Well the thought has passed about in my mind many times- but I thought I would add it to the forums considering ts something to talk about.

Selfless is defined roughly by me as "without self (gain)" but everyone who gives to charity, is defined as a selfless act by my school, whereas I see it more of a selfish act because people do it either to get the school off their backs, or for the warm fuzzy feeling they get knowing they've helped humanity (however slightly).

also, there is a school out in Kenya somewhere where my school has funded and in part helped to built physically, again, defined selfless by the school (not actually said but implied you must understand) but I think once again its selfish for the same reasons, the war fuzzy feeling you get inside, or simply the pleasure you get from watching little faces light up- and of course knowing you've done right by your religion (the school is Catholic) and you're gonna get a seat with the big dude in the sky. I came to the conclusion that the answer was "no" but I was wondering what you thought about it.

No not really. Everything we do to help others helps us. We get the feelings, we get to feel good, we get to think we're good people, and of course depending on your religion, you get to know that God is proud of you.

This being said, there are minimally selfish acts, such as the only reward you get is the fuzzy feeling, then you're obviously getting much less then you deserve. However...Nobody does good work JUST for the fuzzy feelings, they expect nothing. So...I'm torn. :wacko:

With all due respect,
~~~Mr. Cain and Mr. Abel

It isn't a matter of if someone is selfish from an objective point of view but from the point of view from the individual. If they see the fuzzy feeling as being the ideal state, as being the ultimate good then to do something only for that or for that to be the result strived for then it is no less selfish then anything else or any more unreasonable a goal then anything else. With that said I would not doubt it possible that someone does something for that fuzzy feeling. It's merely the recognition of being something, the outlook people have on you and the happiness you get from said recognition either through their words or actions that one aims for when you speak about going for the fuzzy feelings. It makes things easier to do.


In the end I say ALL of our thoughts and actions are driven by our own self-interest. We look after ourselves above all others. It's a simple matter of opportunity costs.

More radically, even when we are looking out for others, we are still looking out for ourselves.

The Vietnamese Buddhist Thich Nhat Hanh talks about human existence like being a wave in the ocean--individuality is merely an arbitrary distinction that we make because it appears to be real. As such, what truly benefits the self benefits all humankind, and what truly benefits all humankind benefits the individual.

In this sense, every act is ultimately selfish AND selfless...

I would venture to say that we never look out for others but only ourselves. That was what I meant though wasn't exactly clear. If others happen to benefit while we look out for ourselves, so be it is what I think our outlook is like.

If that is the case, why do we commit acts that are so obviously contrary to the good of the whole? Why, furthermore, does there seem to be a predisposition to like the familar and dislike the strange? Where do things like racism arise, if not from selfishness?

They arise from the illusion of self. Or, in Christian terms--pride.

There are times in one's life when we may/or may not choose to commit to a selfless act. I raised my children with the understanding by me that the selfless act was mandatory. These are the hard decisions to make. They usually involve one's intervention in the suffering of another that most would deem unacceptable & intolerable. If someone is being beaten/made to suffer senselessly, you intervene. If someone else is with you you send them to get help but if not you stand by fellow human & intervene. It's a grave risk. It can cost you injury or your life. Often it will lead to you being abused also for not minding your business. It will make your life miserable & you will be thanked most likely by none, not even the person you stood up for. The end result will mostly be the situation will remain unchanged. You speak up anyways.

We all know the kinds of situations I'm talking about. I've come across it maybe a half dozen times in my life. Twice when my daughters were little they have told me of abuse of their friends. It was hard for them to tell me. They swore they wouldn't tell. I questioned them carefully. I had to notify authorities. The children in question knew the only people they had told was my daughters. It led to their removal from their families. Needless to say this cost them the friendship of their best friend at the time. It's a small world & the kids wrote to others in the school blaming my daughters for ruining their lives. A few idiot (in my opinion) neighbors told me I should have minded my own business. It'll be a while & hard to get a best friend after that my daughters learned. But they also know that there are no longer imprints of the butterfly buckle being beaten into her friend's back nor bruises on her belly & the other knows that the other at least was removed from her molestor and her herpes was treated.

There are times when someone is being abused in front of you. You may or may not know the person. The abuser is probably a lover or family member. Your intervention may lead to your own abuse. You will not be thanked by the person for so clearly stating the abuse. I believe it is a moral imperative to say something anyway. I have been called names by some of friends for doing so, including idiot & crazy since it only stopped the current situation & put myself at risk, and it has cost me friendships. But I know I did what I could for an intolerable situation. I find it unacceptable to look the other way & hope that the situation will go away or pretend if never happened. This kind of thinking does everyone a disservice. Once witnessed you must act. I'm not saying you have to take on the attacker but you must speak up. Others may join you, but probably won't. There will be social consequences. Its never comfortable to deal with. In fact its so very easy to look/walk the other way and pretend you never it or that you weren't sure what you saw. Hoping someone else maybe better will act does nothing.

