Have you ever done something completely selfless?

[LordMaul]

Originally posted by: NakaNaka

Originally posted by: Dr Smooth
I have given blood. Usually I feel like crap for a day after donating the old red stuff.

Yea but you still feel good about yourself. On Friends they brought this up, that there are no selfless acts because if you help someone out, you make yourself feel good about doing it.

Not true. What if you die for someone else? I don't think you can feel very good about doing that sort of thing.

 

[gopunk]

Originally posted by: LordMaul

Originally posted by: NakaNaka

Originally posted by: Dr Smooth
I have given blood. Usually I feel like crap for a day after donating the old red stuff.

Yea but you still feel good about yourself. On Friends they brought this up, that there are no selfless acts because if you help someone out, you make yourself feel good about doing it.

Not true. What if you die for someone else? I don't think you can feel very good about doing that sort of thing.

you did so because you wanted to. i don't think Friends phrased as well as it could have been...

 

[gopunk]

Originally posted by: Spamela

Originally posted by: gopunk

most "heroic" acts are forgotten pretty soon, plus i doubt that anyone egocentric enough to want such a reputation would be willing to sacrifice their life to get it.

by the sheer fact that they chose to engage in whatever act they did, means it was not selfless. doesn't really matter for what reason they felt compelled to do it... fact is, they felt compelled, and they acted to satisfy that need.

i assume you mean that some people couldn't live with the guilt of knowing that they failed to act when they could have made a difference.

i think whether or not a person believes that truly selfless acts exist depends on how cynical one is, and
i suppose a certain level of that would cause one to believe that there are no heros, since one would think that nobody could be motivated by sincere altruism.

well, that is part of what i mean... if you want to have a specific example. but i mean, just logically... people do things because they choose to do them, and that, by definition, makes it not a selfless act. so whether or not a person believes that truly selfless acts exist depends more on how willing someone is to reject an engrained notion that is false.

and i still call some people heros... i don't think that word is defined by altruism.

 

[Lonyo]

After a bit of thinking, I came up with an example:

Say you have a partner, and he/she makes you incredibly happy, and you only have a few other friends so you spend most of your time with him/her, and his/her friends hate you, and you left him/her just so the friends were happy, even though you'd never probably speak to them again, how would that be a gain for you? Would that be selfless, since the friends would be happier, but you definately wouldn't.

This is similar to something that was on TV this afternoon, which was partly what inspired the question.

 

I don't think that there's any such thing as selflessness. Yes, I'm a moral egoist. I do commend people for doing good for others, but it all boils down to self-interest. There's always some form of positive result. If you do something perceived as sacrificial by society, then you win yourself a name in histroy and honour. That to me is not selflessness. There's no such thing, except if you make honour an insignificant quality.

 

[Spamela]

Originally posted by: gopunk

Originally posted by: Spamela

Originally posted by: gopunk

most "heroic" acts are forgotten pretty soon, plus i doubt that anyone egocentric enough to want such a reputation would be willing to sacrifice their life to get it.

by the sheer fact that they chose to engage in whatever act they did, means it was not selfless. doesn't really matter for what reason they felt compelled to do it... fact is, they felt compelled, and they acted to satisfy that need.

i assume you mean that some people couldn't live with the guilt of knowing that they failed to act when they could have made a difference.

i think whether or not a person believes that truly selfless acts exist depends on how cynical one is, and
i suppose a certain level of that would cause one to believe that there are no heros, since one would think that nobody could be motivated by sincere altruism.

well, that is part of what i mean... if you want to have a specific example. but i mean, just logically... people do things because they choose to do them, and that, by definition, makes it not a selfless act. so whether or not a person believes that truly selfless acts exist depends more on how willing someone is to reject an engrained notion that is false.

and i still call some people heros... i don't think that word is defined by altruism.

i agree that all human actions have motivations (since acting without motivation is an unconscious impulse), but i don't think the mere fact that you act as a result of some sort of motivation necessarily means that what you're doing is never selfless.

 

"i agree that all human actions have motivations (since acting without motivation is an unconscious impulse), but i don't think the mere fact that you act as a result of some sort of motivation necessarily means that what you're doing is never selfless."

