Is there such a thing as selflessness?

[Mozart]

Discuss.

[mahlertitan]

yes, it's called altruism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism

[david johnson]

of course there is.  it's the opposite of selfishness, but some people won't adopt the behavior.

dj

[Mozart]

Does acting selflessly come out of a personal need of an individual and if not if the person allowed to feel satisfied with himself after acting selflessly?

[Mark]

Yes, but you really see it in action. Even the most seemingly selfless acts can sometimes be selfishly motivated ... perhaps not consciously, but all the same.

I think parents aim to be as selfless as possible with their children, but that's not always easy.

Maybe the greatest act of selflessness would be to die for someone - say, a person you didn't even know?

[karlhenning]

Does acting selflessly come out of a personal need of an individual

It comes out of recognizing that others have needs, too.

[longears]

Behavior described as "altruistic" or "selfless" often embodies enlightened self-interest.

[karlhenning]

That statement is fair enough, but the important qualifier is the adverb often. Also, the verb embodies is delicately apt.

[BachQ]

There is no such thing as "pure" selflessness, because everyone must have a threshold concern for their own personal wellbeing.

[Hector]

Behavior described as "altruistic" or "selfless" often embodies enlightened self-interest.

Not necessarily. One can act without concern for oneself.

I suppose an example is Mother Theresa. Where was her "enlightened self-interest"? The argument, I would suggest, is  as to whether she was effective or merely a pin-prick to World poverty?

[BachQ]

Not necessarily. One can act without concern for oneself.

I suppose an example is Mother Theresa. Where was her "enlightened self-interest"? The argument, I would suggest, is  as to whether she was effective or merely a pin-prick to World poverty?

Arguably, Mother Teresa was getting paid to do what she most enjoyed doing (helping poor people from India), and therefore was acting consistent with her own selfinterest.

In this case, selflessness and selfishness selfinterest coincide.

[karlhenning]

There is no such thing as "pure" selflessness, because everyone must have a threshold concern for their own personal wellbeing.

I don't quite accept this simplification of the matter;  but for discussion, we'll take it as read.

You have not in this demonstrated that there is 'no such thing';  you have only restricted "pure selflessness" to actions which one allows to override concerns for one's own well-being and/or survival.

Setting aside for the moment the hideous caricature of selflessness represented by the suicide bomber, there are instances where someone acts in the interests of others, and the cost is his own life.  Capt. Oates in Scott's ill-fated Antarctica expedition comes to mind.

[karlhenning]

In this case, selflessness and selfishness coincide.

You're marring the discussion by both simplification, and setting these as equal-but-opposites.

"Selfishness" is a character flaw which is distinct from commonsensical self-interest.

[BachQ]

there are instances where someone acts in the interests of others, and the cost is his own life.  Capt. Oates in Scott's ill-fated Antarctica expedition comes to mind.

In the case of a civilian rescuer who attempts to save a total stranger (say by running into a burning house), that is about as close as you can get to an act of pure selflessness.  However, even that act embodies elements of selfinterest in that the person knows that he/she would be plagued by guilt and remorse for the remainder of his/her life if he/she didn't attempt the rescue.

(In addition, the rescuer didn't enter the house knowing that he/she would die, only that there was a risk of injury).

You're marring the discussion by both simplification, and setting these as equal-but-opposites.

"Selfishness" is a character flaw which is distinct from commonsensical self-interest.

I should have said "selflessness and selfinterest coincide."

[karlhenning]

In the case of a civilian rescuer who attempts to save a total stranger (say by running into a burning house), that is about as close as you can get to an act of pure selflessness.

Why is that necessarily purer than saving someone known to the rescuer?

[BachQ]

Why is that necessarily purer than saving someone known to the rescuer?

Assuming that the focus is on what motivates a person to act (or refrain from acting), when a person acts with mixed motives (selfinterest + altruism), then that is not an act of "pure" selflessness.

A person who undertakes to rescue someone whom he knows and/or loves clearly has mixed motives: part of his motivations are to preserve the object of his love and/or friendship ...... to preserve his emotional "investment" in that person ........ without that person he would feel a tragic loss, and so he acts to avoid that outcome.

[Ten thumbs]

There is no such thing as "pure" selflessness, because everyone must have a threshold concern for their own personal wellbeing.

Do you mean in an afterlife? How do you assess bravery in the face of inevitible death?

[BachQ]

How do you assess bravery in the face of inevitible death?

For example?

[Lady Chatterley]

Yes, but you really see it in action. Even the most seemingly selfless acts can sometimes be selfishly motivated ... perhaps not consciously, but all the same.

I offered to look after my grand daughter(for free)from birth to her first day of grade one so that my daughter and her husband would not have to struggle with  daycare or babysitters neither of which they could afford.It also secured quality time with her that might otherwise have been difficult to arrange around busy schedules.I did it for them and for me,I'm not so sure how selfless an act it is but it has bought me ten million brownie points(now they will never be able to get rid of me).

[karlhenning]

The thing is, as Muriel's post exemplifies, the family is the cradle for learning to put the needs of others above our own.  Nor does that map neatly onto "well, we do that because we know we'll get payback at some point";  it doesn't always work out that way, in the second place, and firstly, many of us really do learn the virtue of seeking the good of others.