There are so many times we use our voices to complain about things so very trivial in comparison. We must use our voices when its imperative.

Giving aid at your convenience isn't a selfless act although that can make a difference too. Giving aid at your inconvenience & costs to you is a selfless act.

They do such things because what they "know" leaves them under the impression that such things benefit them.

And so since it was mandatory in your understanding then if you choose to go against the grain on it you end up hurting yourself because of what you see as being the penalties for nothing with it.

I intervene because violence doesn't solve problems but instead allows them to grow with possibility of escalation thus hurtting productivity even more. Another possibility is that how your mind is wired may have you regret not getting involved. You may feel guilty and in such a case inaction is what harms you directly. Otherwise you are responding to indirect threats to your well being.

As for the result being that you often get abused, I question what level you are speaking of now and just how you get it being often not to mention what you mean by that but anyway. It may be an unseen possibility from when you are looking at it prior to getting involved. We humans do not see everything.

I don't feel that I was abused, more like there were temporary social consequences. I made them ( my children) aware that there was risk of abuse if the attacker turns on you. I personally got mixed results from people. I don't really care one way or the other if they approve or disapprove. I feel its a moral imperative.

It is a moral mandate if you are to consider yourself better than a savage and that humanity has value.

What are you talking about when you speak of hurting productivity? Do you only get involved if allowing the situation has a negative personal effect? That's not selfless in my opinion.

If your child told you that their best friend was being abused and told you of the evidence they'd seen, what would you do? Are you not the authority? Did your child or any child not seek help with a serious problem & reported it? Are you going to teach your children that you will not act & not to do so? How are they to trust you that you would act for them? Do you think it fair to expect the abused child to trust authority & report it themselves? Granted my nursing training includes child abuse and neglect detection. So I was really certain based on what I was told & what signs I had seen but hadn't connected as yet.

If you were passing an alleyway & saw a woman being strangled, her mouth open but silent, her face pale, & knees buckling, what would you do? This I have seen. I know what I did. I know others saw this too as they kept walking & walked faster. Would that be you too since intervening is just gonna make you late for work? I find such an act unforgivable. Even though the woman was obviously a drug addict as he appeared to be too. He had no right to kill her. I feel no right to look away. He may have killed her later that day I don't know. But I know she lived past that moment & fled past me when he let her go. My impression was from his shouts at her was she smoked up his share of the crack. Well wasn't that a risk he took when he sent her to get it or hold it? That his risk didn't go his way, justifies him killing her? Do you want to live in a world where such judgements are made at such times? We humans do not see everything I agree. But there are times when someone's blatantly being abused or harmed right before their eyes without a doubt, & still they do not even speak up. That is to live in constant fear when you know even you yourself will not act, so how can expect others in your time of need? That is not a world I will live in.

Well, I think the modern definition of selfless is something you do that has benefits for others, but no visible or material benefits for yourself.

Obviously, men being drafter into World War 2 who fought bravely gained nothing personally, other than a feeling that they actually did something good in the hell hole that was Europe......

That is selfless enough.....

not all of europe. some of it was ok. For a start spain, portugal and switzerland were't even involved.

I do believe that there are selfless acts. I also believe that many of them serve no purpose whatsoever. Does that matter?

Without going into your specific examples, Keys, my question is:

Does doing something purely out of a sense of its being "right" make it selfless? It seems to me that it does not. Like "Survivor's Guilt", sometimes such actions have a nasty lingering aftertaste when we understand that someone may be forced to finish what we (for whatever reason) start.

I believe that a truly selfless act is one that requires us to be completely accountable. And, when adjudicated, we are found innocent of any personal motivation or personal reward or gain. Only another receives the benefit in whatever measure you might choose. No other person has accountability, only benefit for our selfless act.

"I did what I could" does, by it's very definition, attempt to mitigate the result, if not the action itself. Sometimes, that's good enough.

First, forgive me for raising the question and not looking back at the topic- I had completely forgotten I had started it.

The acts you have committed in the quote above are indeed noble- but I disagree they were selfless. They served your own concience as seen where I have highlighted in bold- otherwise you would have felt what could be deemed as a much worse consequence than the loss of friends, bruises and loss of respect- guilt.

You stuck to your scruples which is admirable- but that is the point. They are your scruples and you had to pick which consequence was worse and not take it.