured

3. Think of someone's welfare = Think of your welfare + Think of the welfare of others.

The equation form gives away the mathematical turn I want to give it.

Let's develop a scoring system:

Thinking of your own welfare ( X )
-3 = Thinking a lot about your welfare
-2 = Thinking more than necessary about your welfare
-1 = the lowest level of thinking of your own welfare can't be zero

Thinking of others' welfare ( Y )
+3 = Thinking a lot about others' welfare
+2 = Thinking moderately about others' welfare
+1 = Thinking about others' welfare
0 = Not thinking about others' welfare

X + Y
-3 + 0 = -3
-3 + 1 = -2
-2 + 0 = -2
-3 + 2 = -1
-2 + 1 = -1
-1 + 0 = -1
-3 + 3 = 0
-2 + 2 = 0
-1 + 1 = 0
-1 + 2 = 1
-2 + 3 = 1
-1 + 3 = 2

The total selfishness/selflessness score [X + Y] ranges from -3 to 2 and they mean the following:

-3 = Extremely selfish
-2 = Moderately selfish
-1 = Selfish
0 = Selfless
1 = Moderately selfless
2 = Extremely selfless

Does this answer your question?

One evolutionary theory is that individual humans thrive when they are members of a group that is thriving. A human on its own is very vulnerable. So altruism (selflessness) is an evolved trait to strengthen the group for the advantage of all members of the group. However, individuals within the group also act for their own advantage relative to other members of the group (selfishness) even if the selfish acts weaken the group. So human thriving depends on the ability of the group to nurture the altruistic impulse while warding off the selfish impulse.

If one subscribes to this theory of human evolution, then it would appear that altruistic acts are rooted in the selfish motive of strengthening the group. Have we transcended this selfishness by extending our altruism to members of other groups or even other species? Hmm.

basic natural selection says that species only want to ensure the well-being of the species — dan0mac

This is anthropomorphizing a physical process. "Species" are abstractions. While species concepts have a foundation in reality, they do not exist in nature, and so can have no desires of any kind. So, natural selection can say nothing about what the human species wants. It only says how variant offspring are selected based on survivability by the laws of nature.

In fact, since the theory of evolution is based on physical principles, can have nothing to say about human intentionality. As Plantinga argues, it does not matter to evolution whether we have true or false thoughts, as long as what we do increases our chance for survival. Further, I have shown previously that intentional operations (such as knowing, desiring and willing) can't be reduced to physical operations. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/4732/intentional-vs-material-reality-and-the-hard-problem So, whether we are selfish or loving cannot be determined solely on the basis of physical considerations such as those justifying evolution.

What is possible can best be resolved by reflecting on what is actual. People actually do love, not merely in the sense of eros, but in that of agape. We make the good of the beloved our good, and harm to them harm to us. Humans actually die to save others. The members of the FDNY rushed to the Twin Towers even before the alarm sounded. Soldiers throw themselves on grenades to save their comrades. Men and women gave up their lifeboat seats as the band played "Nearer My God to Thee" and the Titanic filled with icy water.

We can't answer your question by appealing to physical considerations, because they tell us nothing about human commitments. Still, if we're open to reality, there is no doubt that some choose love over selfishness, and others call them "suckers" and "losers."

Interesting and persuasive stuff. Recommended reading for this approach?

I think the more one analyzes what it means for them to be truly happy, the more one will realize that what is truly good for oneself is also good for another. — Tzeentch

Well said. :clap:

Are you asking me? I mostly posted my own reflections.

On Plantinga, you can Google "evolutionary argument against naturalism (EAAN)". I agree with the part I cited, but not the whole argument.

Are you asking me? — Dfpolis

No.

↪flaco — Srap Tasmaner

If one subscribes to this theory of human evolution, then it would appear that altruistic acts are rooted in the selfish motive of strengthening the group. — flaco

Would you agree that being selfish requires that one is also conscious of their selfish motives? I don’t think most people are thinking about group strength when they are behaving altruistically.

I've encountered this idea in a number of sources. The most recent is E. O. Wilson, "The Social Conquest of Earth", Chapter 24.

Wilson has studied ants extensively. They represent rather extreme altruistic societies. I don't think the ant philosophers spend a lot of time discussing selfishness vs. selflessness.

You know that's interesting, you can carve your own path and describe any one experience in seemingly infinite ways. You could describe someone as selfish with certain strains of evidence, and yet there could be other evidence to show that that person (or humankind) is selfless. So, I think it really doens't have one answer, like, well, everything?

Would you agree that being selfish requires that one is also conscious of their selfish motives? I don’t think most people are thinking about group strength when they are behaving altruistically. — Jarmo

Generally true. But we have a great capacity for self-deception. If I were an elected official I might convince myself that I should grant special favors to campaign contributors because that is required so that I can get elected in order to do things that will benefit everyone. Unbiased observers would see this as totally self-serving. But I would convince myself that this is selfless behavior. So I'm not sure we can depend on self-awareness in the determination of selflessness.

