lol
the problem with the question is one can subjectively ascribe selfish motives to other's actions without any knowledge of why they do what they do. It is actually a very powerful cognitive bias in human perception. We are more likely to explain our own actions by external factors, and other's by internal motivation.
Rand would describe something like a man going into medicine as a profession instead of music, which he wants to go into, because of family pressure. Sure, you can argue that he still gains something personally from being a doctor or following his family, but sort of intuitively, doing something against your will so that you fulfill someone else's wishes is not selfish. That there might be benefit does not mean that there must be volition.
If I gave a fluffy puppy to a unicorn, laced with cherry gumdrops that sparkled like stars when you smile at them, and then the unicorn smiled at me and we pranced in the field with the cheerful faeries in the land of all pleasant thoughts.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I was just trying to head off the mushy goodie two-shoes answers people might come up with.
Mission. Fail.
...also cosign inamilist. I think. It sounds intellectual without actually answering the question. Therefore I approve.
313
Originally posted by DigiMark007
If I gave a fluffy puppy to a unicorn, laced with cherry gumdrops that sparkled like stars when you smile at them, and then the unicorn smiled at me and we pranced in the field with the cheerful faeries in the land of all pleasant thoughts.Mission. Fail.
Land of pleasant thoughts? Sounds like something that benefits you!
Originally posted by inimalist
lolthe problem with the question is one can subjectively ascribe selfish motives to other's actions without any knowledge of why they do what they do. It is actually a very powerful cognitive bias in human perception. We are more likely to explain our own actions by external factors, and other's by internal motivation.
Rand would describe something like a man going into medicine as a profession instead of music, which he wants to go into, because of family pressure. Sure, you can argue that he still gains something personally from being a doctor or following his family, but sort of intuitively, doing something against your will so that you fulfill someone else's wishes is not selfish. That there might be benefit does not mean that there must be volition.
That is not completely selfless. He became a doctor because he did not want his family to be unhappy with him. So in a way he still thought about his own feelings.
Originally posted by SIDIOUS 66
That is not completely selfless. He became a doctor because he did not want his family to be unhappy with him. So in a way he still thought about his own feelings.
hence my point
because we assume human volition, there is no situation where a person acts when you cannot ascribe some sense of self-motivation. Its close to being tautological.
In any realistic sense, the example Rand gave is sufficient, because you can't be said to know more about someone's motivations than they do themselves, especially in the given situation.
Selflessness, in the context I think we mean to use, means acting outside of what is directly benefical to you.
However, you wouldn't do it if you didn't think it was for the best, so in a sense it is still not "selfless" because you do it because of something you hold in esteem.
You question is too broad is what I'm getting @.
Actually I find this general view that selfless actions don't exist because you are always in some way satisfying something you want to do as... a very shallow one. It confuses the motivation for an action with the reward, which is actually a false connection.
If I do something selfless, I do it because it is right. The fact that that makes me feel good is actually entirely irrelevant to that and in no way stops it being selfless.
Those behaviors which reap a primary benefit to yourself first and foremost, especially if there is detriment to others = selfish. Eg: I'm on a deserted island starving, another person with me is starving; I also have two coconuts and keep both for myself.
Those behaviors which reap a primary benefit to others first and foremost, especially if there is some detriment to yourself = selfless. Eg, I share one of my coconuts. Though I feel good about sharing (a secondary benefit), I will still be hungry. But at least the two of us won't be starving. This would be even more pronounced if I give both coconuts to the other person.
I also think it depends on the definition. I think it is evident that every conscious action a person does is inspired by a reason which in one way or another relates positively to their wishes, feelings and opinions. Contrary to what I argued not too long ago though, I wouldn't say that this means that all actions are equally "selfish", I believe a definition that comes close to what we commonly see as selfless acts is very useful and can be separated from other actions. So, though I think it is a fact that everyone does what they want most (for themselves), I don't think it's a revelation that one should lose sleep over.