Nobody in the world is selfless?

Question

ok heres the deal. i was having a conversation with a friend the other day and we got into a bit of an argument. she believes people that do nice things- charity ect are just good people. i disagree. it is my point of view that people do theese things because it feels good. or they feel bad (guilty) if they dont. therefore doing theese things is not selfless as you are only really doing them to satisfy yourself. whats your point of view ?

ahh see this is the point i made yesterday. im not saying everyone is selfish. im just saying nobody is selfless.

asha- my glass is also half full, but my glass being half full does not mean that i dont think about things that disturb my outlook. in fact knowing that my life is about doing things to make me feel good makes my glass more than half full.

once again asha im not saying that everyone is selfish. im saying nobody is selfless. theres a difference

Answer 1

I kind of agree with you and you are making here a very intelligent point.

Have a look what Mark Twain has to say to this as he is making exact the same statement then you.

[The Old Man and the Young Man had been conversing.]

Young Man. What is the sole impulse that ever moves a person to do a thing?

Old Man. The impulse to CONTENT HIS OWN SPIRIT--the NECESSITY of contenting his own spirit and WINNING ITS APPROVAL.

Y.M. Oh, come, that won't do!

O.M. Why won't it?

Y.M. Because it puts him in the attitude of always looking out for his own comfort and advantage; whereas an unselfish man often does a thing solely for another person's good when it is a positive disadvantage to himself.

O.M. It is a mistake. The act must do HIM good, FIRST; otherwise he will not do it. He may THINK he is doing it solely for the other person's sake, but it is not so; he is contenting his own spirit first--the other's person's benefit has to always take SECOND place.

Y.M. What a fantastic idea! What becomes of self- sacrifice? Please answer me that.

O.M. What is self-sacrifice?

Y.M. The doing good to another person where no shadow nor suggestion of benefit to one's self can result from it.

O.M. There have been instances of it--you think?

Y.M. INSTANCES? Millions of them!

O.M. You have not jumped to conclusions? You have examined them--critically?

Y.M. They don't need it: the acts themselves reveal the golden impulse back of them.

O.M. For instance?

Y.M. Well, then, for instance. Take the case in the book here. The man lives three miles up-town. It is bitter cold, snowing hard, midnight. He is about to enter the horse-car when a gray and ragged old woman, a touching picture of misery, puts out her lean hand and begs for rescue from hunger and death. The man finds that he has a quarter in his pocket, but he does not hesitate: he gives it her and trudges home through the storm. There--it is noble, it is beautiful; its grace is marred by no fleck or blemish or suggestion of self-interest.

O.M. What makes you think that?

Y.M. Pray what else could I think? Do you imagine that there is some other way of looking at it?

O.M. Can you put yourself in the man's place and tell me what he felt and what he thought?

Y.M. Easily. The sight of that suffering old face pierced his generous heart with a sharp pain. He could not bear it. He could endure the three-mile walk in the storm, but he could not endure the tortures his conscience would suffer if he turned his back and left that poor old creature to perish. He would not have been able to sleep, for thinking of it.

O.M. What was his state of mind on his way home?

Y.M. It was a state of joy which only the self-sacrificer knows. His heart sang, he was unconscious of the storm.

O.M. He felt well?

Y.M. One cannot doubt it.

O.M. Very well. Now let us add up the details and see how much he got for his twenty-five cents. Let us try to find out the REAL why of his making the investment. In the first place HE couldn't bear the pain which the old suffering face gave him. So he was thinking of HIS pain--this good man. He must buy a salve for it. If he did not succor the old woman HIS conscience would torture him all the way home. Thinking of HIS pain again. He must buy relief for that. If he didn't relieve the old woman HE would not get any sleep. He must buy some sleep--still thinking of HIMSELF, you see. Thus, to sum up, he bought himself free of a sharp pain in his heart, he bought himself free of the tortures of a waiting conscience, he bought a whole night's sleep--all for twenty-five cents! It should make Wall Street ashamed of itself. On his way home his heart was joyful, and it sang--profit on top of profit! The impulse which moved the man to succor the old woman was--FIRST--to CONTENT HIS OWN SPIRIT; secondly to relieve HER sufferings. Is it your opinion that men's acts proceed from one central and unchanging and inalterable impulse, or from a variety of impulses?

Y.M. From a variety, of course--some high and fine and noble, others not. What is your opinion?

O.M. Then there is but ONE law, one source.

Y.M. That both the noblest impulses and the basest proceed from that one source?

O.M. Yes.