But I suppose then, what is the distinction between, say, someone doing a selfless act to shine their halos and an actually selfless person? — dan0mac

But don't you think we all have both characteristics? Sometimes we respond to social pressures by "doing good and talking about it". Other times we just perform anonymous altruistic acts because it feels good to do it.

As Plantinga argues — Dfpolis

It does not matter what this wack-job argues. This guy tries to pass off the Holy Spirit as a valid premise in philosophical reasoning. The guy is a nut case, Notre Dame has lots of them.

"There should be little doubt that Christian belief can be and probably is justified, and justified even for one well acquainted with Enlightenment and postmodern demurrers. If your belief is a result of the internal instigation of the Holy Spirit, it may seem obviously true, even after reflection on the various sorts of objections that have been offered. Clearly one is then violating no intellectual obligations in accepting it." Plantinga, Knowledge and Christian Belief

are humans a selfish creature or a selfless creature? — dan0mac

Humans are naturally selfish - or as I like to put it: Egoists -.

Natural egoism arises together with the conception of the Being to existence, that is, the ego is part of what makes us beings of the form, way, way of being, and all perception, meaning, and existence, is felt through our free conscience towards the use of our own egoism. Does this mean that we are all already destined to do acts only for the sake of self-interest? Yes, however, how each individual will project his nature into existence, its a unique choice of each Being. Egoism is not a projection of our ideas, concepts, subjections, prepositions, languages, and not even of our consciousness of Being, but rather all of this arises from egoism that comes into existence with existence itself - humans are selfish as they are, because they are and can only be -

The human essence is that of egoism, of individual fulfillment for the purposes conceptualized by the being itself, however, how does it arise towards existence? How does it become an idea, a concept, an abstraction? It is conceived from the moment in which the Non-Being becomes Being:

1 – Life; the concept of existing in time;

2 – Egoism; exists and is part of concept 1 over time;

3 – Emergence of life; when we are born, we are conceived, when we come to be independent of another being in order to exist;

4 – The conception of 3 also brings with it egoism, the nature of being the exclusive property of oneself during existence;

5 – The moment we start to feel existence – ex: when we take our first breath after childbirth –, we empower the individual, thus making the ego become prevalent in our Being;

6 – With the empowerment of egoism, the formalization of possibilities comes into existence – making everything possible to be idealized or conceptualized –;

7 – End of existence through death – life is finite –;

8 – However, individual egoism, even though it has the potential to act “independent of external effects”, ended through the death of life, it continues to exist through the external potency of other individuals – such as the legacy, for example –.

Egoism is the only way to exist that eternalizes something finite – like Being – in something infinite – in ideas and in the world outside the individual –.

That is an excellent statement

interesting. I'll think on this response.

I suppose that is true. But I guess my question is about basic human instinct. Because it would appear there are examples of both being selfish and selfless. I think it is important to think about the aggregate; are we selfish or selfless, and how does that inform how we conduct ourselves? How does it effect everything from a basic social standpoint to political policy and how so we know when we've gone astray?

I think it is important to think about the aggregate; are we selfish or selfless, and how does that inform how we conduct ourselves? — dan0mac

That certainly seems like one of the primary questions that philosophers have been trying to answer since the beginning of philosophy. And I think many philosophers will agree, both ancient and modern, that we are both selfish and selfless. In my mind, the evidence that this is a fundamental feature of our human nature can be found in the fact that we get pleasure from both our selfish acts and our selfless ones.

A fair point and I have no argument. In reading responses though, I'm getting closer to forming my question though which I think is not the one I originally asked. What do you suppose that means that we have this duality? I'm attempting to do the un-attemptable here and asking why humans are going to human, I understand that. we think in binary, good vs evil, etc. Are we just constantly dancing at the line, choosing to lean one way or the other, or is there something in acknowledging that duality that could lead us somewhere better?

Yours is the question St. Augustine pondered in The City of God. He wrote of people choosing to be citizens if the City of God (those who are committed to the common good) or the worldly city (committed to selfishness). This is often expressed in theological terms, but the issue is pragmatic, not other-worldly. Augustine identified God with Love, saying that God is not loving, but identically Love. So, the City of God is not a religious sect, but all of those committed to love.

The same division was considered by the famous Victorian ethicist, Henry Sidgwick, who was unable to find any pragmatic basis for choosing to be either selfish or unselfish. Aquinas sees the choice as the fundamental option of moral life -- the essential act of free will, from which most of our life choices follow.

So, I would say that the fact that this division exists, and is not predetermined by human nature, is a consequence of, and evidence for, free will.

Are we just constantly dancing at the line, choosing to lean one way or the other, or is there something in acknowledging that duality that could lead us somewhere better? — dan0mac

I have difficulty imagining where "somewhere better" would be. We have ant colonies as an example of selflessness carried to its logical extreme. I don't think I want to be that altruistic.

Humans, on the other hand, seem to have arrived at a middle state. We are rather selfish. But we are also highly sensitive to selfishness in others. We mete out punishment to individuals whose selfishness is conspicuous or damaging to the group, e.g.: shaming, shunning, imprisonment, even death. And we derive pleasure from altruistic acts. Maybe this is exactly where we should be. We get to keep our individuality, but we also manage to keep our selfish impulses in check.