As humans, we pride ourselves in our superior intelligence, customs and advanced way of living. We make great displays of our generosity by donating to charity every christmas and volunteer once in while, walking away with one less hungry person in the world and a "fuzzy feeling". This does appear to be generous, but in fact is only self-serving. IS it possible to commit a completely selfless act?
The more I observe, the more I see that every act that human beings commit is for pure selfish motive. I am not talking about thieves, abusers and other criminals. It is clear that thieves are selfish in that they need currency/vaulable items, abusers need power or someone to relieve their stresses on and other criminals simply commit heinous acts for their own perverted pleasure. I am not talking about that, because it is generally known that these acts are "bad" and selfish. I am speaking of the non criminals in society. The person who donates to charity, the old lady who volunteers, the tree huggers, the religious, the warriors and much more. you may think they are the most selfless people, but in fact its the opposite. Why is it that when we willingly donate, we get satisfaction from it? WE then donate again, and walk away happy that we helped to change the world. It then becomes a source of happiness for many people. If you ask them why, they will often tell you "its where I feel happiest". Is happiness selfishness when we use others to obtain it? When we serve others in exchange for fulfillment? What about the volunteers? It is the same as well. Some volunteer because they want to purge themselves of guilt, others because they are looking for meaning to life and still many more who have their own reasons. Yet again, it is an exchange of atonement for guilt, an answer to a quest for the meaning in life, etc. The tree huggers, well-they hug trees because they want trees to continue producing oxygen so that millions of years from now their grandkids can continue living and thriving...yet another selfish act. Many who are religious choose to be religious because they seek a reward in heaven. They serve, in hopes of interest in heaven. I am not accusing religion or saying any of this is bad. i am just observing human nature and beginning to wonder-when was the last time I did anything completely selfless? And many brave warriors from ancient times willingly gave their lives-some for the honor, glory and fame. It appears that in every pretense of selflessness there is selfishness. It is inescapable.
Immanuel Kant noticed this as well and developed a philosophy called the categorical imperitive. It states that if what you are doing is bringing you happiness, it is a selfish act. If you choose to sacrifice your time to volunteer, and it brings you happiness then you are not sacrificing but giving yourself pleasure. I was just curious as to your thoughts on this.
You forget that humans first and foremost NEED to care about themselves. It is instinct to care about yourself first and others second because generations ago the people who didn't care about themselves first usually ended up dead, therefore not passing that gene on. We are "genetically engineered" to be selfish, it is normal.
I agree though that if your becoming happy through others then that is selfish.
Nothing is True, Everything is Permitted
http://www.progressiveu.org/090204-dont-miss-this-chance
Good point. It has a lot to do with Social Darwinism. And another thought about how happiness brings selfishness. If we were to give all our possessions away to the poor and starve, that would definitley give us a sense of piety and holiness because we chose to of our own will. WE expect a reward either through fate, retribution, reward, etc. Yet, this piety and sense of accomplishment and righteousness would be deemed selfishness, right? Even in our suffering? If we abide by this philosophy, I wonder what the consequences would be.
DISCLAIMER: I am not being rude. I'm stating my opinion. No personal attacks are meant. Please give some leniency on how you take my words. imagine me saying them with a smile. ^__^
You've hit upon an area in the philosophical movement of Objectivism.
http://www.progressiveu.org/090204-dont-miss-this-chance
Objectivism...hmmm...didn't know that it already had a name. Thanks for letting me know!
DISCLAIMER: I am not being rude. I'm stating my opinion. No personal attacks are meant. Please give some leniency on how you take my words. imagine me saying them with a smile. ^__^
I never thought about volunteering that way, and unfortuantely I have to agree with you. I work for a non-profit, making less money than I would for a corporation, because I feel like I'm helping to make the world better for kids. I volunteer at a dog shelter because I'm renting and can't have my own dog.
Although I guess these are selfish acts, they still help my community and better the lives of kids and animals, so it's not all that bad.
All great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds-Albert Einstein
http://www.progressiveu.org/090204-dont-miss-this-chance
I think its great that you are volunteering. I also volunteer. I just wanted to point out this philosophy of Kant's and thought its interesting how true it is, but perhaps its too radical to say so? Because volunteers sacrifice a lot to help the world. In the end, philosophers sit around and philosophy doing nothing while volunteers like us actually do something. THen those philosophers turn around and start accusing us of being selfish. I wonder, was Immanuel Kant satisfied from writing his philosophies? cuz if he was, he was selfish. I think that such belief only discourages volunteerism and destroys the fine line.
DISCLAIMER: I am not being rude. I'm stating my opinion. No personal attacks are meant. Please give some leniency on how you take my words. imagine me saying them with a smile. ^__^
While you are right, in that virtually no act is a selfless act, I think it is important to distinguish between being truly selfish and being selfish in a way that brings you no material reward. It's like the difference between Scrooge, who would only do things for money, and Mother Theresa, who instead used her resources for the betterment of society. Both were selfish acts, no doubt, but who is the better person for it?
