# Everyone is selfish



## Stickman (Sep 30, 2012)

Everyone is selfish, even when they don't realize it.

Some people never help other people and are only concerned with themselves. So by definition they are selfish. However, other people who help a lot are all selfish too. Let me explain.

1. People who never help other people: selfish.
2. People who help other people but only when they get something in return: selfish.
3. People who help other people but just so the other one will like them: selfish.
4. People who help other people just for the joy of helping. They help people so they get a nice feeling you get by helping people and so they feel good about themselves. In short, they are helping to feel good about themselves.
2, 3 and 4 can be combined with each other.

People always do stuff that benefit themselves, either direct or indirect. Yet some people don't realize this and thus will claim that they are selfless.

So my question are:
What do you think about this theory? If you do consider yourself selfless tell me why you believe so? If the above is true than the word "selfish" is given an inaccurate negative vibe in modern society, since everybody is selfish. What is your opinion on that?

I apologize for the extensive use of the word people and if I posted this in the wrong location.


----------



## Dolorous Haze (Jun 2, 2012)

Humans are selfish. If we weren't selfish our species would have died out a long time ago. It's unfortunate, but that's the way things are.


----------



## DemonD (Jun 12, 2012)

What about people who help other people despite it being inconvenient and without expecting anything in return, not because they feel good about it, but because they think it's the right thing to do?


----------



## Dolorous Haze (Jun 2, 2012)

Also this post reminds me of that episode of Friends. :tongue:


----------



## All in Twilight (Oct 12, 2012)

Maybe indeed you have a point. It's too bad though that your encompassing system is wrong and too confined. You started building this system on a preferred/desired outcome. You have, consciously or unconsciously, been manipulative.


----------



## Stickman (Sep 30, 2012)

DemonD said:


> What about people who help other people despite it being inconvenient and without expecting anything in return, not because they feel good about it, but because they think it's the right thing to do?


Ouch. Yes, if that kind of people exist then I'm wrong.
So the person in question would get a good feeling for his deed, but that wouldn't be his motivition in the first place? That could be possible.


----------



## Stickman (Sep 30, 2012)

All in Twilight said:


> Maybe indeed you have a point. It's too bad though that your encompassing system is wrong and too confined. You started building this system on a preferred/desired outcome. You have, consciously or unconsciously, been manipulative.


As an INTP I will happily believe you if you explain your thesis.
So, please elaborate.


----------



## Thomas60 (Aug 7, 2011)

DemonD said:


> What about people who help other people despite it being inconvenient and without expecting anything in return, not because they feel good about it, but because they think it's the right thing to do?


Variation on rule 4; saves you from the negative experience of guilt.

The consistent behaviour brain engine brought about the prevalence of moral based thinking, within cooperative behaviour rewarding environments.


----------



## teddy564339 (Jun 23, 2010)

DemonD said:


> What about people who help other people despite it being inconvenient and without expecting anything in return, not because they feel good about it, but because they think it's the right thing to do?





Stickman said:


> Ouch. Yes, if that kind of people exist then I'm wrong.
> So the person in question would get a good feeling for his deed, but that wouldn't be his motivition in the first place? That could be possible.



I think what makes this somewhat complicated is that it's asking someone to study their emotions/motivations on a pretty deep level.

You have to ask what's the difference between doing something you "want" to do, and doing something you feel like you "should" do. Some would argue that doing something you feel you should do is different than doing something you want to do. But I think when you compare them deeply, they amount to the same thing. If you do something because you feel like you should, deep down you "want" to do that...it's just that is something you want to do more than your "surface" want.


I guess I have a hard time picturing something doing what they think is right without there being any emotional reason. To me, any sort of logic is still based on emotional motivations. 

I think someone just doing something because they think it's right hasn't fully examined their core motivation. Why is it important to do something that's right? It still serves some personal desire. It's just that this desire has a deeper root than the surface want.






Stickman said:


> People always do stuff that benefit themselves, either direct or indirect. Yet some people don't realize this and thus will claim that they are selfless.
> 
> So my question are:
> What do you think about this theory? If you do consider yourself selfless tell me why you believe so? If the above is true than the word "selfish" is given an inaccurate negative vibe in modern society, since everybody is selfish. What is your opinion on that?



I posted something like your OP once on another forum a long time ago, and I think generally people came to the conclusion that every action is a selfish one. However, that meant the topic was pointless to discuss in itself, but that there was a lot more to it if the angle changed a bit.


