Would you agree that everything we do, is out of selfishness?

There are a lot of psychologists who argue that true altruism does not exist because even the most selfless acts have some ostensible self-interested motivation behind them (“feeling good,” glory, fame, validation, etc.).

I don’t know if it’s true or not or how I feel about it, but it makes sense and I can’t come up with a valid counterpoint.

This is a semantic question. Does altruism count as selfishness if acting altruistically makes you “feel good” above and beyond the resources you give up in the act?

I prefer a narrower scope for the term “selfish.” It’s certainly true that the warm fuzzy feeling can count as a reward for altruism, but that reward only exists in your head. I think that’s a fundamentally different kind of a reward than external resources like money or power that you obtain in “selfish” acts (or give up in “altruistic” acts). At the very least, it’s a distinction worth drawing.

@Qingu I can see how you’d want to make a distinction between actual reward, versus how I feel about something. But isn’t a reward a reward, regardless of who is giving it? I’m sure someone would give you a nice big pat on the back or a hug for building a home for someone. That isn’t really a reward in the sense of money, but it is external rewards in a sense.

While I usually feel altruism doesn’t really exist, I’m in the boat with @Qingu where separating the warm fuzzy from a more external reward is pretty close and worth counting.

@RandomMrdan, I think the nuance here is important. And the nuance doesn’t involve who “gives” the reward—it involves the nature of the reward itself.

If the reward is something physical, like money or an object—or even something nonphysical but that can still be wielded, like social standing or power, then I think this kind of reward is fundamentally different from one which exists only in your head.

The first kind of reward grants you power, the second kind of reward does not.

It is observed in many situations that people act without thinking. Especially in cases where someone else is in need.

People drown, for instance, while saving others. The same can be observed with our nearest primate kin, the chimpansees for instance.

I therefore have to disagree. Even if one would argue that true altruism doesn’t exist then still not all is selfishness. After all, many things we do, we do without any reason, so they can not be perceived as selfish either.

I believe we do have true selfishness in our repertoire, though. Caring for the group creates a survival advantage and therefore it has become engrained into our behaviour code.

@Qingu Well, to use the example above. I’d imagine those people feel warm and fuzzy, and I see how you’d want to draw a distinction. However, that warm and fuzzy feeling doesn’t come without social standing with those people you build houses for. So… I’m curious, if there is an act that would only result in the warm and fuzzy, that doesn’t come with any other sort of reward?

What if I do a good deed, but don’t even feel good after I do it. I did it because it just happened to be the right thing to do. Like @whitenoise said, if I save someone from drowning, I’m doing that because I don’t want them to die. If I see an elderly person lose their cane, I’ll run over and pick it up for them because I don’t them to hurt themselves. It’s an unfortunate occurrence that happened and needed to be corrected and that’s all.

@whitenoise good point, I never really considered split second instinctive decisions.

Call me selfish, but I don’t think I would jump into a river to save a stranger, unless I was that confident about my swimming abilities! =P

@RandomMrdan but you would probably dive in without thinking if the stranger was a two year old.

I believe in you :-)

@whitenoise haha, true.

I think all of our actions are self-serving on some level.

I think selfless altruism can exist, yes.
I operate under the philosophy of the biblical saying to not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing. I am not Christian nor fundamentally religious, I am spiritual and embrace all sound wisdom regardless of source.

One big clue to self serving and ego motives are those that feel the need to constantly proclaim how “giving” and “caring” they are, endlessly reciting the list of their good deeds.
I let go of a “friend” like this last year. The woman has this incredible, fraudulent, self image of being so altruistic but her hidden agendas were as transparent as rice paper.
She NEVER stopped talking about how “giving” she was but it was obvious everything she did was to bolster her own low self esteem.

I can say that I have experienced many moments of genuine giving from a place of true happiness and wanting to share, with no ego agenda, hidden payback expectations and no need to self glorify. Infact, this is one area I am always looking at and asking myself what my true motives are from a place of conscious awareness.

I even go so far as to ask myself when I pick up the phone to call a friend what my true intentions are. If it is based on boredom, or anything less than a genuine desire to talk with a friend I don’t make the call. Soooo…is it possible, yes, but most of the time there is a hidden agenda, this is where true mindfulness comes in.

Not diving into freezing water to preserve my own life = Selfish
Diving into the river to become a hero might seem instinctive and selfless… but miiiight be stretchable to selfish. Perhaps on a subconscious level? I think we’ve probably all read enough books, and seen enough movies to know the hero is a good role to have.

@Coloma I know people just like you describe! They make me sick! Once I meet someone like that, I tend to always avoid them at all costs.

Guess it depends on whether you consider the good feeling you get from helping somebody out to be a selfish motivation.

