Is there such a thing as an unselfish act?

Question

You might say things like giving to charity, volunteering to build homes, or putting the desires of your friends before your own are selfless.

However, all of these actions stem from your own ideologies. You believe that for some reason or another, whether it is religion, morality, god's will, whatever, you should do the above actions. Consequently, doing these charitable acts gives you a kind of satisfaction that you have done what you believed in. This satisfaction has to outweigh any costs of helping the other people (the $100 donation, 10 hours of time, etc). If this is the case, then you are still putting your desires first; you are just weighing more intangible things (the benefits of doing what you believe in) against the costs of helping other people.

How do you get around this problem?

Answer 1

Your definition of the terms "selfish"/"unselfish" is wrong and your question is just a false logical dilemma.

But just to give you an answer using your definitions, an "unselfish" person would be a prisoner who does community work and gets nothing in return. Why? Because: 1) he does something good for others; 2) the work doesn't bring him any satisfaction at all, because he doesn't believe in what he's doing and he only does it under coercion. If he were free, he wouldn't do it.

So, according to your definitions, such an individual would be an unselfish person. (!)

In fact, it's inherently wrong to define the prisoner as unselfish. Why? Because the true definition of "selfish/unselfish" implies freedom, personal choice. You can't talk about these two concepts outside personal choice, only a free man can be considered selfish or not.

In brief, your argument doesn't work because you're trying to exclude from the definition of the word "unselfish" the very thing that gives it meaning: personal choice.

You might continue by saying: well, even the prisoner who's coerced to work is selfish, because he's afraid he would be punished if he doesn't obey. Then I will give you another example: according to your definitions, a man who's tortured and killed by a criminal is unselfish. Let's see why: because 1) he gives pleasure to his killer, by being tortured and killed 2) he doesn't want to be killed (so no moral satisfaction here), but he can't escape 3) he doesn't do it because he's afraid of punishment, but only because he can't avoid it. So, according to your definitions, only a man who has no freedom at all is unselfish. Everyone else who has at least the tiniest amount of freedom, is selfish.

We might go even further along these lines and say: only a dead man is truly unselfish. He doesn't even have the power to breathe, 'cause if he did, he would have used it to bring satisfaction to himself by breathing.

Let's put it another way: No human being can act without a reason, no matter what kind of reason that is. As you identify reason with satisfaction and thus with selfishness, that means all human actions must be selfish. In absolute terms, there can never be an unselfish action, because that action would have to be devoid of all reason, of all cause.

That way the concept of "unselfish" loses all meaning, and we can happily celebrate kicking it out of the dictionary.
But that would reduce our undestanding of the world, not enhance it.

Answer 2

This stems from the philosophy of egoism. Egoism teaches that all acts are, in some way, selfish. No matter what your reason for doing something, there is always some benefit to you, some reward, whether it be an award, a gift, or just the satisfaction of knowing you did a good thing.

This is very well exemplified by Abe Lincoln. One day AL was riding with a friend in a carriage discussing egoism (of which AL was a supporter) and they saw a sow and some piglets stuck in the mire of the riverbank. AL stopped the carriage and helped the animals. When they'd set out again, his friend told him that he was obviously wrong about egoism because helping the animals was a purely selfless act. AL replied, "No, if I hadn't helped them, I would have felt guilty all day."

So, you see, even this act benefited AL in that it prevented unpleasant guilt feelings.

We are all egoists, my friend.

Answer 3

An unselfish act is akin to all things sacred and
nothing is sacred except as men make it so.

People (men) do what is important to them because...

"Personal Satisfaction" ...(is a reward unto itself).

If, an unselfish act is also devoid of "Personal Satisfaction"...
then one might consider it to be an unselfish act(?).

So, if we are all human (including you); how's that working out for you (if you use this ideology)?

Therefore, to me, getting around the problem is not even an issue or considerartion in doing an unselfish act.