That being....it's not whether or not something is selfish that matters, but how selfish something is. It's more like a scale rather than an either/or situation. 

Even if we assume that we're all selfish, I think it's arguable that some actions are more selfish than others. If we assume this is true, then we could set up a scale where on one end is the least selfish thing somebody could possibly do (even if it's still selfish) and on the other end is the most selfish. 


Now, this is where things get very sticky...and that is comparing actions to determine which is more selfish. Even stickier is to ask whether or not something being more selfish is inherently less moral than being unselfish. 


So we'd then have to go through your list of motivations and say whether or not one is "more selfish" than other. Is it less selfish to do something because it makes you feel good than it is to do it because you get something in return? 


Debating emotions because very complicated, especially because when it comes to things like type, certain actions are easier for some people compared to others. As an ISFJ, maybe it's easier for me to complete a certain task than it is for an ENTP. So is an ENTP doing it more selfless than me? The same could be said for coming up with an idea that is easier for an ENTP than it is for me.


So effort becomes a really hard thing to measure. It's also arguable whether or not effort makes a difference. Some people argue that results are more important than effort.


The same could be asked concerning things like donations. If I have $100 and someone else has $10, and I donate $10 to a cause and they donate $1, is one of us being more selfless than the other or are we both being exactly the same? 




So I think this topic becomes one that can be difficult to come up with a concrete answer for using pure logic.


----------



## All in Twilight (Oct 12, 2012)

Stickman said:


> As an INTP I will happily believe you if you explain your thesis.
> So, please elaborate.


Of course.

My assumption was based on that I thought that your initial thought was that people can never be selfless and are therefore inherently selfish. Based on that thought, you came up with 4 propositions. (confinement)
Because of this confinement/restriction, you are manipulating because you never came up with a 5th proposition.

Now, even if I follow the rules of your system, I can still easily discard your theory. Let me give you an example.

I am 12 years old and I fall of the stairs and brake me leg which incredibly hurts. I have to undergo surgery and I can't walk for 6 weeks.
Now I am 32 years old and I see a young boy falling of the stairs and I can see that he is in pain. 

I can guarantee you that I am not thinking about any of the by your given options because I went to this very same process. 

Now, your system is wrong because you never took into consideration what would be necessary to overcome selfishness. You haven't given that a single thought. 

Here is a thought:
How can a man not be free if he desires recognition or if he desires anything at all? Imagine all the suffering it creates when people do not live up to those desires. He is attached and not detached.


----------



## Stickman (Sep 30, 2012)

All in Twilight said:


> Of course.
> 
> My assumption was based on that I thought that your initial thought was that people can never be selfless and are therefore inherently selfish. Based on that thought, you came up with 4 propositions. (confinement)
> Because of this confinement/restriction, you are manipulating because you never came up with a 5th proposition.
> ...


A lot of what you say makes sense, but what exactly would be your motivation to help him and what would be your thought process? What I'm asking is: what would be the 5th proposition?

And what would be necessary to overcome selfishness?


----------



## All in Twilight (Oct 12, 2012)

Stickman said:


> A lot of what you say makes sense, but what exactly would be your motivation to help him and what would be your thought process? What I'm asking is: what would be the 5th proposition?


identiFication--->empathy<--->sympathy

There would be no 5th proposition because the basic principle should be freedom and not selflessness. You can only apply selflessness if you have freed yourself of fear. Fear of not getting recognition, wealth, power, love..et cetera. That is the only way to become free.


----------



## Stickman (Sep 30, 2012)

@All in Twilight You make me feel stupid, because I have no idea what you just meant. I would ask you to explain, but I believe I did that already twice. Nevertheless, could you please explain a bit more. Lay out the connections because I have trouble seeing them.


----------



## All in Twilight (Oct 12, 2012)

Stickman said:


> @_All in Twilight_ You make me feel stupid, because I have no idea what you just meant. I would ask you to explain, but I believe I did that already twice. Nevertheless, could you please explain a bit more. Lay out the connections because I have trouble seeing them.


No, it's ok. I have been using a lot of Ne. I will try another approach to this question.

You: Everyone is selfish
Me: People are selfish, but not everyone.

So for me to prove why not everyone is selfish, we have to ask yourselves the following questions:
How to overcome selfishness? 
What leads to selflessness?

You have never paid any attention to my point of view but instead you built a system around this idea that everyone is inherently selfish because that was your initial main principle.

Are you with me?