Y.M. Will you put that law into words?

O.M. Yes. This is the law, keep it in your mind. FROM HIS CRADLE TO HIS GRAVE A MAN NEVER DOES A SINGLE THING WHICH HAS ANY FIRST AND FOREMOST OBJECT BUT ONE--TO SECURE PEACE OF MIND, SPIRITUAL COMFORT, FOR HIMSELF.

Y.M. Come! He never does anything for any one else's comfort, spiritual or physical?

O.M. No. EXCEPT ON THOSE DISTINCT TERMS--that it shall FIRST secure HIS OWN spiritual comfort. Otherwise he will not do it.

Y.M. It will be easy to expose the falsity of that proposition.

O.M. For instance?

Y.M. Take that noble passion, love of country, patriotism. A man who loves peace and dreads pain, leaves his pleasant home and his weeping family and marches out to manfully expose himself to hunger, cold, wounds, and death. Is that seeking spiritual comfort?

O.M. He loves peace and dreads pain?

Y.M. Yes.

O.M. Then perhaps there is something that he loves MORE than he loves peace--THE APPROVAL OF HIS NEIGHBORS AND THE PUBLIC. And perhaps there is something which he dreads more than he dreads pain--the DISAPPROVAL of his neighbours and the public. If he is sensitive to shame he will go to the field--not because his spirit will be ENTIRELY comfortable there, but because it will be more comfortable there than it would be if he remained at home. He will always do the thing which will bring him the MOST mental comfort--for that is THE SOLE LAW OF HIS LIFE. He leaves the weeping family behind; he is sorry to make them uncomfortable, but not sorry enough to sacrifice his OWN comfort to secure theirs.

Y.M. Do you really believe that mere public opinion could force a timid and peaceful man to--

O.M. Go to war? Yes--public opinion can force some men to do ANYTHING.

Y.M. ANYTHING?

O.M. Yes--anything.

Y.M. I don't believe that. Can it force a right-principled man to do a wrong thing?

O.M. Yes.

Y.M. Can it force a kind man to do a cruel thing?

O.M. Yes.

Y.M. Give an instance.

O.M. Alexander Hamilton was a conspicuously high-principled man. He regarded dueling as wrong, and as opposed to the teachings of religion--but in deference to PUBLIC OPINION he fought a duel. He deeply loved his family, but to buy public approval he treacherously deserted them and threw his life away, ungenerously leaving them to lifelong sorrow in order that he might stand well with a foolish world. In the then condition of the public standards of honor he could not have been comfortable with the stigma upon him of having refused to fight. The teachings of religion, his devotion to his family, his kindness of heart, his high principles, all went for nothing when they stood in the way of his spiritual comfort. A man will do ANYTHING, no matter what it is, TO SECURE HIS SPIRITUAL COMFORT; and he can neither be forced nor persuaded to any act which has not that goal for its object. Hamilton's act was compelled by the inborn necessity of contenting his own spirit; in this it was like all the other acts of his life, and like all the acts of all men's lives. Do you see where the kernel of the matter lies? A man cannot be comfortable without HIS OWN approval. He will secure the largest share possible of that, at all costs, all sacrifices.

Y.M. A minute ago you said Hamilton fought that duel to get PUBLIC approval.

O.M. I did. By refusing to fight the duel he would have secured his family's approval and a large share of his own; but the public approval was more valuable in his eyes than all other approvals put together--in the earth or above it; to secure that would furnish him the MOST comfort of mind, the most SELF- approval; so he sacrificed all other values to get it.

Y.M. Some noble souls have refused to fight duels, and have manfully braved the public contempt.

O.M. They acted ACCORDING TO THEIR MAKE. They valued their principles and the approval of their families ABOVE the public approval. They took the thing they valued MOST and let the rest go. They took what would give them the LARGEST share of PERSONAL CONTENTMENT AND APPROVAL--a man ALWAYS does. Public opinion cannot force that kind of men to go to the wars. When they go it is for other reasons. Other spirit-contenting reasons.

Y.M. Always spirit-contenting reasons?

O.M. There are no others.

Y.M. When a man sacrifices his life to save a little child from a burning building, what do you call that?

O.M. When he does it, it is the law of HIS make. HE can't bear to see the child in that peril (a man of a different make COULD), and so he tries to save the child, and loses his life. But he has got what he was after--HIS OWN APPROVAL.

Y.M. What do you call Love, Hate, Charity, Revenge, Humanity, Magnanimity, Forgiveness?

