.104 - the selfless act.

[krickets]

I was having this strangely philosophical conversation with slybrunette last night, and I brought up the topic of "selfess acts". I've had this conversation with many a'friend in the past, and the answer they give me is pretty much universally the same.

No, there is no such thing as a truly selfless act.

This baffles me because I tend to believe the opposite. That selfless acts do exist. I know it's my [annoying] optimism and my wish to see the good in people that causes me to believe in the selfless act, but of all the conversations I've had about this, I can't remember one person ever coming to that same conclusion.

So what do you think, flist?
[Feel free to link others to the poll, I'm quite curious!]

[Poll #1570039]

I'd love to hear your explanations in the comments!

Comments

[crickets.livejournal.com]

See I don't believe you have to be Mother Teresa in order to be selfless. Maybe I'm wrong. I probably am wrong. But I just can't believe that.

I can't remember what Ned was talking about there, but I do agree that acts don't always have one single motivator -- or maybe they never do. There can be a lot of things going on at the same time. But even given all the reasons, in the end there's a moment where you make a decision to act, and in that moment I think you either consciously or subconsciously know the reason why you're making that decision.

[turquoisetumult.livejournal.com]

I'm not saying you have to be Mother Teresa to be selfless - she was just an extreme example of someone who was so incredibly selfless that she placed her own well-being below the needs of others.

Ned was talking about resurrecting Chuck and keeping her alive. On the surface, it might seem like he was doing a good deed - Chuck was a young woman who had never experienced the world/life and he was giving her another chance at it, but deep down inside, Ned knows that he also kept her alive for more than a minute because "my world is a better place with you in it." You see, how it always comes back to the self, to number one?

Same thing with the marriage example - why do people marry, primarily? For love. But one person of the pair not only gives love to the partner, but also takes love. When you make the decision to marry someone, it's usually because you've decided that that someone makes you happy. You hope you make the other person happy too, but really it's about how you feel, no?

I know this seems like I'm really harping on the selfishness. I'm not. I genuinely believe that people can do good and other unselfish motives for doing good, but I still think that a lot of the time, even if it's an unselfish motive, there is a selfish something tagging along too - even if it's not much.

But then again, behaviorism/external motivation is one of my favorite aspects of psychology, my major, so... lol

[crickets.livejournal.com]

Ah. Well yes, Ned's example seems to be an obvious one. I think it was clear that he wanted to her around so that's why he couldn't let her go back to being dead.

The marriage example wasn't one of selflessness, or wasn't supposed to be. It was just an example of how while there are many reasons to do something, there can oftentimes be a singular reason why you decide to act. You could be marrying somebody for a plethora of reasons, but [in theory] if you weren't in love with them, none of the other reasons would matter, you wouldn't marry them for those reasons alone.

I believe it's possible for an action to have one singular determining reason. And in that sense, it makes the selfless act something other than fiction. For me.

Before they moved across town, I used to help the neighbor kids with their homework a lot because their parents were from El Salvador, couldn't read or write, weren't very good with English, and they had nobody else to help them. I'd say I did it for that exact reason. There was no one else. Perhaps a side-effect of doing it was that afterward it made me feel like I'd done a good thing, like I'd done the right thing. But that's not the reason why I did it. In fact, a lot of the time I felt as though I should have done more, rather than patting myself on the back. I'm not saying I'm some hero for doing this, or trying to brag, but I don't see how that could be construed as selfish.

So I guess, from my own personal experience, and the fact that doing these things wasn't any great effort, just something I did, it makes me believe in the truth of the selfless act, no little niggles of selfishness attached.

But maybe I'm simplifying the human psyche to an impossible degree. I don't know.

[turquoisetumult.livejournal.com]

RE: Ned. Well, it's Pushing Daisies, so the characters aren't the most complex known to man. Which I love. Makes it all the more funner. :)

RE: Marriage. I see your point about how one singular motive can push the action, but I still think that even in marriage there's more to it than love. You may love someone entirely, but maybe (s)he isn't stable or maybe there are other complications that would deter a marriage.

RE: El Salvadorian neighbors. Yep, I see your point about the good-feeling came as a side effect and not as an intention. And I think that's a good point to bring up when people argue that even the good-feeling is a form of self-rewarding/self-pleasure/selfishness.

I also think it has to do with the individual as well and that applying these theories to a population of 6 billion is impossible. I know I lack motivation and although I'd like to be generous with my time and efforts, I rarely get out of my house, nevermind help people who need it unless I am otherwise asked/coerced to.