If you do something that benefits others and you do it anonymously then you can enjoy the warm fuzzy feeling without external recognition/further reward, kinda like when we give lurve here in fluther.

No and off the top of my head I can think of one example that I could argue. Say for example a family pet has gotten really sick and is suffering beyond repair. We often times then have the choice of putting them down or allowing them to live through the sickness and difficulties/pain that comes with that illness. I believe most people would likely put their pet down simply because “it was the right thing to do”. Not because after this event they would feel good about it, or that they will reap some level of reward for it, but purely out of respect for the animal. I’m sure in many cases this carries with it some level of guilt and sadness, but the reason being only that it was “the right thing to do”.

@Neizvestnaya very good point. So, assuming the warm fuzzy by itself without any other reward (aside from tax incentives of charitable donations ;) ) would be relatively selfless.

@YoBob Not so much the good feeling, but more like “look at me, what a wonderful, selfless person I am.” If there was no other person in the world to give you praise, would you still do it? I would hope so, but not so sure.

@RandomMrdan I hear you, but sometimes it takes awhile to really see the mask slipping. But slip it will..lol

Yes. However, some mighty nice things can occur as a result of someone’s selfishness; Mother Theresa comes to mind.

There are a lot of soldiers that act selflessly to aid their wounded comrades when the best thing they could do for their own well being is curl up in the bottom of a hole.

I would have to disagree with you.

@RandomMrdan, you asked me an interesting question (about doing good deeds that don’t result in a reward like social standing). Obviously we perform a lot of altruism in public, possibly with the intent of “impressing” our fellows.

But I’m sure plenty of people do altruistic things privately, without mentioning them. If you dine alone and leave a tip, for example. Or if you donate to charity online without telling anyone.

I’d also argue that there is a positive feedback loop between the “good feeling” of doing altruism and the public reward of doing altruism. By this I mean, if I act altruistically in public, people will probably act kindly to me (“gee, thanks! you’re so nice!”, etc). You can characterize that as a reward in the first sense, since it increases your social standing (albeit fleetingly). But it also might act as a sort of Pavlovian training in which you learn to generate fuzzy feelings internally for private altruistic acts.

I guess what I’m trying to say here is that we’re social animals, and altruism is certainly tied into the evolution of eusociality and social “rewards” that are doled out to altruistic individuals. But that doesn’t mean that altruistic individuals need those rewards to act altruistically.

@WestRiverrat If you love your friend, you would risk your life to save them because you don’t want to not have them in your life. Or maybe you don’t want to be the only soldier out there without anyone having your back. Or maybe you are just so mad at the enemy that you don’t want them to win!

By self-serving, I don’t mean selfish. You get something out of every decision you make, and sometimes you really have to dig deep to find out what that somethiing is.

Just read case studies from psychiatrists who have tried to understand why certain patients have self-destructive behaviour. They dig deep and find what it is about the behaviour that is gratifying to that patient.

I know there are many out there that do good without even giving it a second thought , so I have to say NO, not everything, everybody does is out of selfishness. Be in a third worls county when a real natural catastrophic incident occurs that is when you see the REAL GOOD that shines in us all no matter how much you wish to think there are other reasons for responding to REAL NEED. On a everyday level of doing little deed’s such as helping an old person with groceries , or walking across the street, or catching someones dog who escaped, yeah perhaps we all need to know we are appreciated every now and again. And it just feels good to know you have helped someone.

Not at all. I am moved to help people with no thought of myself.

Interesting stuff here, still there are issues of what is actually meant by ‘selfishness’. In particular whether there is reward of some kind, after performing some task or act. Personally, I don’t see altruism as really existing at all, even – with respect – for those who are religious.

There are always ‘pay-offs’, whether it’s the warm fuzz of endorphins, or direct support, like the supposed selfless hermit, who is supported in prayer or devotion, by donations of food. Others do not let him/her starve, it rewards them in all kinds of ways to give, he or she receives alms or food or shelter with due gratitude and carries on.

I think in terms of transaction here, when it comes to the various acts of heroism or giving that are mentioned. And survival when we see the acts of heroism themselves. We are deeply (humans that is) ingrained to save others, when under duress ourselves. Without others, we cannot survive.

There is nothing negative about this, it’s how we are. Sentimentality and personal opinion colour in the various acts to give them meaning. So, Mother Theresa gave her days to working with the sick and poor. She had food and shelter. Her life was fulfilled, as her own beliefs described for her the relative necessities of her actions and, perhaps, the rewards that might come. It’s disingenuous to see anyone of religion as behaving without some sense of self improvement or regard, it’s built into the psyche.

Rather than the word ‘selfish’, which has such negative connotations, perhaps other, more generous words or phrases might be better used to describe behaviours which appear so ‘selfless’. For the greater good, towards sharing a more useful world, with care and concern for myself and others…?