As a consequence, should I happen to receive a gift
of "Personal Satifaction" then I am blessed in deed and also in doing of the deed itself...

Answer 4

Those types of acts are categorized as karma Kanda in the ancient Vedic wisdom. They are generally for getting furtive results or at least to pat oneself on the back for being a do gooder. Bhakti Yoga is a process that brings one beyond all mundane acts of charity to the pure highest selfless service. Chanting the Maha mantra is the best means to purify ones existence to bring one to their highest consciousness and true self. This act of chanting is considered the highest welfare work and most pleasing to the creator. Why because it reconnects us with the creator directly (also known as Krishna, Allah, Jehovah, Vishnu, Rama, etc. For more info on Bhakti go to harekrishnatemple.com Read Bhagavad Gita as it is By Bhaktivedanta Prabhupada asitis.com can be read on line. Giving this purest wisdom is the highest unselfish act of charity because it helps the fallen conditioned souls come to their highest joy and greatest good.

Answer 5

I invest myself in many things, so I don't see it as a problem. There are mixed motives in even the best of people, but what makes them the best is their lack of consciousness that self is one of those motives. Those who try to be virtuous aren't virtuous (Tao Te Ching). Virtue is its own reward. Most acts are themselves neutral, but being conscious of self can make an act selfish or selfless depending on whether one considers self or act primary. Should, would and could focus on the self, making the action of the will primary; while weighing the act according to one's values focuses upon the act apart from the will, i.e. Is an act good or bad? If good, then do it whether you will or not.

Answer 6

If you go that far then, no, there is no such thing as an unselfish act. But putting others first shows you as not being self involved, which is the root of selfishness.

Answer 7

I'm appalled by this question, which is more of a statement audaciously telling me who I am, & by some of the answers. Are you people truly so cynical, & devoid of any sense of humanity? You "assume" that whatever act of kindness or sacrifice, there is a selfish motive.
Someone retrieves an old woman's purse from a mugger; he expects a monetary reward. A firefighter risks his life to save someone in a burning house, he wants to be perceived as a hero. A person contributes money or services to his church, he will go to heaven. Someone plunges into the ocean to save a drowning child & perishes; his reward-- first thinking of what a martyr he is, & will become.
You can call anything, & everything that one does for others as selfish, when what you're actually doing, is projecting YOUR inhumanity on EVERYONE.
I resent your "absolute" statement. With this mind set, there is virtually NOTHING one can do without some sort of satisfaction. What a pathetic commentary on the nature of humans. Getting around this "problem" lies in the question/ statement itself.
There are NO self benefits in doing what you believe in. Is it any wonder that if this represents the concept of the majority, that the world is becoming a place of terror, fear, hatred & bloodshed. I hope to find a rational & human question to wipe the taste of this one out of my mind.

Answer 8

It's quite impossible to do for others, something selfless...
We're happy to have done things, bringing selfishness in...
In anything we do, it's always accompanied of some good feeling :, it costs me such, but that was for a good cause. We always attach a certain amount of pride in all, unfortunately. Therefore unselfishness is never there.

Answer 9

i don't understand why it is a problem.

Whats going to happen when you achieve a purely selfless act? are you going to be teleported up to heaven or something?

Why (as i interprete this question to be getting at) aren't we allowed to help others and get some satisfaction out of it ourselves or indeed even make a living from it? why is this wrong?

This whole discusion is totally baffling me, no one seems to be looking at this obvious point!

Surely a eutopian life would be one where you are fulfilled in yourself whilst helping others. or am i just nuts here?

why are people idealising self harm in order to help others as the ultimate thing you can do? this just sounds like crazy talk to me!

Answer 10

Even a Volunteer who does this without returns of $$$.... still gets something out of the experience.... it may not be $$$ but maybe it is about a feel good about myself thing.....

So we can be unselfish in act.... but we always get something back.... the think is the ACT should be without personal intention...

Intention within ourselve is the the answer to this question.