Pages: 1 2 3

 

Poll

Can people be truly "selfless"?

Yes, people can be entirely selfless in their actions51%51% - 42
No, there is no such thing as a truly selfless person.48%48% - 39
Total: 81
2008-02-23 23:08:59
Spearhead
Gulf coast redneck hippy
+731|7118|Tampa Bay Florida
I refer you to this thread, the debate really picks up in pages 3 and 4, when Kmarion and Flaming Maniac start an epic mod fight

http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=94133&p=1

Here's a quote

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Spearhead wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:


Someone drops his wallet, the guy behind him immediately picks it up and offers it to the man who dropped it, without taking anything.

Why did he do that? Was it because he is truly a good person who believes in doing the right thing, or is it because by doing the right thing, he feels better about himself because he is a good person who believes in doing the right thing.
I'd say people who are dishonest with themselves would be the latter option.

Truly good people see someone else dropping their wallet... and help them.  Like any normal, good person would do.  Are you saying everyone is a sociopath?  Because if everyone did good things just so society would accept them... you'd certainly be implying that everyone lacks the ability to imagine themselves in someone else shoes.
I would say the former are being dishonest with themselves.

Yeah pretty much. I don't think any form of society is really natural, past the size of a tribe/pack whatever. (Dunbar's number, as Ken said) Past that everyone has to a lot of twisting and molding to fit into the civilized world, either consciously or subconsciously.
Do you think people can be truly selfless?  Or does every good deed we do improve our image of ourselves, so in reality no one is truly "good" or "bad", they are just selfish?

And yes, this is a yes or no question.  There is no room for middle ground.
2008-02-23 23:13:13
S.Lythberg
Mastermind
+429|6875|Chicago, IL
When a soldier dives on a grenade to save his squad mates, his only reward is a quick death, I'd say that is truly selfless.
2008-02-23 23:13:24
Spearhead
Gulf coast redneck hippy
+731|7118|Tampa Bay Florida
Here's an interesting article, in wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selflessne … d_religion

I also see this as proof that one can be faithful without being truly religious.  And that is proof that religion does not have a monopoly on morality.

S.Lythberg wrote:

When a soldier dives on a grenade to save his squad mates, his only reward is a quick death, I'd say that is truly selfless.
I was thinking of him when I made this post.  And lots of sefless people I've read about.

Last edited by Spearhead (2008-02-23 23:15:17)

2008-02-23 23:15:54
SenorToenails
Veritas et Scientia
+444|6558|North Tonawanda, NY
So no matter what good someone does, there needs to be something there to taint it?  Who cares if someone does a good deed for the sole purpose of feeling good afterwards?

I worked at a liquor store during winter breaks in college.  One year, this lady was struggling with carrying her bottles, and dropped a $100 bill.  I saw this, ran over, and gave it back to her.  Did I feel good about doing that?  Yes.  Does that make me selfish?  Ask the lady--I'm sure she'd say no.

Jump off the cynicism bandwagon.  It's not healthy.
2008-02-23 23:29:39
Scorpion0x17
can detect anyone's visible post count...
+691|7194|Cambridge (UK)
IMHO, no. Not in the strictest sense of the word 'selfless'.
2008-02-23 23:41:52
geNius
..!.,
+144|6870|SoCal
It is absolutely possible; it is not common.
https://srejects.com/genius/srejects.png
2008-02-24 00:01:36
RoosterCantrell
Goodbye :)
+399|6908|Somewhere else

I fully believe people can be selfless.  I don't believe in that whole "do good things, and good things will happen to you" Karma, god is watching,  Bullshit.

I would just give the person thier wallet, simply as the right thing to do.  Maybe, just maybe, people do "the right thing" because it makes them feel good.  But if that's the ONLY reason, then it is being dishonest with oneself, just a bit.   But, if that is enough reason for them TO DO good things, then more power to them.  There really is no reason to argue WHY someone does something good, unless it has sinister roots, or an eventual alterior negative desired result.

