- Myles Horton
- Sydney
- Australia
This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
Is there such thing as a selfless act of kindness?
After a long discussion with a friend that came to no conclusion, I still seek an answer. "Is there such thing as a selfless act of kindness?
Debra Smith 200+
damien mcminn
Obey No1kinobe 50+
in practical terms, yes
If you deny yourself more than you receive in a human interaction and this adds to the positive experience of another then the net result is giving.
damien mcminn
Myles Horton
To answer your questions: I don't know how being hit by a car is selfless and I think you were just being a friend as it is a human response to help others. We do it because of our beliefs, our morals, guilt and we are rewarded for it too. Either directly by that person or we feel better for having helped them .
robert hensley
Scott Armstrong 50+
Myles Horton
In the grand scheme of things, yes. If everything we do is self serving it's sickly. All friendships are based on what you can gain from other people. We only help if we receive. The whole image of a hero is nothing less than someone doing their job.
Does it mean less to you?
Scott Armstrong 50+
It's all relative. If an act of kindness benefits both parties then it's a true win-win situation.
In the grand scheme of things, every nuance is vital and meaningless at the same time. Take what you will and don't sweat the details.
If I'm dealt a kindness then I usually view that person in a similar light so it can be seen as a reciprocal social action, if you like.
To suspect a giver's motives kind of pulls the rug out from under the initial intention.
damien mcminn
damien mcminn
Luke Monahan
Lets assume that there is no such thing as a "selfless" act, does that change how you should/will treat people?
If someone does something for you perhaps they've done it in the hope of reciprocation, perhaps they've done if for the good feeling they get from the chemical release in their brain but the end result is the same or finally perhaps it was a true and miraculous expression of selfless kindness and generosity.
From your prospective you cannot know and you're going to have to assume which one it is and then in order to avoid inconsistency and hypocrisy you're going to have to make the same assumption for everything that everyone ever does to/for you.
I bet you'll live a happier life if you give the benefit of doubt and assume the best of those around you.
I'd rather be naive by assuming the best of those around me than cynical by condemning everyone around me.
Myles Horton
Mitch SMith 50+
If you take the broad social definition, then sure, selfless acts of kindness go on all the time.
However, if you accept Damasio's definitions of self, then yes and no - it is only the autobiographical self that is capable of these broadly defined acts of selfess kindness. The other levels of self just are what they are - and cannot act beyond self interest.
I would go on to say, that the autobiographical selves will be operating within a belief system that exists only in the brain - which is a property of the self .. then no act, by any definition can be external to the self.
But there is a loophole:
THe autobiographical selves include selves that represent others. I argue that these "other" constructs converge with the actual self that they represent - in effect we get a little chunk of "others" existing in our brains - and we can act to their benefit at our detriment.
But the strong warning is - that if you have not sufficiently converged with that other, your act will be meaningless in reality and resolve to no more than salving your own self image.
(edit: as an example - the soldier who thows himself on a grenade to save his fellows - this would be selfless - because he knows his fellows extremely well - he has close convergence, and his act is effective in reality - he is a selfeless hero.
However, the protester who self imolates to bring attention to injustice? That is an act of ambiguity - his benefactors are no more than an ideal in his head (for good or bad) we can't tell if he's a hero, or a nutbag)
(Another edit - sorry, after reading this, it's still not clear so I'll add this: The autobiographical selves converge the "other" by way of having that "other" connected to our own feelings. The fellow falling on a grenade has his fellows in his head connected to his own feelings - he sees that they will die - including him - and feels the pain of their deaths personally - he acts to least pain - in himself.
Bernard Seremonia
1. We do without a purpose, being totally hypnotized, unconsciously acts and sleep walker or similar to these.
2. We do in order to obtain personal benefit (however small)
3. We do in order not to get personal benefits (however small)
The first one, not related to the selfless (sincerity).
The third for me, it was meaningless act that leads to irresponsibility. Why? Because each of our actions must be beneficial not only for others but for the development of self. There is no fairness (not proportional), there is no appropriate balance here, and if not managed properly, it could be so easy to sacrifice other people (including ourselves) which is maybe not necessarily true.
The second can be divided into two more:
- The bad: we are part of a good plan, therefore there must be maintenance of ourselves and others to maintain good plan running smoothly. Ignoring it is the neglect of the good itself (any good standard that we hold). And if not managed properly it could be so easy to sacrifice ourselves for the purpose of which is not necessarily true (not always).
- The good: we are part of a good plan, we should (ALWAYS) understand our position within good plan, therefore there must be maintenance of ourselves and others to maintain good plan running smoothly. Keeping this can be done by acting in accordance with what we believe as a guide to keep the truth.
Yes, there is selfless (sincerity), without neglecting ourselves, to keep ourselves perform the task to fulfill the truth as we believe. We do for ourselves to keep others running smoothly as instructed by the truth that we believe. We have to get guidance to act exactly what is perceived as sincerity without sacrificing fairness, but the bottom line as already mentioned. Beyond this is tantamount to injuring the purpose of life itself which starts from ourselves. This is reality, and outside this is meaningless, or we're imagining.
Less or more ...
Feyisayo Anjorin 50+
The world is plagued by evil. The world is blessed with good. There are a few distinct men and women who render acts of help in the community with admirable enthusiasm. Their lives teach us that selfless acts of kindness is hard to express but glorious in its distinction.
The world admires the hero, the courageous; the one who, even in the face of danger, sticks to tolerance and sacrifices.
It is not easy to love some people, but the truly great will stun their enemies with forgiveness and give a face to worthy human ideals. It is a difficult choice but some people have that grace.
It is definately not about 'not thinking much about your personal interest'; its about being aware that you ought to do things in a certain way, because you would condemn anyone that stumbles in that way.
edward long 100+
There is no self-promotion or personal benefit in such acts as jumping on a grenade; donating a kidney; defending a helpless victim; running into a burning building to rescue another; sharing with the needy; etc. (I'm not sure "kindness" is the correct term for such acts but you get my point).
Myles Horton
However, my friend made the point that the person would still achieve some level of reward. Like a sense of moral benefit. For an example: giving to charity out of guilt or to relieve yourself from your own empathetic sadness. To know that you've made a difference, to know you have helped save someone. Giving makes us happy. There are circumstances where the person is paid to make these sacrifices, it's their job. On some level it is always a self serving act.
Your thoughts?
edward long 100+
Myles Horton
You mentioned "the same test" what do you mean?
And I agree with you that being paid does not mean the act was selfless, although it can be it isn't always. Though I believe that on another level the act would be self-serving.
I'm just being the devil's advocate.
edward long 100+
By "the same test" I mean to investigate and establish whether the act was performed specifically to get some personal benefit or not.
Being paid to help others does not determine whether an act was selfless or not.
Be careful advocating for the Devil, Mr. Horton.
Myles Horton
edward long 100+
Debra Smith 200+
Myles Horton