.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

[turquoisetumult.livejournal.com]

I picked "It's rare, but it happens," because one's got to wonder about people like Mother Teresa in India and others like her? True, a lot of people argue that she did it to augment her name, but I'd like to believe she genuinely wanted to help others.

On the other hand, I can't help to think of Ned in the first episode of Pushing Daisies: "I was being selfish. I love to tell myself I was unselfish, but I know deep down in my primal sweet spot I was being unselfish for selfish reasons." ... 'cause it's human nature to be ego-centric, even if we don't really intend to be. Call it survival of the fittest, I guess?

[viridian.livejournal.com]

I think the reason people say this is because even if someone does selfless acts for as simple a reason as "it makes them feel good", then that's still self-serving because they want to feel good.

Which, meh. I feel like if your motives are that pure then you're still better than 99% of the population, so that's close enough to selfless for me.

[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]

I have heard that before and I don't know what to say to that.

I have even heard that "wanting to do the right thing" makes an act not selfless because "they only did it because they wanted to do the right thing." Which just confuses me. What makes a person want to do the right thing? Is wanting to do the right thing in and of itself selfless? Or is it selfish to want to do the right thing? Do you want to do the right thing because you want to be good? Do you want to be good so you'll... get into heaven? What if you don't believe in heaven? What then?

Why does it make someone feel good? Because they feel like a good person? Or because they like to please others? Because it makes them feel powerful to be able to do a so-called "good" thing?

I just don't believe that the answer to all of those questions is always going to be the selfish one. And I agree with you that it doesn't really matter anyway.

[slybrunette.livejournal.com]

I feel like you definitely already know where I stand on this so, um, not voting simply for the sake of allowing you to gather OTHER information. But, yeah, good on you for actually putting the poll up :)

[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.

[crickets.livejournal.com]

You should vote anyway. My poll would have a sense of completion if you did, lol.

[slybrunette.livejournal.com]

Voted. Welcome to the four way tie.

[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.

[inthekeyofd.livejournal.com]

A truly selfless act...look at mothers in the world, good mothers, not fucked up ones..I bet I can pick at least one selfless act they've committed in the process of them raising their children.

[liliaeth]

It depends on your definition of a selfless act.

Because when it comes down to it, we always gain something out of doing the right thing, even if it's only the good feeling you get inside that you've done something good; or the enjoyment of helping others.

[anoel.livejournal.com]

The problem with selfless acts is that no matter how selfless it may be, the *good* of doing a selfless act makes a person happy even in a little way so they get pleasure out of it which doesn't make it selfless. It just feels good to help people even if something bad happens to you because of it. However I did put rare because maybe there is *some* person who truly gets no happiness, none at all at doing something for others and just does it on principle or such. It could happen, who knows.

That's not to put down people who perform selfless type acts, no matter what benefit you get from it, doing good things for others is always great.

[crickets.livejournal.com]

I have to agree.

[meresy.livejournal.com]

The problem with the "makes me feel good/want to do the right thing" caveat is that it doesn't allow for the thoughtless act, either. Being happy with doing good/right assumes that any good act is deliberate in the first place.

For instance, I'd say a mother or father's altruism towards their children stands a good chance of being automatic at least, on the small scale. One doesn't get a charge out of it, it just what it is.

[crickets.livejournal.com]

This poll is not working out the way I imagined I would.

[crickets.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure that you always gain something. What if you do something that you know will get you into trouble, or hurt you in the long run, but you still do it because it's the right thing to do. Is it not selfless to sacrifice yourself [in any number of ways] in order to do what you feel is the right thing?

I guess you would get one thing from that. Peace of mind. That is, if you're absolutely sure what you're doing is indeed the "right thing" - but what if you're just guessing? There may be no peace of mind in that instance.

[crickets.livejournal.com]

I won't argue that doing the "right thing" can oftentimes be satisfying in the end. But I'm not cynical enough to believe that every seemingly selfless act was motivated by that satisfaction -- or perhaps something far more sinister than this simple innocent pleasure. I think the satisfaction of being good/doing good is oftentimes a side-effect of these actions, but is it always going to be something you consider beforehand? I'm not sure I can bring myself to believe that.

[millylicious.livejournal.com]

If there wasn't such a thing as a selfless act, I'd probably be a) much richer b)would probably sleep more.

I guess you could say it's not a selfless act because it makes me feel happy to help people, but at the end of the day it doesn't really make me gain anything to give money or work extra hours for no pay to save the people under me some boring tasks.

[harlot2.livejournal.com]

Let's face it, people are assholes these days. Many don't know how to be nice, period. Especially where I live right now. It's the reason I hate this town, because people don't even know how to talk to each other, much less how to treat each other decently.

That being said, once in a blue moon, there is the rare gem that seems to have been transported from another dimension. People usually don't know how to react to these folks, because they've never seen a decent human being before.

Um, yeah. I have some latent anger about this place right now. Anyway, that's why I voted "It's rare, but it happens." In a nutshell.