Anyway, I would give the wallet back, merely on the idea of knowing what it's like to lose a wallet, or just imagining how bummed and worried a person will be when the realized they lost the wallet.  That, and not giving it back, would be a scumbag thing to do.  Doing something good can make you feel good, and it does, but it really doesn't linger for more than a few seconds for me, because if that was how I get my feel good high, then my life would be pathetically boring.

The sad thing is so many people wouldn't help if they could, and that right there is the problem. Even a small small gesture, makes the world just a slight bit better, so why the hell not do it?
2008-02-24 00:07:03
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,072|7200|PNW

Spearhead wrote:

And yes, this is a yes or no question.
Maybe.
2008-02-24 00:23:19
Spearhead
Gulf coast redneck hippy
+731|7118|Tampa Bay Florida

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Spearhead wrote:

And yes, this is a yes or no question.
Maybe.
Hax.

How dare you question me.
2008-02-24 02:20:06
twiistaaa
Member
+87|7097|mexico
it depends on how literally you take selfless. if you mean any action a person makes is some how self motivated, then they probably can't be selfless.

but if you don't probe the question to deeply then yes they can be selfless.
2008-02-24 02:22:10
Airwolf
Latter Alcoholic
+287|7148|Scotland
don't think anyone can be truly selfless.
2008-02-24 02:29:39
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,822|6534|eXtreme to the maX
When a soldier dives on a grenade to save his squad mates, his only reward is a quick death, I'd say that is truly selfless.
You could argue he gets something, posthumous respect, his name remembered through history.
Thats why people do a lot of things after all.

Its hard to say if anyone ever does anything wholly selflessly.
I have heard it said the truly selfless are those who help others without ever expecting anyone else to know about it.
Even the warm fuzzy feeling inside from helping someone kind of negates the argument.

Personally I've helped enough people, and been kicked in the teeth in return for it.
Now if I'm in the mood to help I'll help, if not - too bad.
Hey, there are 3bn people in the world who could use my help more than you - take a hike.

But I voted yes, as I think its possible.
Fuck Israel
2008-02-24 04:23:12
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6839|'Murka

Dilbert_X wrote:

When a soldier dives on a grenade to save his squad mates, his only reward is a quick death, I'd say that is truly selfless.
You could argue he gets something, posthumous respect, his name remembered through history.
Thats why people do a lot of things after all.
If that is his motivation for diving on the grenade, then no, it isn't selfless at all. But I'm willing to bet most of those who have done that weren't thinking "boy, I'm gonna get a shiny medal for this" when they did it.

FEOS say YES. Go deal with the mentally handicapped for a while and you'll see multiple examples of selflessness.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2008-02-24 04:31:44
Gawwad
My way or Haddaway!
+212|7113|Espoo, Finland

SenorToenails wrote:

So no matter what good someone does, there needs to be something there to taint it?  Who cares if someone does a good deed for the sole purpose of feeling good afterwards?

I worked at a liquor store during winter breaks in college.  One year, this lady was struggling with carrying her bottles, and dropped a $100 bill.  I saw this, ran over, and gave it back to her.  Did I feel good about doing that?  Yes.  Does that make me selfish?  Ask the lady--I'm sure she'd say no.

Jump off the cynicism bandwagon.  It's not healthy.
Couldn't have said it better.
2008-02-24 05:05:07
konfusion
mostly afk
+480|6978|CH/BR - in UK

I went ahead and voted yes. But selfless might be a bit of a strong word... I'd say there are good people...

-konfusion
2008-02-24 05:08:02
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,822|6534|eXtreme to the maX

FEOS wrote:

If that is his motivation for diving on the grenade, then no, it isn't selfless at all. But I'm willing to bet most of those who have done that weren't thinking "boy, I'm gonna get a shiny medal for this" when they did it..
I'm not trying to be cynical here, for once, subconsciously or not I'm really not sure what motivates people to do anything.
In the end we all die and will soon be forgotten, why do we do anything in our short and crappy lives?