You're resorting to an intensional definition. I can agree with your definition which stipulates a hypothetical situation, but realistically human beings have souls unless you do not believe so. And if human beings have souls, it is this same souls that motivates them. There is no way they could exclude themselves. There is no such thing as selflessness.

 

[gopunk]

i agree that all human actions have motivations (since acting without motivation is an unconscious impulse), but i don't think the mere fact that you act as a result of some sort of motivation necessarily means that what you're doing is never selfless.

i don't see how you can think that... you are acting because you want to, which makes it not selfless.

 

[ohtwell]

Originally posted by: luvly
"i agree that all human actions have motivations (since acting without motivation is an unconscious impulse), but i don't think the mere fact that you act as a result of some sort of motivation necessarily means that what you're doing is never selfless."

You're resorting to an intensional definition. I can agree with your definition which stipulates a hypothetical situation, but realistically human being have a soul unless you do not believe so. And if human beings have a soul, it is this same sould that motivates them. There is no way they could excluide themselves. There is no such thing as selflessness.

I agree with you luvly! A person is driven to do something by some internal motivation. Satisying this urge makes the person feel better so therefor the action isn't selfless. It's nice and considerate but never selfless.


: ) Amanda

 

[Spamela]

Originally posted by: ohtwell

Originally posted by: luvly
"i agree that all human actions have motivations (since acting without motivation is an unconscious impulse), but i don't think the mere fact that you act as a result of some sort of motivation necessarily means that what you're doing is never selfless."

You're resorting to an intensional definition. I can agree with your definition which stipulates a hypothetical situation, but realistically human being have a soul unless you do not believe so. And if human beings have a soul, it is this same sould that motivates them. There is no way they could excluide themselves. There is no such thing as selflessness.

I agree with you luvly! A person is driven to do something by some internal motivation. Satisying this urge makes the person feel better so therefor the action isn't selfless. It's nice and considerate but never selfless.


: ) Amanda

hmm, that seems to imply that Roger's act wasn't selfless.

I don't think that there's any such thing as selflessness. Yes, I'm a moral egoist. I do commend people for doing good for others, but it all boils down to self-interest. There's always some form of positive result. If you do something perceived as sacrificial by society, then you win yourself a name in histroy and honour. That to me is not selflessness. There's no such thing, except if you make honour an insignificant quality.

i suppose a test might be: would anyone give their life, in some horribly gruesome manner, anonymously for others, without thought of reward?

i believe such acts occur, so where's the self-interest? or, does making an extreme sacrifice w/o hope of tangible benefit make one a fool?

 

[gopunk]

Originally posted by: Spamela

Originally posted by: ohtwell

Originally posted by: luvly
"i agree that all human actions have motivations (since acting without motivation is an unconscious impulse), but i don't think the mere fact that you act as a result of some sort of motivation necessarily means that what you're doing is never selfless."

You're resorting to an intensional definition. I can agree with your definition which stipulates a hypothetical situation, but realistically human being have a soul unless you do not believe so. And if human beings have a soul, it is this same sould that motivates them. There is no way they could excluide themselves. There is no such thing as selflessness.

I agree with you luvly! A person is driven to do something by some internal motivation. Satisying this urge makes the person feel better so therefor the action isn't selfless. It's nice and considerate but never selfless.


: ) Amanda

hmm, that seems to imply that Roger's act wasn't selfless.

I don't think that there's any such thing as selflessness. Yes, I'm a moral egoist. I do commend people for doing good for others, but it all boils down to self-interest. There's always some form of positive result. If you do something perceived as sacrificial by society, then you win yourself a name in histroy and honour. That to me is not selflessness. There's no such thing, except if you make honour an insignificant quality.

i suppose a test might be: would anyone give their life, in some horribly gruesome manner, anonymously for others, without thought of reward?

i believe such acts occur, so where's the self-interest? or, does making an extreme sacrifice w/o hope of tangible benefit make one a fool?

you're missing the point.... why does anyone do anything? because they choose to. there is some part of them that has a desire to engage in some action, and to fulfill that desire, they engage in the action. therefore, no action is selfless.

 

[datalink7]

Originally posted by: Kiyup
There's no such thing.

Exactly what I was going to post.