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
I do not believe that feeling happy because of volunteering, necessarily makes you a selfish person, a person should not feel like crap after improving the life of others or the planet, if you do you may be suffering from some serious depression...
There are many things out there that a person can do to achieve happiness, the difference between a selfish person and an unselfish one, is that their pursuit improves the world around them.
You missed the point. Typically, people do good things because it makes them feel good, and so they keep doing them. That's selfish... attempting to gain something to make yourself feel better, rather than exclusively for the reason of helping others.
What I was saying is that there's a difference between one who is selfish in the traditional sense, and one who is selfish because they feel good about helping people. Both are selfish, in that they do things for their own benefit, one just helps others in the process.
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
http://www.progressiveu.org/090204-dont-miss-this-chance
This entire philosophy is self centered in my opinion. For one, if everyone actually did things that didn't bring them pleasure while changing the world, well they just wouldn't be as effective or enthusiastic about it. in fact, most people wouldn't even volunteer.
DISCLAIMER: I am not being rude. I'm stating my opinion. No personal attacks are meant. Please give some leniency on how you take my words. imagine me saying them with a smile. ^__^
http://www.progressiveu.org/090204-dont-miss-this-chance
You have a good point. I think that it would be more fitting for this philosophy if we defined what selfishness truly is. If our acts, however pleasurable they may be, result in the betterment of society and bring no harm to others then they are not selfish right? Or do we disregard the definition and apply that as a whole?
DISCLAIMER: I am not being rude. I'm stating my opinion. No personal attacks are meant. Please give some leniency on how you take my words. imagine me saying them with a smile. ^__^
I agree with others have said. We're selfish, there's no doubt about it. Not only in volunteering or donating, but everything else in between also falls into your characterization of "selfishness." But if my selfishness can bring other people happiness as well, then I want to be selfish for as long as I live.
Your argument reminds me of what my psychology professor brought up. He asked us if true altruism exists. By the time the class ends, we all concluded that there is no such thing as true altruism. We will all find some sort of benefits one way or another.
I also realized that selfishness is like lies. People tell lies all the time. But "white" lies exist as well.
http://www.progressiveu.org/090204-dont-miss-this-chance
About the white lies, but what if the white lies that we give were given to lessen the pain of our parents? What if we are not lying to cover ourselves, but because we know the other person doesn't want to hear the truth, will be hurt to know that you did what they told you not to? To save them from pain, isn't is UNSELFISH to lie?
DISCLAIMER: I am not being rude. I'm stating my opinion. No personal attacks are meant. Please give some leniency on how you take my words. imagine me saying them with a smile. ^__^
I'll make a good long blog post on this topic sometime.
To sum up what I'll say, though:
True selflessness cannot exist unless you can love yourself fully and completely; only then can you love another person selflessly, because you no longer have personal needs--you already feel plentiful complete.
There's a few ways someone really could give selflessly. One is the tireless worker who truly does work for another, and another is the person who either has great empathy naturally or gained it by going through suffering themselves, and would not wish it on another person. Also, they never, ever should expect gratitude in return. Appreciate it, but never expect it.
While a lot of people do get their jollies from doing a favor every now and then and patting themselves on the back, saying, "I'm such a good person", truly selfless people do exist... but they're rare.
---
"Your comment doesn't make sense. Whats this about Paris hilton? What are you talking about? You don't make sense." - alenka
My Blog.
http://www.progressiveu.org/090204-dont-miss-this-chance
"True selflessness cannot exist unless you can love yourself fully and completely; only then can you love another person selflessly, because you no longer have personal needs--you already feel plentiful complete."
Yes, that makes sense but then it all comes back to selfishness. You have to be selfish and love yourself totally before you can love someone else. And if loving yourself totally means doing good to society, that is still selfishness according to Kant because you are benefiting yourself.
DISCLAIMER: I am not being rude. I'm stating my opinion. No personal attacks are meant. Please give some leniency on how you take my words. imagine me saying them with a smile. ^__^
I have to disagree Scyze. Even Mother Teresa could be called truly selfless, yet she even said she did it for the good of God and because it made her happy to see the children she worked with. So she was doing the work for her personal satisfaction in the children's well being.
http://www.progressiveu.org/090204-dont-miss-this-chance
Exactly. Although, don't get me wrong the point of this blog was not to put people down or to implement this belief in to action. IT was merely a question raised to question its validity.
DISCLAIMER: I am not being rude. I'm stating my opinion. No personal attacks are meant. Please give some leniency on how you take my words. imagine me saying them with a smile. ^__^
Loving the self is not selfishness, because when I say "loving the self", I don't mean egotism. I mean perfect acceptance of the self, as-is--it's a more complex form of pure love that is not rooted out of self gratification.
