There are no Selfless Acts

[Accountable]

There are no Selfless Acts.

[BabyRider]

Is there an echo in here?



Is there an echo in here?

[lady cop]

i would respectfully disagree. just look at most parents. unconditional love. giving. sacrifice.

[Clint]

He was driving on another long road trip. This time he is driving in the mountains and it’s winter time. His mind begins to drift and he recalls other road trips. He asks himself, “Why is it that I have been first on the scene of so many accidents?” “I hope it never happens again, I never want to see what I’ve seen again”.

An old pickup passes him and he looks over. The driver seems to be trying to keep himself awake. The pickup pulls back into the lane in front of him and continues to drift to the right. It hits the snow bank and the back of the pickup overtakes the front. It slides across the two lanes backwards and hits the divider barricades causing it to flip into the air. The pickup lands on its top in the emergency lane on the other side of the opposite lanes.

“Oh no!!!” He says out loud. “Not again”. He thinks for a moment that he may just keep going but instinct takes over and he slams on the brakes. He jumps out of his pickup and runs across four lanes of traffic.

The driver of the wrecked pickup is lying next to it, covered with blood and not moving. “How did he get out here”, he thought. He was dirty. His hair was long and matted from not being washed. He had piercings and tattoos. “This guy could have AIDS” he thinks. The victim begins to move and moan. It’s cold and the wind is blowing. He begins to help the victim get comfortable and warm, talking to him to calm him and searching for life threatening bleeding. The victim tries to get up and he holds him down.

Others arrive, some of them trained in medicine but no on well touch the man who appears to be dying. It takes an ambulance and police 45 minutes to arrive. He stays with the man who miraculously holds on to life. When help arrives he walks back across the highway. When he starts to get back in his pickup he notices he is covered with blood.

Selfish act?

[minks]

Accountable wrote: There are no Selfless Acts.


What you did today was selfless, you better look again laddy.

[Accountable]

Clint wrote: [...]

Selfish act?
Nope. Everything we do, we do to make ourselves feel better in some way. Even the guy in your story knew he would feel guilty for driving on, so on balance, his actions also were for his own positive feelings.



I most definitely did the Red Cross thing because it makes me feel good to help people. I get this tickle on the bottom of my heart that nearly brings tears to my eyes. Sometimes it succeeds.



Parents go through a lot of crap for their kids. Hardly selfless acts. The long range result of having a contributing adult one can proudly announce as "my kid" is undeniably fulfilling.



Even giving a kid up for adoption, painful as it certainly must be, is not selfless in my estimation, though it is probably as close to selfless as I can imagine.



If there were an action that you were able to do, but had the option to decline, knowing that the action would be more unpleasant than not doing it, and the end result would not make you feel one iota better - possibly make you feel worse - would you do it? Of course not.



There are no selfless acts.

Echo

[BabyRider]

Then what you're saying is the motivation behind the act is what matters. But how can you be sure that people do things to make themselves feel good? It happens, sure, but to say that it's the driving force behind the act is a generalization, that may not fit everyone. If the feeling you got from doing a good deed was totally neutral, I'm sure there are people who would still do it, just because it needed doing.

[Accountable]

BabyRider wrote: Then what you're saying is the motivation behind the act is what matters. But how can you be sure that people do things to make themselves feel good? It happens, sure, but to say that it's the driving force behind the act is a generalization, that may not fit everyone. If the feeling you got from doing a good deed was totally neutral, I'm sure there are people who would still do it, just because it needed doing.
We can't control the result, only the act. There've been many times I did something "nice", only to find I had really cocked things up. But I did it (motivation) to be nice, to revel in the resultant good feelings.

Housewives and other neatnics clean stuff "just because it needed doing." Neutral to angry feelings before and during, neutral to positive feelings after. The act avoids the definitely negative feelings of leaving it alone. Noted exceptions to the motivation of "teaching a lesson," which itself is not selfless.

[BabyRider]

Accountable wrote: We can't control the result, only the act.
That's my point. The result, being beyond our control, is what makes it selfless or not. Just because it makes me feel good does not mean that is why I do it. The "why" in each person's mind can only be known by the person. So I guess it should be "There are no selfless acts so far as we know." Only the person doing the act can know if it's selfless.



(In case you were wondering; yes, I'm only arguing this point to be contradictory. Because I can.) :yh_bigsmi

[hotsauce]

i would be concerned for someone who did something good for someone...and it made them feel badly. what the heck is wrong with feeling good for doing something nice?



and...i don't think that is the only reason people help others out.

[BabyRider]

hotsauce wrote: i would be concerned for someone who did something good for someone...and it made them feel badly. what the heck is wrong with feeling good for doing something nice?



and...i don't think that is the only reason people help others out.


I think you're missing the point, hotsauce. Acc is saying there are no selfless acts, I am saying that there could be. I don't think there's a thing wrong feeling good for doing something nice, but that's not the point. The point is whether or not the motivation (the fact that is makes you feel good) is the sole reason for doing the act in the first place.

[Accountable]

Is the aversion to my statement that it somehow seems to cheapen the act?

[BabyRider]

Accountable wrote: Is the aversion to my statement that it somehow seems to cheapen the act?
Is that question for me, or saucie?

If it's for me, then no, there isn't even any real aversion. Just a point to be made that is in opposition to yours. Simply a debateable topic that tweaked my interest.

Just playing devil's advocate, really, Acc! :yh_bigsmi

[Accountable]

BabyRider wrote: Is that question for me, or saucie?

If it's for me, then no, there isn't even any real aversion. Just a point to be made that is in opposition to yours. Simply a debateable topic that tweaked my interest.

Just playing devil's advocate, really, Acc! :yh_bigsmi
Got it. :yh_bigsmi It was just a general question. It kinda came up in another thread (as so many of these conversations do).

