An interesting point was brought by someone (On this board). Selfless deed. We all know that there, technically, is no such thing as a selfless deed because at the core of any action undertaken, which maybe considered charitable or downright righteous, lies an inherent desire to quell ones guilt of humanity or a feeling of general warmth that is craved by all.... ...but what about deeds done unintentionally? Some action undertaken which was not meant to be selfless but was accidently in favor of someone else without your knowledge so you weren't meaning of any selfless deed but were without any knowledge of it....a selfless deed indeed. So upon further thought I gave it pro and cons PRO It makes sense. When one sets out to find a seflless deed that quandry is made moot from the get go because the whole notion of finding a selfless deed is to bring satisfaction to your point: that selfless deeds do exist. So as soon as you try to find one your mission has failed because you are quenching your thrist, to prove yourself, so basically doing something for yourself. ...but if one is not set out to be righteous, simply for the love of it or to prove one's self, and an action is undertaken by this individual that effects one or more individuals of no relation to the undertaker then technically a selfless deed was done because no self desire was put into the action and no feelings of gratitude or awards were expected in return of completion of this action....a selfless deed no? If the individual means no well from this deed and expects nothing and nothing is expected by others...nothing well in above average context anyway but something well is accomplished in above average expectations without any knowledge to the being who did the deed then this deed should be labeled selfless. CON No, there still isn't any such thing as a selfless deed because A) If the deed was not thought of as anything extrodinary then it didn't enter the realm of what classifies as selfless to begin with. Selfless deeds are above or apart from an individuals usual actions...they are done entirely out of love or sympathy so they are only selfless only in the means that they procede the primitive needs of survival and are done for mere or little to no happiness (Subconcious happiness is another concern). B) Technically selfless deeds aren't selfless in entirety but they are thought of this way because in nature "Only the strong survive" notion is present in every aspect of life and to be rid of this notion for a few paltry moments shows conciousness above that of any species, even though, secretly or not, these deeds do serve its host some very comforting benefits....but if no deeds were done in this set thoughts in mind then those deeds were nothing more than everyday tactics to survive. A cetain mindframe is needed no matter what to perform charitable deeds. Simply living and in some instances during this living if one happens to benefit others without knowledge then that is a happy accident....nothing more. Neutral (but secretly wants to comment) One must fiirst decide upon what selfless means in the first place because that is what really the debate comes down to. Is the term selfless being dissected in literal contexts and is, then, appied correctly or, like many words and expressions in the English language, it is being used, loosely, out of context. The debate isn't much about what is charitable or not as it is about the use of the terms to express this charitable nature. Pros and cons of this subject only further add light to the wrestling over the term more than the act itself. What do you think? Apathetic Fuck you all.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! when i have more time i'll go into more, but for now i'll throw a concept out there: altruistic individuals within a given population (animal behavior).
I know people that fit the "altruistic" description, but I think they are nothing like animals in a behavioral sense, they're very human. They do tend to lack wit though, and are not judgmental. They also, are not religious. Dave
strip away anything human and look for a moment at animal populations. consider why there are altruistic individuals. remember that with animal behavior you can't assume that behavior is conscious or that it isn't. also, do all populations have them? are they more or less successful than populations without them? ex: some rabbits "scream" when a predator overtakes them. this does two things: 1. alerts the rest of the warren of the attack, 2. attracts the predator to them (if running) and attracts other predators. the rabbit saves the rest of the warren at the expense of getting eaten. how can an altruistic rabbit have any fitness?
from what i have learned, altruism has everything to do with motive. what you are describing here seems to be mere coincidence. so if we eliminate coincidence and assume that every action we [as humans] take is [in some way] for our own benefit, then altruism is truly nonexistent among us. perhaps it is the way in which we define altruism as an unselfish act as opposed to an act "that is not beneficial to or may be harmful to [the person committing the act] but that benefits others." whatever. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
OK. To end this argument: altruism exists in the natural world. It is a commonly used term in evolutionary and behavioural biology. SwedishFish: I take it that u know the answer to the question u are posing?! Family ties mean anything to u?
I agree that without intent it can't be altruistic. It's fortunate, sure, but not altruistic. That said, I would also comment that there is certainly lots of evidence of "enlightened self-interest" in the animal world, such as the rabbit example. Animals do seem to have an idea of "helping others tends to help oneself". Especially when dealing with herd, pack and especially hive mentality.