Is the guy jumping on the grenade any different from the guy who spends his whole life in a lab trying to cure a disease?
Spur of the moment stuff has more to do with the subconscious than conscious - I'm not sure what that tells us either - but it does say something about deep seated motivation which is what makes us get up and do stuff.
Selflessness is just another kind of internal motivation.

So no matter what good someone does, there needs to be something there to taint it?
I don't know, I'm just putting forward a counter-argument.

Did I feel good about doing that?  Yes.  Does that make me selfish?  Ask the lady--I'm sure she'd say no.
The opinion of the lady is irrelevant. You need to ask yourself why you did it.
Fuck Israel
2008-02-24 08:53:33
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|7135|67.222.138.85
How can, after thousands of years of evolution and survival instinct, a human being not act completely out of self-interest?

We've been programmed to do what is best for ourselves. Does that sometimes mean making sacrifices to hide under the protective umbrella of society? Of course. Does that sometimes mean making physical or emotional sacrifices to maintain mental health only conserved with good relationships with other people? Of course. Does it mean accepting or faking the ideology of those around you to ensure a place in society? Of course. Part of that means when someone drops a wallet, you give it back to them, or else you are a poor member of society, and much more likely to be thrown out of its protection.

In order for someone to be truly self-less, I would have to see a human being that has not been raised in any civilized fashion, who is hungry, sees another human drop a slab of meat without noticing. Do you really think that person would attempt to give that meat back? I don't think there is anything inherently in the human mind that even remotely suggests the idea of ownership, it would be a completely foreign concept. I think it would take the meat and run as fast as it could.
2008-02-24 08:58:30
S.Lythberg
Mastermind
+429|6875|Chicago, IL

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

How can, after thousands of years of evolution and survival instinct, a human being not act completely out of self-interest?

We've been programmed to do what is best for ourselves. Does that sometimes mean making sacrifices to hide under the protective umbrella of society? Of course. Does that sometimes mean making physical or emotional sacrifices to maintain mental health only conserved with good relationships with other people? Of course. Does it mean accepting or faking the ideology of those around you to ensure a place in society? Of course. Part of that means when someone drops a wallet, you give it back to them, or else you are a poor member of society, and much more likely to be thrown out of its protection.

In order for someone to be truly self-less, I would have to see a human being that has not been raised in any civilized fashion, who is hungry, sees another human drop a slab of meat without noticing. Do you really think that person would attempt to give that meat back? I don't think there is anything inherently in the human mind that even remotely suggests the idea of ownership, it would be a completely foreign concept. I think it would take the meat and run as fast as it could.
Possibly, but remember that humans are a social species, we innately form groups and tribes given the chance.  I think that for the most part we would be willing to sacrifice ourselves to ensure the survival of the whole, whether there is glory involved, or if you'll just go down in history in a number in a history book.
2008-02-24 09:18:38
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|7135|67.222.138.85

S.Lythberg wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

How can, after thousands of years of evolution and survival instinct, a human being not act completely out of self-interest?

We've been programmed to do what is best for ourselves. Does that sometimes mean making sacrifices to hide under the protective umbrella of society? Of course. Does that sometimes mean making physical or emotional sacrifices to maintain mental health only conserved with good relationships with other people? Of course. Does it mean accepting or faking the ideology of those around you to ensure a place in society? Of course. Part of that means when someone drops a wallet, you give it back to them, or else you are a poor member of society, and much more likely to be thrown out of its protection.

In order for someone to be truly self-less, I would have to see a human being that has not been raised in any civilized fashion, who is hungry, sees another human drop a slab of meat without noticing. Do you really think that person would attempt to give that meat back? I don't think there is anything inherently in the human mind that even remotely suggests the idea of ownership, it would be a completely foreign concept. I think it would take the meat and run as fast as it could.
Possibly, but remember that humans are a social species, we innately form groups and tribes given the chance.  I think that for the most part we would be willing to sacrifice ourselves to ensure the survival of the whole, whether there is glory involved, or if you'll just go down in history in a number in a history book.
A social species up to about 150 people, not 6 billion. If we sacrifice ourself for one other person, that isn't necessarily doing the whole any good.

