Comments on Thondom Raughts: Is there a completely selfless deed?

@Dr. Don, Thanks for sharing your thoughts in deta...

2009-05-15T02:25:00.000+05:30

@Dr. Don, Thanks for sharing your thoughts in detail once again.
Yes again you are dead on target. The issue is more about the judgment than about the actual action. Your example about the man dying to save a child takes out the possibility of the a posteriori logic :-). Your example about the cultural effect on the logic of judgment makes sense and concurs with my logic about the safety net. When there is a system wide safety net you don't need to be selfless any more. That is probably where the world is headed to :-)

Wow, some great posts and wonderful reflections! I...

2009-05-13T07:03:00.000+05:30

Wow, some great posts and wonderful reflections!
I'm not very good at the whole Blogger stuff so I'm not sure who I'm replying to so I beg pardon preemptively.
As to the third person judging with personal knowledge and limited perspective (as you or someone said we cannot truly no the mind or heart of another[poorly paraphrased and hopefully not interpolated])I believe the key lies within the "judgment" of another. Judgment, at least where humans are concerned, is rife with mistaken conclusions for all sorts of reasons we shant have time to delve into. It sheds more critical reasoning upon the phrase, "Judge not lest ye be judged". Now could all True (I understand the point of "who is to judge" and takes us into the metaphysics of being more than human which is MY FAVORITE area of thought/reason(watch for a coming book entitled, The Life Model)selfless acts be judged selfish? Sure, possible but not probable in the absolute. What of the woman who's child falls into flood waters and an assured death. Without thinking a man jumps in and by a miracle saves the child but gets pulled under after the child is grabbed from his arms..and he dies. I don't believe the Mom or society would ever judge his act as anything other than selfless.Society would also lose the possibility to judge based upon perceived reward. He is not around to receive any. And any who would judge his intent to motivated by reward would be chastised by society and deemed deviant in view.
I do agree that, depending upon the culture, a society can be less inclinesd toward selfless acts especially when they live under a socialized compact where the government is supposed to take care of its people. My experience is that these groups are less inclined to philanthropy and charity, both potential acts and possible opportunities for selflessness. Compare Germany with USA for instance. Germans think we're nuts for how much we give and how often we reach out to those in need. Not bad people (no judgment), wonderful actually but their society perceives the reasons and needs for acting in selfless and selfish ways differently.
And this would create varied outcomes for any argument where human judgment is a variable.
My head hurts...

@Rocksea - I think the whole world is selfish, and...

2009-05-12T21:26:00.000+05:30

@Rocksea - I think the whole world is selfish, and it might even be OK to be selfish. The problem only starts when people start doing things where they stand to gain at the cost of others. But this I think is an inherent problem with the attitude of selfishness. i.e. when given with 2 choices wherein in one I gain and somebody loses something and in the other I do not gain/lose anything whereas somebody else gains something, being selfish would make me choose the first option because that option would give me higher returns. So a mix of selfishness plus a strong sense of fairness would probably be a good characteristic to have. The selfishness would drive the person to achieve his goals while the sense of fairness would force him to not take actions where he gains unfairly over another person.

@Preeti - That is an interesting perspective. I think your answer makes sense and this is resonated by Dr. Don. Selfless acts could be those where the actor acted without intentionally looking for the returns from the act.

@Dr. Don - I think you have dissected the intention aspect of the act. I agree with you fully.

I was however looking at how society judges the actor based on what the society sees or deduces as the returns from the act. Society will not be aware of the intentions of the actor but will definitely know or deduce the rewards of the act for the actor, both external and internal. Here I am looking at society as a group of selfish individuals not as the unified entity that takes care of the continuation of the species in the example cited in the article.
So from this perspective society will constantly put on a pressure on the person against selfish deeds and will try to judge all acts as selfish.

Now we all concur on the definition of a selfless act as an act where the actor did not act with an apriori knowledge and desire for the reward from the act. But who is the judge here? For a third part observer who makes the judgment aposteriori every act can be concluded as a selfish act, wouldn't it be so?

Great non-thondom raughts. I happened upon your bl...

