Can there ever be a truly altruistic act?

Question

Every task can be argued that there is an element of self gain or self satisfation from performing. Like blood doning etc.
So can there be a truly selfless task?

To everyone who has said dying for someone else, have you thouoght about the person's perceived spiritual gain? Or even the fact that they would rather die than have the other person die, this would provide a final moment of fulfilment. Also the fact that they would be remembered as a hero/martyr.

Mr Grudge: An atheist can still feel love for a person, so if they're laying their life on the line for someone they love then that persons survival over theirs can be seen as a gain.

Answer 1

No- You could argue that even some of the world's greatest altruists such as Mother Teresa got some sort of moral or spiritual satisfaction from giving to others.

Answer 2

Only things we do when we are unaware of doing them them can be considered truly selfless. Instinctual acts of bravery , performing tasks by rote.

Often acts that have no value, that are performed out of habit, The purpose long buried in time. are counted as selfless.
A woman I know once pulled thousands of burrs off an old sweater of mine acquired when berry picking. I had discarded the sweater.This task was performed by her absently mindedly. I do not think she gained any rewards from the industry. When she finished she simply dropped the sweater back in the trash. I do not even think she was trying to keep busy. The woman had Alshiemers and I do not think there was much of a conscious plan there. Later, I retrieved the sweater and have never forgotten the lab or involved I still have it and am grateful she will never know.

Selflessness, is a worthless pastime. We should be trying to achieve something. All acts should be worth something to someone or some thing. There is nothing wrong with doing you best and being proud of it.

Answer 3

It is my contention that any perceived spiritual gain at the moment of death, especially when making the choice to die for another, is often muted by the terror, fear, and extreme emotion of the moment. With that said, if one's religious or spiritual training has prepared a person's psyche so that making such a decision to sacrifice one's own self for the benefit of others a natural one, then there's an obvious benefit to the person who chooses to die so that others may live. If that is the case, the only people who can possibly qualify for making the absolute, ultimate, altruistic act, in the form of giving one's life to save another, would be atheists.

Answer 4

Have you ever seen the 'Friends' episode where they discuss this? I don't think it's possible if the person is a good person, because then they will feel happy that they have made someone else happy. I suppose if the person is extremely selfish and doesn't care about anyone else then that might be completely unselfish as they will not feel good about making someone else happy.

Edit:
If I may just counter Ollie's answer, I would like to point out that the person, when they decide to die for the other person, will have at least a moment where they feel good about saving the other person before they die.

Answer 5

yes there can be no wish for self gain definately.

If a person performs such an act then they may experience good effects later on but this isnt self satisfaction unless they develop thoughts of self gratification when performing the act & this is part of their motivation for doing the act.

It is the motivation which is the deciding factor & there are motivations to help others without any thought of self.

Answer 6

Yes. In the extremely unlikely event that you are put in the position of having to choose between your life, or someone else's being taken; choosing your own would mean that the other person lives, and you're not alive to feel any self-gain or satisfaction.
This is a truly selfless task. True altruism.
But unbelievably rare of course!

Answer 7

This question has been asked again and again over the centuries and on here. And my response is... who cares?

Seriously, if we determine that it's possible to help someone in a truly selfless act, will you stop doing that? Start doing it?

If we determine that there is no truly selfless act, will you stop helping your fellow man?

What difference does it make?

Humans are primates, we do things for all kinds of reasons, food, sex, approval, and combinations of those and others.

Why try so hard to pin down something that is just a question of semantics?

Answer 8

Of course there can be a truly selfless task, it is just your jaundiced view of other peoples motives that make it seem that it is not so.
Mother Teresa, selfless, wanted nothing, gave everything, all she had was faith that she would go to a better place, but no guarantee.

Answer 9

No. We each find a reward or a sacrifice depending on what we look for. Consider the parable of the tithing woman. She gave all she had. Did she do it for satisfaction or because she should?

Answer 10

This is a great topic with a long history of philosophical argument. As in the deep structure of your question you are exploring the concept of goodness, and particularly human goodness in terms of limits of goodness in human capacity. But the concept of absolute goodness is an illusion; it is just like concept of beauty this illusion is nowhere to found realised but in recognisable forms and functions of the things of the world. There is nothing in the world that can be good, or that is outside human mind and is still recognisable as good.

This then is absolutely true that all human actions are but assertions of human self-interests or general purposes innate to human nature. Therefore any argument exploring the concept of goodness without a due reference to human purpose or interest involved would lead up to complete and utter nonsense, right outside the domain of reason and rationality.

All things in general nature have their specific purposes; and human nature too has its own specific purpose, the purpose around which human mind functions. There is no comprehensible understanding of goodness in the mind without purpose. The purpose of human nature is to be human, and to be in best possible way - any thing or action that is conducive to this purpose is good, and everything that is not is bad.

What for instance is a flower in the world if it has no natural purpose of its own? And then what is a flower in human eye if not for its aesthetic qualities pleasing and therefore reassuring to the nature of human mind. A lifeless brick set in a wall is a strange and seemingly farfetched example here, but it is good for us, not just lying around in the street but with our purpose; as a part of some structure we build according to our need. Whereas the purpose is the brick is no more then just to be somewhere in the world, and ours, for it to be where we place it. Then a chemical is good inside the body of a snake, as its potent weapon for hunting food, but the same chemical is poison for human body. It is not good because it is destructive against the purpose of human nature that is to survive healthily.

Human nature is integrated around human purpose. It is formed into shape for a reason that determines and ensures that my actions are profitable even when there are most charitable in nature, for without this reason the entire structure of human mind would fall apart into an jumbled mess, a complete nonsense. There is no goodness outside and aloof from human and therefore the purposes human nature. The source of the very concept of goodness, and therefore consequently good, charitable, self-less or voluntary actions is innate to in the mind.