O.M. Different results of the one Master Impulse: the necessity of securing one's self approval. They wear diverse clothes and are subject to diverse moods, but in whatsoever ways they masquerade they are the SAME PERSON all the time. To change the figure, the COMPULSION that moves a man--and there is but the one--is the necessity of securing the contentment of his own spirit. When it stops, the man is dead.

Y.M. That is foolishness. Love--

O.M. Why, love is that impulse, that law, in its most uncompromising form. It will squander life and everything else on its object. Not PRIMARILY for the object's sake, but for ITS OWN. When its object is happy IT is happy--and that is what it is unconsciously after.

Y.M. You do not even except the lofty and gracious passion of mother-love?

O.M. No, IT is the absolute slave of that law. The mother will go naked to clothe her child; she will starve that it may have food; suffer torture to save it from pain; die that it may live. She takes a living PLEASURE in making these sacrifices. SHE DOES IT FOR THAT REWARD--that self-approval, that contentment, that peace, that comfort. SHE WOULD DO IT FOR YOUR CHILD IF SHE COULD GET THE SAME PAY.

Y.M. This is an infernal philosophy of yours.

O.M. It isn't a philosophy, it is a fact.

Answer 2

I think that some people really are selfless. Just because you do something that makes you feel good is not being selfish. It is only selfish when you do something with the intent of making yourself feel better about yourself, which in turn means you care more about yourself, or how others see you. But some people do things just because they want to be nice, just because afterward they feel happy and good doesn't make them selfish, because they weren't thinking of that when they did whatever they did. Feeling happy and good about yourself are just rewards that come with what you did. it is only selfish if you do something with the intent of self satisfication even if it is a good deed. it is selfless if you do something not caring what happens to you, only the other person, even if in the end you feel good about yourself. for example if someone ran into a burning building because their friend was in there. and they were thinking "i will do this to show what kind of person i am" than they are being selfish despite the fact it is a good deed, but if they are thinking "they could die or get hurt, i need to help them" and they are not thinking about getting hurt or what someone else will say or think, then they are being selfless.

Answer 3

I totally disagree with you. And by the way it's up to you what you want to see. It depends on you whether you want to say a glass is half empty or you want to say a glass is half full. I would rather say the glass is half full. The one with your kind of philosophy needs to improve their way of looking into things..It would sound harsh but people with that attitude can't find happiness in their entire life because you yourself have got a very very selfish attitude because of which you are imposing this bogus idea of yours on others. I really feel very bad whenever I hear a stupid logic like this..These types of logic is mainly found in people of west and because you people have an attitude like this, you people won't able to know true happiness, love and satisfaction. I really pity on people with such attitude. Sorry to say so but I really feel very bad whenever I hear a stupid logic like this. No hard feelings please. Have a nice time.

Answer 4

It depends on the moment. Yes, indeed, some people think of others first, before they think of themselves, in some cases. But then again could we call that state of mind- a True Self ? If we look at altruism as a transitional state, then your argument is correct. :)

Answer 5

It depends on what you mean by selfless.

If you are talking about people who do not expect any material things in return for their acts of charity, then yes, there are some selfless people.

However, if you are talking about people who do not expect anything in return, including an expectation for promises made in their faiths ( for a example a better hereafter etc.), then no.

Answer 6

Don't be so complex. People give for different reasons. Because they feel they have to, because they want to and for the sheer joy of it. I had fun this Christmas. I told my friend I wanted to give her sister a wallet with money in it, but her sister couldn't know where it came from. We worked it out ans sister still doesn't know where it camr from. She paid bills and I was thrilled. So stick it, GRINCH.

Answer 7

I agree with you. In the end altruism is self-serving.

And, Love Is Sweet is a bit long winded.

Answer 8

Sure, many people do 'charitable' deeds to appease their otherwise guilty conscience ["how is it I have a huge house, 3 cars etc when most people suffer poverty?] - however, I have met people, from lots of different countries outside the USA, who I would consider 'selfless' - people who give of themselves and do not expect anything in return..

Answer 9

I consider it impossible for humans to be selfless.

No matter what we do in this world there is something were trying appease within ourselves.

It is a good thing when we do thing for ourselves which also benefit others.

Answer 10

I agree with you. Everything a person does has it's selfish motive. Period. I don't think it's even an argument.

Answer 11

I totally agree with you. I do things which make me feel better. When I help someone sometimes I feel embarassed accepting their effusive thanks cos I felt good doing something for them & it was no big deal. Conversely I dont want to feel indebted to ppl who help me.