2009-05-11T17:14:00.000+05:30

Great non-thondom raughts. I happened upon your blog because I am currently writing on re-defining, egocentric, exocentric and holocentric with respect to the human. Instead using "Self" and other modifiers. So self-ishness and self-lessness are more than obvious players. One model that I am using this within is the Alcoholics Anonymous defining of Ego and how they use it. I believe there is a way to harness more "buy in" for a greater number of addicted.
So to your thoughts..
I think the missing modifier in your premise is Intention. "If" the actor has forethought and the intention of receiving external and/or internal gains from the selfless act "than" the act is not selfless. It is beneficial to other human(s) and can be judged to be selfless by society but at its metaphysical heart it is not true. If however the actor proceeds without a priori or a posteriori thoughts as to personal rewards but acts from altruistic intention than the act may be deemed, both socially and metaphysically to be a true selfless act. As you point out there is a summation effect whereby the actor is rewarded with positive emotions, senses of achievement and fulfillment, etc. I think here we see evolutionary feedback (perhaps transcendent evo-devo feedback as well)that reinforces the "rightness" or "righteousness" (social/spiritual you choose)of the act and its chances of being carried out again. Selfless or selfish is than defined by the second act where the actor is executing the giving either for the return of that state of mindful experience (much like the hooked drug addict returning again and again for the "high") or execution is given for the need of the other without intentions of receiving personal reward.
Again great thoughts on your part and thank you for sharing!

Very interesting post. Every action has a reaction...

2009-04-30T11:51:00.000+05:30

Very interesting post. Every action has a reaction, though not necessailry equal. Every deed, no matter how selfless will have an effect on the doer - fame, adulation, respect, happiness, satisfaction - though some of these effects may be unforseen. Maybe a truly selfless deed is where the doer does benefit positively out of it, but has not forseen this benefit!!

Based on the society defined terms: selfishness is...

2009-04-29T03:21:00.000+05:30

Based on the society defined terms: selfishness is what naturally comes to you as a child, to have get everything for onself. As you grow up, you learn that there is a trade off between giving and getting, whether it is physical or mental or spiritual or on any other terms. The one who is more aware (consciously or subconsciously) on how to play the game is tagged as selfless.

Nishkamakarmam as in bhagavat gita...
karmanye wa adhikarasthe
ma phaleshu kadhachana
ma karma phala hedhur bhu
ma the sangoastha akarmani

Summarised, it says you have the right to duty only, which you should not refrain from doing, and which should not be driven by its fruits. This could probably termed as selflesness IF that does not even include a hope of moksha or eternal happiness as a final reward: OR a self glorification in some terms. I am not sure such a nishkama-karma is perfectly possible. I havent heard or met anyone so far..

I am a firm believer of selfishness. When i was a child, i believed in getting money (symbolic) without giving it out. Later i learnt that investing it in several ways, would get me more money. It is not a set rule or an aware act. Just a subconsciously learnt awareness?

@Rajiv - I am not too sure about the last statemen...

2009-04-13T22:07:00.000+05:30

@Rajiv - I am not too sure about the last statement but I agree with the rest

@Wanderer - What a pleasant surprise! Regarding the rewards, these are only what the society can afford I guess. When you take a particular example like the case of army personnel that you have stated - you are no longer dealing with society but rather a group of people making a joint decision on whether to reward the soldier or not. The society that I am talking about is a social being in itself influencing the decision making of the people in the society but never manifesting itself directly. It is more like a concept :-). Such a society will cease to act the moment you have a specific case or example. The 'social force' can be explained only on a group of events just like statistics.

Now regarding your last point, you are totally at your own freedom to do whatever you want. Now society incentivises certain things and disincentivises certain things to try to bias the occurrence of such events. If you feel (sometimes this could just be subconscious as in the case of jumping in to help accident victims without thinking about rewards/consequences) that it is worthwhile you can take it else you can leave it.

True, society 'rewards' such people. But I ...

2009-04-13T10:58:00.000+05:30

True, society 'rewards' such people. But I would suggest these rewards are mere farcical in nature and have absolutely no value whatsoever. For eg. army personnel lose their lives trying to protect a nation, a true selfless act. Yet, they are ignored or given an award. Suddenly, at what point do you draw the line of selflessness (assuming attaining absolute selflessness is impossible as even those who give their lives for others achieve something, could be love, joy, meaning to life, anything)? So there you have brought in the cost/effort factor. But assuming you do say, that society gained more than me as a result of my endeavour, will society take care of me? I highly doubt it, as humans by nature are covetous and individualistic. Wouldnt it be fair to reason that the society for which I give my life for, will sustain me? But then at that point, it will longer become an act of selflessness. So does that mean selflessness would result in a mere burning out of person, to a point where I am longer a person but a ragdoll at the service of others and have nothing for myself?

I agree with you on the part that if you take into...

2009-04-12T20:42:00.000+05:30

I agree with you on the part that if you take into account "happiness" as a result, there are no selfless good deeds, even acts of random kindness wont qualify. Also I think by nature we are motivated towards an altruistic deed by a very "selfish" pursuit of good-name or happiness etc. The doer of every so called selfless good deed does derive something from the act and if that prize(or a chance for a prize) wasnt there, I dont think the person would have considered that act in the first place.