can truly selfless acts that are motivated by no other purpose but to benefit others be proven?

Question

After reflecting on many acts of kindness, charity, philanthropy, and grace, I have found one or more instances of materialistic, psychological/emotional, and/or spiritual profit or advantage for the performer of the act.
Because action and thought are separate entities, intent would seem more relevant than action when considering character and virtue. Intent or thought can never be verified; therefore, there is no way to confirm an act as selfless. Because only actions are tangible and every benign action includes, on some level, a benefit to the doer, I do not believe selfless acts can be verified.

Answer 1

Why do we need to look into the reasons for a selfless act? Or try to prove them?

You are correct, all selfless acts have a benefit for the doer, but that should not take away from act itself. The doer is the only one that needs to worry about why he did the act. Alot of people do selfless acts and sincerely do not look for rewards, maybe only spiritual ones. But they are not wrong in doing this. It makes them feel good and they provide comfort to others.

Answer 2

YOU may not be able to verify them but they do, indeed, happen.

At Christmas, I buy a gift for a child in an orphanage or at risk in every town I've been to. I do this because they need it. This is the first time I've even told anyone and you don't know me so it doesn't matter anyway. I am stating it as an example.

Mother Teresa and Mahatma Ghandi performed selfless acts.
It is also part of meditation. To get to the point where you have risen above the ego and do not act out of self-gain only for the larger good.

The Buddhist principle works the same way. Action and thought are NOT separate entities. Action follows thought.
Every building and anything man made was once a thought.
So, yes it happens everyday.

Answer 3

It depends on whether you define a selfless act as one for which the doer receives no benefit at all, or one in which the doer receives no benefit that outweighs the cost of the act. While it may be true that the one who does the act enjoys doing the act, it is not necessarily true to way that the enjoyment is the primary motivation. If the one who does the act is not motivated by the enjoyment of it, then I believe the act still qualifies as selfless.

For example, I may give up a large portion of the money I have saved for my vacation to help a stranger in need. I may feel good about myself for helping out a stranger in need, but not as good as I would feel lying on the beach in Honolulu sipping a beverage out of a coconut shell after a shiatsu massage. I think that even with the little good feeling I get from giving, the cost greatly outweighs the gain, and therefore qualifies this as a selfless act.

Answer 4

If you commited such an act, how would you prove it? Trying to prove that such things exist seems rather pointless, if you couldn't even convince someone that you committed one when if fact you did. Not being able to prove that a selfless act is possible, does not mean they do not occur.

But, how could you perform an act with no self? With no self, how do you act?

But does this mean selfishness? Not necessarily. Try not to prove this sort of thing with argument. A right act is typically considered best for as many relevant people as possible, in accordance with how you define best. This INCLUDES the agent of action! So, I hope you aren't demoralizing the notion of self in an act. Again, how could you act with no self? And, how does this imply that we're all a bunch of selfish *******, as many people seem to conclude?

It's nothing to waste much time on trying to figure out further. Obviously, there are what we call selfless acts going on, or we wouldn't have the idea for so long in the world. We know it. The sort of proof you're after could lead you to missing the goodness in a simple act of allowing someone else through a door first, or the heroism of someone who spontaneously jumps in and saves lives in a disaster.

Answer 5

This actually makes me chuckle because my immediate thought after reading your question was of an episode of the comedy "Friends" I actually recently saw as a re-run.

They covered this very topic (Phoebe and Joey) - how there is no such thing as a selfless good deed.

I point this out bc for comedic affect, they never did resolve the situation. It seems that there is NO selfless good deed.

I happen to agree with you on this point. But, that's what makes good deeds so great. Not only are you helping others, but you feel great in the processes. And, when you're doing a good deed, you SHOULD feel good, bc in my book, you're a good person! :-)

Of course, one could argue that if the only reason you're performing good deeds is for the recognition and notoriety, then your intentions are botched.

This, I also agree with! So..... once again, we're brought back to ----> There is no selfless good deed! LOL..

Cheers.

Answer 6

I suppose a purely reflexive or instinctive act that ended in the death of the doer might qualify. Other than that, I cannot think of an act that does not in some way benefit the doer if only in that the doer feels good about having done whatever it is.

Answer 7

In the obvious concept that all is caused, somehow, and cause stands for motivation in human action, the posed question must be changed. The question should be more in terms of the benefit's nature. As in, how materialistic and petty is the benefit? Is money, revenge, sexual satisfaction, political gain and/or some other materialistic form of gain "bad" benefits? All of the fore mentioned benefits/gains are considered by society as lower cast desires. However, essentially their fulfillments are benefits the same as less (or more) glorified reasons for the so called charity/selflessness. Reasons such as honor, regard for divine law(under personal belief), expectation of divine rewards(also under personal belief), feeling better about one's self or benefiting humanity are regarded as higher motivations. Sometimes these are not even openly considered as benefits even though they clearly are...
Absolute selfless doesn't exist. It is a terminology - a language game -used to specified socially highly regarded motivations. There are benefits which are not harmful to others, and sometimes benefit others as well. Such benefits as a parent sacrificing his/her life for the child are highly regarded examples. In such cases there are both biologic structural motivation and self-righteous motivations such as future guilt/regret, comparative innocence, etc... Maybe even love - which is also attached to highly regarded causes and motivations.
We must never confuse language shortcuts and games with truth or mix them in our reasoning. These can misguide your ideas dramatically.

Answer 8

Of course you're right, they can't. Actually, I don't think such a thing can really be in the first place. Any action that is actually performed by a self must have been *motivated* in some way; if not, then we'd have to say the actor was not willing to do the action.

Answer 9

If you do an act in hope of it being a selfless act, doesn't that make it selfish, as your attempting to obtain the goal of completing a selfless act? Selflessness in my opinion means to have complete dis-regard for ones self, and just work...for others of course.

Answer 10

it is clear that some people behave more selfishly, and others less so. in claiming that 'selfless acts cannot be verified' the only thing you demonstrate is that you personally are unable to understand the word 'selfless'.

why do you consider it remarkable that there are words you do not understand? i don't.