----------



## Stickman (Sep 30, 2012)

Yes, I was looking for the answers yet you didn't give any direct answers but instead you suggested questions that would lead to the solution(and with that proving my theory wrong). I admit that I already believe that my previous theory is flawed partly because of DemonD suggestion and partly because of your descriptions.

I admit I often limit myself to my own point of view(what is relevant to me). I guess I need to work on that a little more.
Please tell me if I'm missing something and I appreciate your patience.

P.S. I did take a look at your point of view, but I didn't understand it, thus regarding it as something that didn't make sense.


----------



## unINFalliPle (Jul 8, 2012)

I think there are people who behave selfishly and selflessly. 

I think my mom is selfless a lot. She's gotten past the point of wanting us to like her, if it was ever there. She doesn't get much in return. (For we are often unappreciative and selfish). I don't believe she gets joy in helping as she complains about it sometimes. If she wouldn't do it, no one else really would. Let's just assume we're a lazy, crappy family. 

Washing dishes, clothes, cleaning, preparing meals after an exhausting day of doing things. 

Acting on obligation(not that it's something she is obliged to do, she just does it) without much reward seems to be selfless. Going out of your way to fulfill someone else's needs or desires, while dismissing your own willingly. I will agree that there is some selfishness in helping sometimes. And that there are many people who act selfish.  There is a bit of selfish in everyone. It's worth checking out the selfless acts. Those are some good people. Any selfless acts from me.. I'm much too selfish.


----------



## xxxFallFromGracexxx (Dec 9, 2012)

@*Stickman *I agree we are but if we are all selfish does selfish lose its meaning? If everyone is selfish it is no longer selfish unless you base it on the existence of selfishness. Therefore unless u have a level of selfishness, selfishness has lost all meaning. You get what I mean?


----------



## Stickman (Sep 30, 2012)

xxxFallFromGracexxx said:


> @*Stickman *I agree we are but if we are all selfish does selfish lose its meaning? If everyone is selfish it is no longer selfish unless you base it on the existence of selfishness. Therefore unless u have a level of selfishness, selfishness has lost all meaning. You get what I mean?


I realized there are exeptions to the rule, but I believe there are very few.

I believe the word selfish doesn't lose it's meaning, but if the majority is selfish then the meaning of the word selfish will become the norm. The meaning will change the same, but the negative tone of the word will dissapear.

Being selfish wouldn't be a negative quality anymore.


----------



## nakkinaama (Jun 20, 2012)

HMM i dont know


----------



## xxxFallFromGracexxx (Dec 9, 2012)

@*Stickman * How exactly are there exceptions? Everyone does something for someone else out of an emotion. To benefit your emotion and everyone has emotions. I think the meaning of the word "selfish" are for those who ignore the emotion that suggest to help or simply do not have one telling them to do so. Yet, helping other is selfish to satisfy yourself. In addition, It is how the world functions and it still benefits people no matter the intention. Also when helping benefits yourself you are encouraged to continue helping. So a little selfishness keeps society functioning.


----------



## Solitude315 (Feb 28, 2012)

OP, the problem with your argument is that you examine the issue with a black-and-white perspective. People are not selfish OR selfless; they're a combination of both. Both have helped humanity survive. If one ONLY acts in self-interest, they aren't more likely to survive than the one who only acts in others' interests. As civilization progresses, selflessness seems to replace selfishness as the dominant of the two.


----------



## Sporadic Aura (Sep 13, 2009)

I think this is pretty bogus, there are situations where I do things for people even though I know it will drain me or there will be no benifit for myself. And I know others have done the same when I needed their help.


----------



## OverthoughtAndUnderstated (Aug 13, 2012)

It's hard to believe anyone would survive without being inherently selfish. Selfishness is not necessarily a bad thing. It is an instinctual survival trait we all possess. Those who possess much less of it than does the mean could be considered _inconsiderate_ by some. We all _behave_ selfishly and selflessly at times. In determining which, one must consider context and intent. It is okay for someone to always be on guard, somewhat mistrusting others so that they can remain in a mental state of safety and comfort. Selfishness is an area where personalities will clash because true intent lies internally, and it can often not be proven empirically.

I will say this... I have met ESFPs who are truly, purely selfless. I wouldn't mind making a claim that no other type outweighs ESFPs in terms of selflessness. That's another discussion.