 

[iamme]

i once went out of my way to return a wallet that had lots of cash in it. the owner was even surprised i returned it

it negatively affected me, because i needed the money

 

[bigjack]

i put a baby up for adoption 27 years ago, i myself belive that is a selfless act


big jack's wife

 

[ohtwell]

Originally posted by: bigjack
i put a baby up for adoption 27 years ago, i myself belive that is a selfless act


big jack's wife

That must have been hard.


: ) Amanda

 

[ohtwell]

Originally posted by: Spamela

Originally posted by: ohtwell

Originally posted by: luvly
"i agree that all human actions have motivations (since acting without motivation is an unconscious impulse), but i don't think the mere fact that you act as a result of some sort of motivation necessarily means that what you're doing is never selfless."

You're resorting to an intensional definition. I can agree with your definition which stipulates a hypothetical situation, but realistically human being have a soul unless you do not believe so. And if human beings have a soul, it is this same sould that motivates them. There is no way they could excluide themselves. There is no such thing as selflessness.

I agree with you luvly! A person is driven to do something by some internal motivation. Satisying this urge makes the person feel better so therefor the action isn't selfless. It's nice and considerate but never selfless.


: ) Amanda

hmm, that seems to imply that Roger's act wasn't selfless.

You are right! I should have said that there are exceptions. People who die for their country and people that make those decisions like Roger did are performing selfless acts. I should have said that in my post. Roger's action was very selfless.


: ) Amanda

 

[Siddhartha]

Originally posted by: NakaNaka

Originally posted by: Dr Smooth
I have given blood. Usually I feel like crap for a day after donating the old red stuff.

Yea but you still feel good about yourself. On Friends they brought this up, that there are no selfless acts because if you help someone out, you make yourself feel good about doing it.

I don't care what the writers of Friends have to say. I donate blood because it is the right thing to do.

 

[Miramonti]

I once saved a kid from drowning by diving into a bone chilling ice cold lake in the mountains and bringing him to shore. I was only 15 then tho and its been 'all about me' since.

 

[dquan97]

Yes I do. Pretty often!

 

[Spamela]

Originally posted by: gopunk

Originally posted by: Spamela

Originally posted by: ohtwell

Originally posted by: luvly
"i agree that all human actions have motivations (since acting without motivation is an unconscious impulse), but i don't think the mere fact that you act as a result of some sort of motivation necessarily means that what you're doing is never selfless."

You're resorting to an intensional definition. I can agree with your definition which stipulates a hypothetical situation, but realistically human being have a soul unless you do not believe so. And if human beings have a soul, it is this same sould that motivates them. There is no way they could excluide themselves. There is no such thing as selflessness.

I agree with you luvly! A person is driven to do something by some internal motivation. Satisying this urge makes the person feel better so therefor the action isn't selfless. It's nice and considerate but never selfless.


: ) Amanda

hmm, that seems to imply that Roger's act wasn't selfless.

I don't think that there's any such thing as selflessness. Yes, I'm a moral egoist. I do commend people for doing good for others, but it all boils down to self-interest. There's always some form of positive result. If you do something perceived as sacrificial by society, then you win yourself a name in histroy and honour. That to me is not selflessness. There's no such thing, except if you make honour an insignificant quality.

i suppose a test might be: would anyone give their life, in some horribly gruesome manner, anonymously for others, without thought of reward?

i believe such acts occur, so where's the self-interest? or, does making an extreme sacrifice w/o hope of tangible benefit make one a fool?

you're missing the point.... why does anyone do anything? because they choose to. there is some part of them that has a desire to engage in some action, and to fulfill that desire, they engage in the action. therefore, no action is selfless.

there's a difference between involving the self and "having no concern for self" ("selfless").

 

[GoingUp]

Originally posted by: luvly
"i agree that all human actions have motivations (since acting without motivation is an unconscious impulse), but i don't think the mere fact that you act as a result of some sort of motivation necessarily means that what you're doing is never selfless."

You're resorting to an intensional definition. I can agree with your definition which stipulates a hypothetical situation, but realistically human beings have souls unless you do not believe so. And if human beings have souls, it is this same souls that motivates them. There is no way they could exclude themselves. There is no such thing as selflessness.

So if everyone has souls, what do you think about soul mates?

 

[chrisjor]

The answer to the original question is ....YES!!! I have, and I will. You'll never know!!!