@Skaggfacemutt That doesn’t explain why the soldier will risk his life for the one guy in the unit he hates with a passion.

@WestRiverrat Maybe he doesn’t want to live with the guilt of knowing that he let someone die.

@WestRiverrat, you can always spin these things.

The guy will risk his life for the reward of comraderie that he’ll receive by his fellow soldiers (and also possibly medals and honors) for risking his life.

I don’t say this to minimize the act of altruism; I’m on record here as saying that altruism can be distinct from selfishness… but I do think you can draw a connection.

No, I do not think so. But that is because, in my mind, the selfishness of an action is defined by its motivation. So it doesn’t matter if you “feel good” as a result of donating to charity, if the motivation behind your donation was to help others, then it is not a selfish act, regardless of how it makes you feel.

But yes, I agree that this is largely a semantic issue. If we define selflessness as impossible, then why should the term exist in the first place? The line has to be drawn somewhere in order to be a valid term.

I believe selfless acts exist. You are telling me you never helped or acted out of discretion once in your life to benefit someone else? I remember doing so.

Although I would say less of it happens now as I am a less happy person…and yes I feel there is a big difference in-between the way I acted then and now.

ALSO, SO WHAT? if it makes a person feel a little better about themselves….the helper deserves a reward to you know…and I think the only reason he feels good about himself is because he feels he did an honorable thing. You know typically, the honorable acts require some kind of sacrifice and risk…and therefore not everyone does it (the cowardly ones)....only the braver and stronger people do it risking their own pleasures (and therefore at the very least deserve to feel good about themselves as a reward).

I know what people asking this quesstiong are coming from but I think it is pure bullshit. There may truth to the idea in some instances but not all.

To seek “selflessness” is just as egocentric as it is to be “selfish” as you claim. IMHO, Both are making a reference to the self as a separate entity instead of acknowledging the unified nature of the universe.

The suffering of others is not separate from us, it is our suffering as well. Thus, to help others is to also help ourselves, to love others is also to love ourselves. And if we derive a sense of personal joy and accomplishment for helping to make others suffer less, that is not a bad thing. That is the fruits of compassion that is meant to be cultivated.

@sinscriven Completely agree!

I am not arguing the “selfishness” or “selflessness” of our actions. If you do something nice for someone that is a good thing. Motivation is irrelevant. I just believe that all motivation comes back to self-serving in one way or another. That isn’t a bad thing, it is just the human condition.

There are far worse things about the Human nature than ‘feeling good about yourself for helping someone else’.

@raven860 pretty much nailed it.

Would you agree that everything we do, is out of selfishness?
Yes, I would agree that everything we do, however ‘good’ it is, is always is out of self interest. But is self interest the same as selfishness?

Technically I don’t believe in altruism, but I appreciate the sentiment.

But since you’re asking, for me selfishness is normal and good. You should always be trying to do what you can to better yourself and your disposition. But I draw a distinction at “Greed” which to me signifies ignorant selfishness. If you’re ignorantly attempting to please yourself by, say, eating as many McDonald’s burgers as you want, you might be ignoring the fact that you’re turning your date off and damaging your body.

Selfishness is normal. Greed is selfishness to a fault.

There is something in it for us even in deep affection. We love people because of how we bask in their presence. Even altruism has something for us because we have an inclination for that type of service. The pearls of life come from doing what goes against the grain of what we “feel” like doing, but accept responsibility for. The sufferings produce the growth like pleasure never could.

The question you pose is does genuine altruism exist. The answer is no.

Even if you give give give and give purely out of generosity, you get something out of it . . . a good feeling.

It is impossible to do something good without getting SOMETHING in return.

I actually spent a semester in a course that discussed just this topic. It was very interesting.

No, we do not do everything out of selfishness. First, selfishness is distinct from self-interest, as well as from altruism. Secondly, there are demonstrably altruistic acts. These terms are all defined ostensively: we start by saying “here are some examples of selfish acts, here are some examples of altruistic acts, and here are some examples of self-interested acts” and work from there. Third, the most common argument for psychological egoism—i.e., the view that all acts are selfish acts—commits a notorious fallacy. Specifically, it fails to observe the subject/object distinction. Saying that we must have some internal motivation to do something speaks of us as the subject of action. Saying that an act is selfish speaks of us as the object of an action. Inferring from “we always have a reason for how we act” to “all acts are selfish” conflates the two, which is fallacious.

Naturally. Selfishness and self interest are the same thing, with a different tag. Sort of like “up” and “vertical”
Only people who want to steal what you produce make it sound like they are different.

@saint Your personal attacks against those of us who say otherwise aside, everyone in history except Ayn Rand disagrees with you. This is a very old philosophical distinction, and it has often been brought out in the defense of capitalism and/or a less authoritarian state.