[nvalleyvee]

I give to the organizations who care for the abused women and their children, the organizations who help the homeless who are trying to help themselves and the organizations who help underpriviledged children. They are all in my community. I gave a coat to some guy who was really cold during winter about 15 years ago and saw a person who worked at the liquor store wearing it.

[Accountable]

nvalleyvee wrote: I give to the organizations who care for the abused women and their children, the organizations who help the homeless who are trying to help themselves and the organizations who help underpriviledged children. They are all in my community. I gave a coat to some guy who was really cold during winter about 15 years ago and saw a person who worked at the liquor store wearing it.
Pretty cool, huh?

[nvalleyvee]

Accountable wrote: Pretty cool, huh?


I have more than I need. I'm soooo selfish it makes me feel good to give where it will really do some good. I give to my community because I know 80% will actually go to the people who need it. I was in the women's shelter a few moons ago so I know what they do. Is it a selfless act - maybe not - but they struggle with funds and food all the time.

[Clint]

I see your point so I’ve been trying to reconcile the idea that when I do something noble it can’t be selfless. That bothered me for a while today. It doesn’t anymore, because I now realize that even though it isn’t totally selfless it can be sacrificial. Its value is based on what it costs me to do it. Even though there may be something in an act of kindness for me it can still be at a cost to me. Love isn’t love unless there is a cost to the one giving the love.

Additionally, if an act can’t be selfless, it causes me to have more humility and that is good. The idea that no matter what I do, some of it is for me, limits my tendency to gloat.

Very interesting.

[nvalleyvee]

Clint wrote: I see your point so I’ve been trying to reconcile the idea that when I do something noble it can’t be selfless. That bothered me for a while today. It doesn’t anymore, because I now realize that even though it isn’t totally selfless it can be sacrificial. Its value is based on what it costs me to do it. Even though there may be something in an act of kindness for me it can still be at a cost to me. Love isn’t love unless there is a cost to the one giving the love.

Additionally, if an act can’t be selfless, it causes me to have more humility and that is good. The idea that no matter what I do, some of it is for me, limits my tendency to gloat.

Very interesting.


Thanks for seeing my point - you said it much better than I did.

[Accountable]

Clint wrote: I see your point so I’ve been trying to reconcile the idea that when I do something noble it can’t be selfless. That bothered me for a while today. It doesn’t anymore, because I now realize that even though it isn’t totally selfless it can be sacrificial. Its value is based on what it costs me to do it. Even though there may be something in an act of kindness for me it can still be at a cost to me. Love isn’t love unless there is a cost to the one giving the love.



Additionally, if an act can’t be selfless, it causes me to have more humility and that is good. The idea that no matter what I do, some of it is for me, limits my tendency to gloat.



Very interesting.
YAAAaaaaayyyyyy Clint!!!

:yh_hugs


If there was a manly one-armed hug I'd put that one up too. this is the point I'm trying to make.

[pink princess]

wasnt this on an episode of friends....

[Clint]

Accountable wrote: YAAAaaaaayyyyyy Clint!!!

:yh_hugs


If there was a manly one-armed hug I'd put that one up too. this is the point I'm trying to make.
Careful with that hug bud.:wah:

[gmc]

posted by accountable

There are no Selfless Acts.


yeah right.

http://www.aftermathww1.com/faq.asp

Q. Which memorial carries an inscription something like "We gave our tomorrows for their today".

It's amazing how often I am asked this question. The inscription in question reads

"Tell them of us and say,

For their tomorrow,

We gave our today."

The words, or similar phrases may well appear on other war memorials, but the only record I can find of them being used is on the monument erected at the British military cemetery at Kohima, Assam, India, in memory of those who died in World War II's largest Asian land battle near there in 1944. The words are attributed to John Maxwell Edmonds (1875 -1958), an English Classicist, who had put them together among a collection of 12 epitaphs for World War One, in 1916.

According to the Burma Star Association the words were used for the Kohima Memorial as a suggestion by Major John Etty-Leal, of the 2nd Division, another classical scholar. The verse is thought to have been inspired by the Greek lyric poet Simonides of Ceos (556-468 BC) who wrote after the Battle of Thermopylae in 480 BC,

"Go tell the Spartans, thou that passest by,

That faithful to their precepts, here we lie."

There's also a cemetery in Vietnam at Muc Wha (a former French garrison post) where 300 French troops are buried with a sign quoting that same phrase (a film with the title Go Tell the Spartans was made in 1978 with a story centering round this cemetery). I also think that the title of Ernest Raymond's 1922 book Tell England (a massive best seller in the twenties & thirties) refers back to this same epitaph. It ends with one of the main characters dying at Gallipoli - and asking his friend to write a book memorialising the courage of those who died. "Tell England, ye who pass this monument, We died for her, and here we rest content."

Back to FAQ list


Since time began there have been those capable of selfless acts and those who were prepared to take advantage of it and use it for their own advantage dressed up in the common good. Used to be we called the latter kings and emperors who convinced us that those who didn't follow blindly were traitors, but nowadays things are a bit more subtle.

[Redclay]

A good example of the mischief words can cause! In a literal sense, the word "selfless" is an exaggeration whenever it might be used. Of COURSE no one can act without regard to self. Wouldn't that be a kind of insanity? But what is commonly meant by the use of the word is the key thing, and I think to call somone's actions selfless means that the person sacrifices time, effort, money, personal safety, etc. to make things better for someone else. That there is some secondary benefit to the person acting "selflessly" isn't the point. He or she is acting without what we commonly call "selfish" (i.e., not caring about anyone else) motivations; therefore the person is said to be acting selflessly.

I would rather avoid the word altogether.