Motivation

[Totenkopf]

What do we gain by arguing for this "all or nothing" dichotomy?

 

Headaches, frustration and disdain of others.

 

I somehow doubt that people throw themselves on a grenade to avoid survivor's guilt (unless they already suffer from it). The decision making process there is really too quick to dwell on such thoughts. The problem with ascribing motivation is that it's some other person's we're analyzing. Is our motivation for assigning cynical interpretation to someone else's act a defense mechanism of our own, in order to minimize them? Is our own outlook so jaded that we can't perceive somebody doing something totally selfless? Some might be right to say that at some innate level the act isn't totally selfless, but it's going to be impossible to glean from a corpse exactly what component of the decision is selfless vs selfish. I'd have to say I pretty much agree with the essence of Achill'es last statement.....what difference does it make in the end if it was totally or just mostly.

[Rev7]

Intrinsic rewards are only for the person performing the act (intrinsic as in "internal"). Extrinsic rewards (i.e. "external" rewards such as a medal) are completely different.

 

If a soldier feels a momentary sense of duty or..."altruism", which inspires him or her to perform the act, then the sense of satisfaction in performing the act itself is the intrinsic reward....

 

I'm perfectly ok accepting that actions that are only 99% selfless are still noble or that actions performed in the pursuit of the ideal of altruism are similarly noble, however it would seem that others are not.

That is true, and it makes sense. I guess that you just have to break the situation down a little bit more. Thanks for breaking that down for us.

The argument is that since they did recieve some reward for the act, then it is not truly selfless (i.e. to some extent they were doing it for themselves as well).

self·less

 

–adjective

 

having little or no concern for oneself, esp. with regard to fame, position, money, etc.; unselfish.

What do you mean by 'not truly selfless' because they 'didn't recieve some reward for the act'?

[Achilles]

That is true, and it makes sense. I guess that you just have to break the situation down a little bit more. Thanks for breaking that down for us.

You're welcome.

 

What do you mean by 'not truly selfless' because they 'didn't recieve some reward for the act'?

I find it interesting that your source seems to want to hedge their bets by adding the "little or" qualifier

 

"Self less" is to be "without self". A "selfless" act would therefore be act in which there is no regard for self (interestingly, Merriam-Webster seems to agree with this conclusion). Therefore, by definition, if there is any regard for self (i.e. an intrinsic reward for "doing the right thing" or "fulfilling one's duty") then the act cannot be selfless.

 

The favored example here seems to be jumping on a grenade, however what if we were to discuss a slightly different example. Suppose that a very wealthy man anonymously contributed a significant portion of money to a very worthy cause. He does not brag or boast of his deed. The administrators of the cause are never able to discover the name of their benefactor. The man goes to his grave without anyone ever knowing what he did or giving him praise for it.

 

Anyone except himself, of course. He knew what he did. Because he believes it the right thing to do he is charitable. Because he believes that accepting praise for the act would selfish, he keeps it to himself. The more that "doing the right thing" becomes a priority for him, the greater the intrinsic reward for doing it becomes. Even if he believes that self-congratulations goes against the humility of the act, denying himself that praise becomes a basis for intrinisic reward (quite the catch-22, no?).

 

So again, I argue there is no such thing as a selfless act. We can pursue that ideal, the same way we pursue "beauty" or "happiness" but, as I hope I have sufficiently shown, it is equally elusive in its nature.

[mur'phon]

Gah, as soon as I posted the thread, my internet crashed.

 

Tot: When we don't have time to think (much), I asume that you do what you think is best based on your limited analysis. I.E A driver is startled by some fireworks and end up driving off the road.

 

Achilles: Again, it seems we mostly agree, though I'd say we only do things because we get some kind of reward (I might misinterpret what you wrote, but your 99% selfless act seems to indicate you believe that there is some other motivation).

 

J7: My world is not depressing, I get the same rewards for doing things you do, though it would be nice if "true" altruism exist, it's nothing I loose sleep over. I don't care why people do something.

 

Anyway this is going much better than at school, where the teacher quite bluntly told me "I don't give 6'es to people who don't know their place".

[Arcesious]

Achilles seems to have explained it in the way I originally intended, as I did not think of the best words for it.

[Achilles]

Achilles: Again' date=' it seems we mostly agree, though I'd say we [b']only[/b] do things because we get some kind of reward (I might misinterpret what you wrote, but your 99% selfless act seems to indicate you believe that there is some other motivation).

I don't know if I'd go that far. I think we might quickly find ourselves quibbling over intent. While on one hand I do think I could agree with something like:

 

"I do the right thing because doing the right thing helps me feel good about myself"

 

...I also think I'd be inclined to disagree with something like:

 

"I am doing the right thing specifically because I know that I will get an intrinsic reward for doing so and for no other reason".

 

In other words, I am not seeking to diminish the significance of moral behavior so much as I am trying to point out that intrinsic rewards are an unavoidable part of acting morally.

 

I leave it up to you to determine whether or not we are still on the same page.

[Rev7]

I find it interesting that your source seems to want to hedge their bets by adding the "little or" qualifier

 

"Self less" is to be "without self". A "selfless" act would therefore be act in which there is no regard for self (interestingly, Merriam-Webster seems to agree with this conclusion). Therefore, by definition, if there is any regard for self (i.e. an intrinsic reward for "doing the right thing" or "fulfilling one's duty") then the act cannot be selfless.

 

The favored example here seems to be jumping on a grenade, however what if we were to discuss a slightly different example. Suppose that a very wealthy man anonymously contributed a significant portion of money to a very worthy cause. He does not brag or boast of his deed. The administrators of the cause are never able to discover the name of their benefactor. The man goes to his grave without anyone ever knowing what he did or giving him praise for it.

 

Anyone except himself, of course. He knew what he did. Because he believes it the right thing to do he is charitable. Because he believes that accepting praise for the act would selfish, he keeps it to himself. The more that "doing the right thing" becomes a priority for him, the greater the intrinsic reward for doing it becomes. Even if he believes that self-congratulations goes against the humility of the act, denying himself that praise becomes a basis for intrinisic reward (quite the catch-22, no?).

 

So again, I argue there is no such thing as a selfless act. We can pursue that ideal, the same way we pursue "beauty" or "happiness" but, as I hope I have sufficiently shown, it is equally elusive in its nature.

Okay then. I guess that technically, once you really break it down, nothing is really selfless. I don't really know how to say it with words, but I still do believe that there is such a thing as a selfless act.

[Achilles]

Okay then. I guess that technically, once you really break it down, nothing is really selfless.

 

I don't really know how to say it with words, but I still do believe that there is such a thing as a selfless act.

If it's a matter personal preference then there's little I can do to change your mind, however if you're presenting this as an argument then I'll simply ask you for an example of truly selfless act.

 

I think at some point, there are things that we learn and then never really think of again. Should it hold any real significance for me that ice absorbing heat from the water is what makes it cold? Does it really change anything to know that I'm not really sucking fluid up the straw when I drink a beverage thus equipped? Does the realization that no act is truly selfless make someone's kind gesture or noble contribution less meaningful?

 

mur'phon asked for our assistance with determining the correctness of an idea. I don't think we should get too carried away with the implications of the answer. At the end of the day, it doesn't change a whole lot of anything.