@SavoirFaire
Personal attack. Did I mention anybody by name? What is wrong with a less authoritarian state? Should we dream of and long for a MORE authoritarian state?

@saint You don’t have to mention by name to personally attack everyone above (including me, directly above) who said something different from what you said. I have no intention of stealing what anyone produces. I am simply capable of understanding a basic philosophical distinction. I expect you are, too.

As for a less authoritarian state, I am in favor of it. Why would you simply assume that I was not—particularly when I pointed out that the position I am defending has been used to support precisely that kind of state?

@SavoirFaire Why is this all about you?

@saint I’m fairly sure it’s not all about me. Though when you respond directly to me, I will respond with what I personally believe. Is that really such a foreign idea?

@SavoirFaire You started this business of personal attacks. Nobody talking to or about you until you brought it up.
Anyway, you’re a philosophy guy. Isn’t it argumentum ad populum when you say everybody believes it except one, so it must be true?

@saint If you wish to explicitly retract your statement that “only people who want to steal what you produce make it sound like [selfishness and self-interest] are different,” then I will retract my claim of personal attack. As I had said precisely that directly above your post, however, it is an attack whether you intended it as one or not.

As for argumentum ad populum, it is indeed fallacious to infer from ”(almost) everyone believes x” to ”x is true.” But I am not making a claim about how the world is; I am making a claim about linguistic practice. The distinction I noted has a very long and fruitful history among philosophers of all political allegiances, making your original claim both false and infelicitous. The latter, especially, is important in disputes over language. It is not fallacious to point out that idiosyncratic use—like yours—diminishes the effectiveness of an argument that rests on ignoring a distinction everyone else acknowledges.

No, I do not agree that “everything we do is out of selfishness.”

Vanity of vanities; all is vanity.

I think your statement is pretty much true and I don’t have any problems with it. As long as I do not hurt anyone else in the process of taking care of myself, it is my job to look after me first. And if someone else benefits from my looking after myself, so much the better.

As for your example, I think that is called altruistic egoism, or some such pyscho talk. Again, I don’t have any problems with it.

I don’t agree at all.

There’s a great toddler experiment with a researcher pretending to accidentally drop a small object. The vast majority of toddles pick it up, briefly look at it, extend their arm and give it back to the adult.

The deeper scientific mechanism is called group selection.

Very well put, @rooeytoo . It has always been an opinion of mine that my life would be much easier if everyone in it took care of themselves. That is why I like your comment “it is my job to look after me first.”

I guess you have to be a wife and mom to really appreciate how much it benefits the whole group if everyone takes the responsibility to take care of their own sh**. And that means, solve your problems and make sure you do what is necessary to feel happy and fulfilled.

My generous son is a perfect example. He owes me money. Every payday I tell him to not give me a payment unless he has enough for himself – because he will get himself in a financial bind by giving me too much, and then he gets letters in the mail from lawyers, and then guess who gets to solve the bigger problem he has created for himself.

Not to be a broken record, but I’ll just point out that “taking care of yourself first just so long as you don’t hurt anyone else” is self-interest, not selfishness. By definition.

@SavoirFaire Yes, I think most of us have come to this consensus. I know that I have. Whether every single thing that we do is motivated by self-interest is certainly debatable. I think yes – in some way or another, no matter how indirect it might be. Others think no, that people really do things that would be against self-interest completely. My feeling on that is that even if you do something against self-interest, you are still getting something out of it – a warm fuzzy if nothing else.

@Skaggfacemutt: What about putting a pet down because they are sick? I get not even a slight warm and fuzzy from having to do that even though it may be the right thing to do.

@critter1982 I certainly didn’t mean to suggest that all actions we take and choices we make are to get a warm fuzzy. There are a lot of different trade-offs – more than I can mention here.

@Skaggfacemutt: Yeah I guess I should have reworded my rebuttal to “My feeling on that is that even if you do something against self-interest, you are still getting something out of it – a warm fuzzy if nothing else” comment. I’m not sure we get anything out of putting a pet down, which is the reason I believe it is such a hard thing to do, because there is no reward (warm and fuzzy) or self interest observed in the act.

I am sure you get something out of putting a pet down. Firstly, you don’t really have a choice – I mean, what are the options? Watch the pet suffer? or starve to death slowly because it is too sick to eat?

@Skaggfacemutt While I agree with @critter1982‘s point that we don’t always get something out of our acts, it wouldn’t matter if we did. It’s the same problem as I discussed above regarding the subject/object distinction. That I’m glad I did something in no way means that I did it to be glad. Thus we would not be the object of the act (which is part of what determines whether it is selfish, self-interested, or altruistic), but only the subject of the act (that is, the one acting).

In a way, yes. A lot of the time, we help other people because it makes us feel good. But selfishness isn’t the only reason we do the things we do. It’s just part of it.