If we were given the chance to trade our life for one of our closest 150 people, putting their life above your own is still a selfish choice. It's a hard one, because you have to overcome the survival instinct (though it isn't as strong if you're just given a choice, not put in a quick to react situation), but you choose their life because you like them more than you like your own life. You are doing the same thing if trading yourself for many, you have been ingrained with society's rules and are selfishly doing what will make you better member of society.
2008-02-24 09:37:38
ghettoperson
Member
+1,943|7077

Fuck actually reading that thread in the OP. That must hold the record for the most average words per post.
2008-02-24 09:47:58
S.Lythberg
Mastermind
+429|6875|Chicago, IL

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

S.Lythberg wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

How can, after thousands of years of evolution and survival instinct, a human being not act completely out of self-interest?

We've been programmed to do what is best for ourselves. Does that sometimes mean making sacrifices to hide under the protective umbrella of society? Of course. Does that sometimes mean making physical or emotional sacrifices to maintain mental health only conserved with good relationships with other people? Of course. Does it mean accepting or faking the ideology of those around you to ensure a place in society? Of course. Part of that means when someone drops a wallet, you give it back to them, or else you are a poor member of society, and much more likely to be thrown out of its protection.

In order for someone to be truly self-less, I would have to see a human being that has not been raised in any civilized fashion, who is hungry, sees another human drop a slab of meat without noticing. Do you really think that person would attempt to give that meat back? I don't think there is anything inherently in the human mind that even remotely suggests the idea of ownership, it would be a completely foreign concept. I think it would take the meat and run as fast as it could.
Possibly, but remember that humans are a social species, we innately form groups and tribes given the chance.  I think that for the most part we would be willing to sacrifice ourselves to ensure the survival of the whole, whether there is glory involved, or if you'll just go down in history in a number in a history book.
A social species up to about 150 people, not 6 billion. If we sacrifice ourself for one other person, that isn't necessarily doing the whole any good.

If we were given the chance to trade our life for one of our closest 150 people, putting their life above your own is still a selfish choice. It's a hard one, because you have to overcome the survival instinct (though it isn't as strong if you're just given a choice, not put in a quick to react situation), but you choose their life because you like them more than you like your own life. You are doing the same thing if trading yourself for many, you have been ingrained with society's rules and are selfishly doing what will make you better member of society.
Very true, I would probably not choose to give my life for someone in some far away country, but I would certainly do it for someone i know.  I think that is likely an evolutionary trait, where you are more likely to protect someone with similar genes to your own, thus ensuring the survival of your genes by proxy.

In the context of evolutionary psychology, it is impossible to be truly selfless, as any act of goodwill is essentially attempting to help the human race advance.

Of course, in the end, the true motives for alturism aren't nearly as important as the end results
2008-02-24 10:04:10
SenorToenails
Veritas et Scientia
+444|6558|North Tonawanda, NY

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

If we were given the chance to trade our life for one of our closest 150 people, putting their life above your own is still a selfish choice. It's a hard one, because you have to overcome the survival instinct (though it isn't as strong if you're just given a choice, not put in a quick to react situation), but you choose their life because you like them more than you like your own life. You are doing the same thing if trading yourself for many, you have been ingrained with society's rules and are selfishly doing what will make you better member of society.
How is putting the life of a dear friend or family member above my own a selfish choice?  Because someone might appreciate my sacrifice?

You have a really twisted view of what altruism is.  Read about it--there are many documented (and common) cases where animals will place the welfare of others above their own.  Does that make them selfish?  Wolves who bring meat back from a kill for other members of the pack, prairie dogs who sacrifice themselves to warn the rest of the den about a bird of prey, animals who adopt children animals of others and even other species, etc...