----------



## Carmine Ermine (Mar 11, 2012)

Robert Ringer's books make the same claim (that everyone's selfish, "especially" martyrs who died for a cause). He simply distinguished it between "rational" selfishness, and "irrational" selfishness ("irrational" included committing suicide or being a martyr), and said selfishness is not neseccarily a bad thing.

It just depends on the way you frame it. If you take away all emotional and physical reasons to be selfish (that is, imagine you are an emotionless robot who doesn't care about anything, including your own suffering/death), look at what is left: you have control over a body, and you can still think. But that is all. If you do ANYTHING, why do you do it?

If you decide to lift up your arms, or have a walk, for example... why did you do that? It is easy to say, you did it because you wanted to, and these people who want to phase out the concept of selflessness will strap on the words "therefore that is a selfish reason". In other words, they would say "wanting to do something" is inherently selfish. We must then accept everything as "selfish", thus removing the need for a definition of "selfish" because everything is selfish.

Overall, my conclusion is that if everyone is selfish, then the word "selfish" should be removed from the dictionary and/or treated as a totally meaningless idea.


----------



## All in Twilight (Oct 12, 2012)

Solitude315 said:


> OP, the problem with your argument is that you examine the issue with a black-and-white perspective. People are not selfish OR selfless; they're a combination of both. Both have helped humanity survive. If one ONLY acts in self-interest, they aren't more likely to survive than the one who only acts in others' interests. As civilization progresses, selflessness seems to replace selfishness as the dominant of the two.


And you are doing the exact same thing - black and white thinking - and you are not even aware of it. Read my other posts here and you will understand.


----------



## Mammon (Jul 12, 2012)

Yeah, I made a topic on this on another forum half a year ago or so, hoping to be proven in the opposite, that there is indeed something as truly unselfish and true altruisism.

There was not. :C


----------



## Ubuntu (Jun 17, 2011)

Stickman said:


> Everyone is selfish, even when they don't realize it.
> 
> Some people never help other people and are only concerned with themselves. So by definition they are selfish. However, other people who help a lot are all selfish too. Let me explain.
> 
> ...


I don't agree that everyone is 'selfish' in terms of ultimately being concerned with their own well-being alone. I think it might seem as though people only desire (their own) pleasure because the satisfaction of desire is pleasurable. I don't see any value in being 'selfless', though, I think strict 'altruism' is as undesirable as egoism. I think genuinely wanting others to experience happiness and to be free from suffering (for it's own sake and not because you are attached to specific individuals) comes from personally relating to their emotional states.


----------



## Stickman (Sep 30, 2012)

Carmine Ermine said:


> Robert Ringer's books make the same claim (that everyone's selfish, "especially" martyrs who died for a cause). He simply distinguished it between "rational" selfishness, and "irrational" selfishness ("irrational" included committing suicide or being a martyr), and said selfishness is not neseccarily a bad thing.
> 
> It just depends on the way you frame it. If you take away all emotional and physical reasons to be selfish (that is, imagine you are an emotionless robot who doesn't care about anything, including your own suffering/death), look at what is left: you have control over a body, and you can still think. But that is all. If you do ANYTHING, why do you do it?
> 
> ...


This is exactly what I mean.


----------



## Solitude315 (Feb 28, 2012)

All in Twilight said:


> And you are doing the exact same thing - black and white thinking - and you are not even aware of it. Read my other posts here and you will understand.


Except I'm not.

You typed:



> No, it's ok. I have been using a lot of Ne. I will try another approach to this question.
> 
> You: Everyone is selfish
> _*Me: People are selfish, but not everyone.*_
> ...


Explain to me how that isn't black-and-white thinking. 

Secondly, how is my stance that no one is inherently selfish or selfless black-and-white thinking? The real questions that need to be asked are WHY do people act in self-interest or in the interest of others depending on the situation, is selflessness more beneficial than selfishness for the individual, which is more beneficial for humanity as a whole, etc.


----------



## Iasuru (Dec 26, 2012)

Yes, everyone is selfish in relative to something. But it's something that can bring motivation to people.

I help someone because I want to, it makes me happy. Why shouldn't I? It benefits both of us.

I guess in this situation, you have to look at it in perspectives


----------



## All in Twilight (Oct 12, 2012)

Solitude315 said:


> Except I'm not.
> 
> You typed:
> 
> ...


They are all open questions!! I even asked him if he could follow and agreed with me which implies that I am open to criticism: "Are you with me?" How can this be black and white thinking? C'mon here now.

And it's not the "why"? That's such a medieval way of thinking. It's the _quantitative_ "how" that matters most.

Your way of reasoning is black and white because you never took in consideration that it actually might be possible for a person to be inherently selfless: "_no one is inherently selfish or selfless_"


----------



## Solitude315 (Feb 28, 2012)

All in Twilight said:


> And it's not the "why"? That's such a medieval way of thinking. It's the _quantitative_ "how" that matters most.


What. I've never heard of such a thing. How tells me nothing, nor does it explain anything to society.

Ex. "How many people have committed a violent crime in City X in the last six months?" versus "Why are people committing violent crimes in City X in the last six months?"

Although, the how/how many is needed to answer the why.



> Your way of reasoning is black and white because you never took in consideration that it actually might be possible for a person to be inherently selfless: "_no one is inherently selfish or selfless_"


I did take it into consideration; then, I realized how ridiculous that concept was. No one is inherently selfless/selfish. Behavioral-genetics has proved this. Are certain individuals more prone to acting in self-interest than others? Yes. But no one acts solely in self-interest all the time.

Essentially, how selfish someone is is defined by one's actions, and one's actions are the result of numerous factors (desires, genetic predispositions, the situation, etc.), all of which must be considered. The numerous branches of psychology (particularly behavioral-genetics) back this up. Now, we could argue whether or not selfishness is more beneficial than selflessness.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

What about the person who accept his own selfishness and don't labour to pretend that he is a saint to himself or others?
If everyone is selfish and not being selfish is a pretence, maybe it is high time to stop pretending!


----------



## All in Twilight (Oct 12, 2012)

Solitude315 said:


> What. I've never heard of such a thing. How tells me nothing, nor does it explain anything to society.
> 
> Ex. "How many people have committed a violent crime in City X in the last six months?" versus "Why are people committing violent crimes in City X in the last six months?"
> 
> ...


The quantitative "how" →I. Kant. Just read more about it and you will understand why I think "why" is not the right question right now. Next time, please ask if you don't understand something instead of filling up that gap of non-knowing with just random stuff. We can't find a solution to this question if you are not proposing open questions. 

You and I know both that behavioral-genetics is a theory full of speculation, hunches and guesses. It's psychology, it may be a fact now, but maybe in a 100 years it may very well be discarded.


We can overcome selfishness by non-acting. Around 500 B/C some great Eastern philosophers explained this concept. Think of Lao Tzu, Siddharta Gautamo: 
1.What is the cause of desire?
2. Desires are the cause of suffering
3. By overcoming your desires, the suffering gets eliminated. Insight through reason
4. Desire can be overcome by following the *eight fold path of Buddha*---->you can overcome the split between subject (YOU) and object (also you, your body, someone else or a physical object for instance

and in our Western World we had Christ Jesus. All three of them where inherently selfless.

From the moment we are born, we are being conditioned. Conditioned to get a career, conditioned to believe in a social system, to believe in a God I do not know. Yet our political system is based on that Thing I do not know. I don't know who or what God is but yet I will kill for him. I go to school and I am supposed to believe things I can't question because it doesn't align with what the teacher has been taught. Ask yourself now, what does this have to do with genetics? 

There is one thing I liked about what you said though and that is the following:_Essentially, how selfish someone is is defined by one's actions, and one's actions are the result of numerous factors (desires, genetic predispositions, the situation, etc.), all of which must be considered._

The key word is the word _desire_. Let's assume I desire recognition because I want to show you that I am right and you are wrong, then I am already selfish because I do not seek truth. This will lead to competitive behavior and maybe eventually conflict. Then I can say that this conflict started with the fact that I desired recognition. Do you follow? That is why it is so important to stay as open minded as we can. 

The fact that you used the word argue means that you have already lost because the act became selfish. 

To prevent a desire to become selfish, we have to stop the flow of Mechanical thinking. Let me explain to you how this works:

1.What is the cause of desire?
2. Desires are the cause of suffering
3. By overcoming your desires, the suffering gets eliminated. Insight through reason
4. Desire can be overcome by following the eight fold path of Buddha---->you can overcome the split between subject (YOU) and object (also you, your body, someone else or a physical object for instance

Let me give you an example how desire and mechanical thinking works:

A desire is a craving for X. X can be power, recognition, affection, a new car and so on.
Imagine a sunset at a nice beach and you see a beautiful sunset which brings you in a state of timelessness. That beauty is so touching that you completely forget yourself due to that encounter with the sunset and evokes an experience of timelessness. It gives you immense joy that you were so deeply connected with reality.

The next day you go back to beach and you hope to have the same experience again. However, it rains and it's stormy and the curtain of rain gives you a sense of disappointment.

During that disappointment you may notice that a need of desire arose. Strong expectation-images are unfulfilled desires = Mechanical thinking.
Because of those strong expectation-images, you can't enjoy the moment anymore because it has shifted. It actually didn't get worse at all. It has gotten worse because of that expectation you had and therefore you weren't living in the reality.
If the perception is pure, than you can overcome the split between subject and object because the perceived matches/corresponds to what you perceive. If it cannot be overcome, it will lead to a perception that it is impure, egocentric, and full of preference and disapproval and this reality becomes a false reality and you will do injustice to another. 
Due to that mechanical thinking, the desires become selfish because it's not about encountering reality but encountering a fantasy/re-living that particular feeling that you experienced before.

Now ask yourself why you are playing video games, why you smoke, why you can't get over the loss of a person in your life etc etc.

For the being of selfless love, the process of memory must come to an end. Memory comes into being only when experience is not fully, completely understood. Memory is only the residue of experience; it is the result of a challenge which is not fully comprehended. 

This whole profoundly sick society is based along the lines of the inferior emotions. A desire for power, a desire for wealth etc. Meanwhile we kill to preserve this power. Our wealth. Can such a society know what selflessness is? I think I can say that society failed big time. 

So, theoretically I think it is possible to be inherently selfless. However though, to become inherently selfless is almost an impossible task.

Oh, before I forget, all of the above is not related to religion as we know it.


----------



## Destiny Lund (Sep 2, 2011)

When I can afford it, I do my very best to help other, because they need help, not because I get something from it. Kinda contradicts the purpose doesn't it? -_-


----------



## justjessie (Oct 7, 2009)

they are one in the same yes. Because I am you and you are me.


----------



## Peripatetic (Jul 17, 2012)

Carmine Ermine said:


> Overall, my conclusion is that if everyone is selfish, then the word "selfish" should be removed from the dictionary and/or treated as a totally meaningless idea.


Carmine and @_Stickman_ --- agree with the premise, disagree with the conclusion. Just because everything is done from desire, does not mean it follows that everything done is selfish. 

Here's a series of question that exposes the gap in the logic: if you act on the desire to be patient, have you acted patiently? If you act on the desire to be rude, have you acted rudely? Yes & yes? Okey, then...if you act on the desire to be selfless, have you acted selfishly or selflessly? 

You two see my point? Selfish and selfless come apart. Even though it is impossible to act without desire, the domain of selfishness and selflessness is not desire entire, but the particular nature of the desire. Ie who it benefits and harms.

I was purposefully vague there, so if you have any questions just ask.

ps: The phrase you're looking for stickman is, "reason is the slave of the passions".


----------



## cades (Apr 25, 2012)

Everyone acts in their own self interest, which is what is pointed out. Where that is selfish or not is debatable, but the original post is correct. But some may not consider it selfish. Even if you decided to kill yourself to save someone else, you still did that for a reason for yourself. You valued them more, you wanted fame, etc.


----------



## Stickman (Sep 30, 2012)

Peripatetic said:


> Carmine and @_Stickman_ --- agree with the premise, disagree with the conclusion. Just because everything is done from desire, does not mean it follows that everything done is selfish.
> 
> Here's a series of question that exposes the gap in the logic: if you act on the desire to be patient, have you acted patiently? If you act on the desire to be rude, have you acted rudely? Yes & yes? Okey, then...if you act on the desire to be selfless, have you acted selfishly or selflessly?
> 
> ...


You make a very good and simple point, but isn't it possible that one can act selfish and selfless at the same time?

Most of the perspectives and arguments are given, i think that to make further progress we need to define the words selfish and selfless.

I do have a question? What do you mean with the last sentence and from which post of mine is the sentence derived? Just so I know what context to use.


----------



## cityofcircuits (Nov 8, 2010)

I'm not much of one to debate. 
In fact, I don't enjoy debate or argument for that matter.
All I can say is, I help contribute to and support in various ways to animal shelters and specifically no kill shelters.
Sure I get a good feeling from doing what I can, but I feel that's just a side benefit.
Is this 'good feeling' my motivation? I don't believe so. 
I'm moved to help because of feelings of empathy, pity, and loving-kindness.

So if I'm motivated by these feelings, am I still selfish? Or is anything you do in life, despite motivation and other emotions, selfish?


----------

