Selfishness

I define the word so:

Concerned ultimately with one self

Does any one think a person can choose to do something that is not selfish?

Example: Joe gives money to charity, why?

because he wanted to help other people
because he thinks it's the right thing to do (alternate: because it makes him feel good)
because he believes he should do the right thing
because he believes doing the right thing will bring him closer to god

Ultimately, he just did it so he could get closer to god

[Scotch78]

According to your definition, yes it's pretty much impossible for a self-aware individual to act non-selfishly. However, according to your definition, selfishness also sheds the social stigma normally associated with it.

Scott

[The Dude]

This question is one I heard quite a bit going through college, with some variation in verbiage. In my business and economics classes we used the term "self-interest," and related it to the decisions in business. In philosophy both "selfishness" and "self-interest" were used, and this discussion was brought up in the section on ethical approaches.

The short answer is 'definately yes.' The long answer requires a lot of discussion and heavy lifting, but there really is no logical contradiction to a "selfless act." Well, none that any but true skeptics would accept.

[Brainwalter]

Of course it's possible. A man gives up his seat on the lifeboat of a sinking ship to a woman with a baby.

Edit: Make him an atheist if you will.

[AlphaWice]

no, if one defines someones actions to be in their self interest.

Example. A man gives up his seat on a lifeboat for a woman with a baby. But then he wanted to give up his seat?

[VoraciousReader]

[ QUOTE ]
But then he wanted to give up his seat.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think we can define selfishness as simply the act of doing what a person wants to do. What determines if a person is selfish is WHAT they want to do.

If a dying atheist wants to give up his seat on a lifeboat to a woman with a baby, that reflects a character that is unselfish. If I want to donate all my money to charity and join the Peace Corps, I will undoubtedly find it rewarding, challenging, and feel good about making a difference in the world. So I definitely benefit, and it could be argued that I am acting in my own self-interest. But I am still very different from the person that wants to chain Chinese children to machines so they can make an additional .3% profit on Wal-Mart t-shirts.

If the argument being made is that people only do what they want to, that is a much stronger argument. (I.E. I may not WANT to pay taxes, but I want to do that more than I want to go to jail.) However, interpreting that as "selfish" behavior is specious.

Edit: If it's not obvious, I am not disputing the OP's definition of "selfish" (only the conclusion he drew from it). A person can both benefit and do what they want to do, but still be "ultimately" concerned with others. I see no contradiction here. Again, WHAT they want to do determines the focus of their ultimate concern.

[snowden719]

It seems clear that a person can be unselfish under the defenition given by the OP, OP says that X is selfish if he is ultimately concerened aobut himself. Therefore, for X's action to be selfish X's reason for action is one based in increasing X's well-being. However, people act all the time for reasons other than that, for example, reasons based out of obligatin to others. To think that giving money to a homeless person on the street because you feel bad for them and think they need the money more than you do hardly sstrikes me as a selfish act, and the reasons for doing so are certainly not based in increasing one's own well-being for the vast majority of people.

[The Dude]

[ QUOTE ]
no, if one defines someones actions to be in their self interest.

Example. A man gives up his seat on a lifeboat for a woman with a baby. But then he wanted to give up his seat?

[/ QUOTE ]
This is just circular, and until you are willing to dump this ridiculous perspective, there's just no point in having the discussion with you. It's just like the philosophical skeptics who use the "brain in a vat" argument. "Well, how can you ever know anything, even what can be empirically tested. After all, how do we know we're not really in something like The Matrix and everything we experience is just fake."

Why I never argue with skeptics: You argue with a dummy for too long, you look like the dummy.

[ QUOTE ]
A man gives up his seat on the lifeboat of a sinking ship to a woman with a baby.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, you tell me why he did it?

[ QUOTE ]
A person can both benefit and do what they want to do, but still be "ultimately" concerned with others.

[/ QUOTE ]

Example?