This is common in the animal world.  Guess what?  Humans are animals.  We have altruistic behavior as well.  But I guess we are all selfish.

2008-02-24 10:06:33
Spearhead
Gulf coast redneck hippy
+731|7118|Tampa Bay Florida
If its human nature to be good (as in selfless), and being good is selfish, I dont see how there is a difference between the two.

Last edited by Spearhead (2008-02-24 10:07:10)

2008-02-24 11:10:46
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|7135|67.222.138.85

S.Lythberg wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

S.Lythberg wrote:


Possibly, but remember that humans are a social species, we innately form groups and tribes given the chance.  I think that for the most part we would be willing to sacrifice ourselves to ensure the survival of the whole, whether there is glory involved, or if you'll just go down in history in a number in a history book.
A social species up to about 150 people, not 6 billion. If we sacrifice ourself for one other person, that isn't necessarily doing the whole any good.

If we were given the chance to trade our life for one of our closest 150 people, putting their life above your own is still a selfish choice. It's a hard one, because you have to overcome the survival instinct (though it isn't as strong if you're just given a choice, not put in a quick to react situation), but you choose their life because you like them more than you like your own life. You are doing the same thing if trading yourself for many, you have been ingrained with society's rules and are selfishly doing what will make you better member of society.
Very true, I would probably not choose to give my life for someone in some far away country, but I would certainly do it for someone i know.  I think that is likely an evolutionary trait, where you are more likely to protect someone with similar genes to your own, thus ensuring the survival of your genes by proxy.

In the context of evolutionary psychology, it is impossible to be truly selfless, as any act of goodwill is essentially attempting to help the human race advance.

Of course, in the end, the true motives for alturism aren't nearly as important as the end results
Agreed first two paragraphs.

Happy endings do not justify corrupted means. If people were open about being completely selfish in their every act it would be one thing, but people stroking their egos because they think they are such a good person is another.

SenorToenails wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

If we were given the chance to trade our life for one of our closest 150 people, putting their life above your own is still a selfish choice. It's a hard one, because you have to overcome the survival instinct (though it isn't as strong if you're just given a choice, not put in a quick to react situation), but you choose their life because you like them more than you like your own life. You are doing the same thing if trading yourself for many, you have been ingrained with society's rules and are selfishly doing what will make you better member of society.
How is putting the life of a dear friend or family member above my own a selfish choice?  Because someone might appreciate my sacrifice?

You have a really twisted view of what altruism is.  Read about it--there are many documented (and common) cases where animals will place the welfare of others above their own.  Does that make them selfish?  Wolves who bring meat back from a kill for other members of the pack, prairie dogs who sacrifice themselves to warn the rest of the den about a bird of prey, animals who adopt children animals of others and even other species, etc...


This is common in the animal world.  Guess what?  Humans are animals.  We have altruistic behavior as well.  But I guess we are all selfish.

Because you're putting their life first because you value their life more than yours. You are selfishly deciding whose life is worth more than others. If you were given the option to trade your life for either a close (but not genetically related) friend or someone you have never met in your life, who would you choose?

Wolves cannot survive on their own, only in packs. It is in the individuals best interest to help the whole.

Sacrifice themselves to warn others? How does that work?

Strong pack members are always a welcome addition. Though less likely than taking in members of their own species, it's still in their best interest to accumulate as many strong hunters as possible for the good of each individual.

Humans are animals, animals do not show altruistic behavior.

Spearhead wrote:

If its human nature to be good (as in selfless), and being good is selfish, I dont see how there is a difference between the two.
Human nature is not to be good, society says it is best to be good if you want to remain a part of it. Humans left to their own devices are completely selfish.
2008-02-24 11:15:21
GunSlinger OIF II
Banned.
+1,860|7072
I agree completely with everything FM has written.  Mirrors a lot of my personal opinions that Ive had for some time.

 

Pages: 1 2 3

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard