So... only a non-premeditated act can be selfless? I'm not sure I follow that logic. I suppose that makes sense in a literal interpretation of "selfless" in that your "self" isn't really involved in the action (if that makes sense), but selflessness usually involves some twinge of morality. Isn't a reactionary act like the one you've described kind of an amoral act?
The only arguably altruistic action I can't understand morally is selfless suicide.
the point i tried to make(and in bad grammar/writing):
If you "consciously" do something for someone else, your brain will reward you for that.
It's not unselfish, doing something that results in a reward of feeling good and allows you to be satisfied with yourself.
So, what i try to express is that despite that, there are many actions that are of no specific meaning to the person performing them, but of great meaning to the person benefacted by them.
Resulting in the act being truely selfless, because you are not even rewarding "yourself" in a mental way for doing it. That does not exclude acting based on morals. I grew up to be polite to my elders, offer senior citizens my place in public transport, that kind of stuff.
The fact i, as a young person, stand up and leave my seat to a much older person that needs it more, is an example of imprinted morals. I don't even think about it if i am busy phoning or reading a book, i acknowledge there are others that need it more and stand up without even interrupting what i did to tell them. And i know plenty of other people my age that would stay put and sit on their place...why should THEY stand up, and there's still a free seat at the other end of the bus...
Know what i mean? Just because you don't act consciously does not mean you have to act without morals...but i maintain that only acts done without intention of doing good can be selfless.
Is there such a thing as a truly unselfish act?
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
So... only a non-premeditated act can be selfless? I'm not sure I follow that logic. I suppose that makes sense in a literal interpretation of "selfless" in that your "self" isn't really involved in the action (if that makes sense), but selflessness usually involves some twinge of morality. Isn't a reactionary act like the one you've described kind of an amoral act?
The only arguably altruistic action I can't understand morally is selfless suicide.
--
TerryVie
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
the point i tried to make(and in bad grammar/writing):
If you "consciously" do something for someone else, your brain will reward you for that.
It's not unselfish, doing something that results in a reward of feeling good and allows you to be satisfied with yourself.
So, what i try to express is that despite that, there are many actions that are of no specific meaning to the person performing them, but of great meaning to the person benefacted by them.
Resulting in the act being truely selfless, because you are not even rewarding "yourself" in a mental way for doing it. That does not exclude acting based on morals. I grew up to be polite to my elders, offer senior citizens my place in public transport, that kind of stuff.
The fact i, as a young person, stand up and leave my seat to a much older person that needs it more, is an example of imprinted morals. I don't even think about it if i am busy phoning or reading a book, i acknowledge there are others that need it more and stand up without even interrupting what i did to tell them. And i know plenty of other people my age that would stay put and sit on their place...why should THEY stand up, and there's still a free seat at the other end of the bus...
Know what i mean? Just because you don't act consciously does not mean you have to act without morals...but i maintain that only acts done without intention of doing good can be selfless.