Normally, it starts with a selfish desire not to suffer, but once past that, a person will eventually turn around and want to show other people how not to suffer themselves.
I think that to assume that every single action we do of benevolence is an act of selfishness for that little "wee, I'm a good person!" high is faulty reasoning. Not all people exist on our plane of selfishness, greed, good for REWARD, good to AVOID CONSEQUENCE. Where have our morals gone?
---
"Your comment doesn't make sense. Whats this about Paris hilton? What are you talking about? You don't make sense." - alenka
My Blog.
http://www.progressiveu.org/090204-dont-miss-this-chance
I think its impossible. Have you ever met a completely selfless person? I haven't. I think Jesus was the only one. BUt the argument here should be adjusted. Selfishness is a spinoff of egotism.They come hand in hand. Instead, I think we should accept the fact that all people are slefish by their deeds and judge the DEGREE of selfishness.
DISCLAIMER: I am not being rude. I'm stating my opinion. No personal attacks are meant. Please give some leniency on how you take my words. imagine me saying them with a smile. ^__^
Sorry, Jesus was even selfish.
Self preservation is the basis of morality.
I agree with you that by nature humans are selfish. That nature can be trained to share.
There are examples, that while rare, happen reaeatedly which cast your thesis into doubt. I am talking about people that risk and even sacrifice their lives to save others. Some do so with hope they will survive, yet some act even in hopeless situations. Perhaps they do not wish to live as the greedy cowards you think we all are.
http://www.progressiveu.org/090204-dont-miss-this-chance
"Perhaps they do not wish to live as the greedy cowards you think we all are."
i am sorry that you would think that. I admit that Kant had a point in his philosphy but I disagree with it, if you read the comments again. I don't think we are all greedy cowards. But I can't help asking: if someone doesn't want to live, is that being greedy? Is suicide greedy? Is it greedy when you are taking your life because you don't want to suffer but your loved ones will have to because of your actions?
DISCLAIMER: I am not being rude. I'm stating my opinion. No personal attacks are meant. Please give some leniency on how you take my words. imagine me saying them with a smile. ^__^
What I am refering to is heroism. Specifically heroism where the hero knows they are not likely to live through the act.
---
"if someone doesn't want to live, is that being greedy? Is suicide greedy? Is it greedy when you are taking your life because you don't want to suffer but your loved ones will have to because of your actions?"
I am in favor of a right to suicide. That is independant of any of your questions, but is my position. Suicide may be selfish at times, and not selfish others. Are people that want you to continue living a short life of horrible pain really 'loved ones' or just greedy themselves? There is plenty of reason to consider suicide immoral, but does that give any of us the right to force someone to live? At the moment the laws in this country say yes, maybe that will change.
http://www.progressiveu.org/090204-dont-miss-this-chance
I know what you are talking about. That was just a side comment. My point was, is it selfish to be a hero and put yourself in guaranteed danger when you know that your family back home will be mourning for you and suffering more and longer than you? I think it is because you are willingly bringing others harm through your actions.
DISCLAIMER: I am not being rude. I'm stating my opinion. No personal attacks are meant. Please give some leniency on how you take my words. imagine me saying them with a smile. ^__^
If we follow that argument, only such an act performed by a single orphan would be selfless?
Is it more selfish to risk your life to save someone elses child, or not save the child because of the risk?
I think the selfishness is an instinct. Any instinct can be trained out of existence.
Just as self preservation is the basis for morality, defence of the group is the next more advanced step. Deciding that your life is more valuable than the groups survival is the definition of selfish. It is possible to use logic to reach the most foolish conclusions. When you have done so, the thing to do is reexamine your definitions and assumptions. Logic always needs a starting point, nothing can be deduced without one.
http://www.progressiveu.org/090204-dont-miss-this-chance
That's my point. This IS foolishness. By taking Kant's philosophy and applying it to everything it would do absolutely nothing and would result in foolishness. ITs just strange how he can have such a good point, but then its not such a good point. I don't know. I think I am confused now.
DISCLAIMER: I am not being rude. I'm stating my opinion. No personal attacks are meant. Please give some leniency on how you take my words. imagine me saying them with a smile. ^__^
That describes at least some of every philosopher. He makes a very good point, but it is unlikely (and impossible to prove) that every ACT is selfish, because there are some that are apparently not, and no witness survives. If he had said every PERSON he would have nailed it.
"Selfishness is not living as one wishes to live, it is asking others to live as one wishes to live."
(Oscar Wilde)
"Unlike all other forms of lute or combat the conditions
are that the winner shall take nothing; neither his ease,
nor his pleasure, nor any notions of glory; nor, if he
wins far enough, shall there be any reward within himself.
(Ernest Hemingway)
WEll, I am glad that we have agreed on something!