Is all altruism selfish?

I've always said that all the good I've ever done has been purely selfish, because I don't like feeling negatively when I pass up the opportunity to help someone else.

Another aspect of this is that recent scientific research has shown that humans get a reward in a specific region of the brain when we behave altruistically. Thus even if I think I am being selfless I am still getting something out of it according to current nueroscience.

You could always be accidentally helpful.
It all depends on what is meant by "selfless" really. Streen seems to think anything that benefits something or someone in some way is necessarily selfish (not-selfless) because we're all one, which would mean that in order to be selfless we'd have to do things which go against our interests, and because we're all one, against everyone's interest also.

I'm not sure I agree with that, as it would make selflessness something that isn't desirable at all, and definitely not altruist.

So I'd rather say that the effect of someone's actions should not be judged by the way they impact that person in order to assess whether the act was selfless.
This being said I'd argue measuring selflessness is a pointless exercise, as it would require to analyze intent. Instead what the act actually affects should be looked at in order to measure its true worth, and the act's origin (who committed the act/why/etc) should be ignored.

The origin of the word altruism points to the opposite of egoism.

So if I practice altruistic acts for the purpose of going beyond the ego or for returning to a more natural state; then, that is not selfish by the nature of the purpose and by essence of the meaning of altruism.

To say yes all altruism is selfish is to parse and morph the meaning of altruism. Similarly, every person that is hungry and wants to eat is selfish.

Edan wrote: Does anyone think that maybe motivation is a factor here? If someone gives money to a charity helping starving children, can it be altruistic if you care, but you also feel guilty because it's happening, at the same time?

Can you be altruistic if you think you're being altruistic, or does it then become a factor of ego?

I think you're making things more complicated than they have to be. Maybe the question is, does intention trump action? If you donate to a cause, doesn't it matter WHY you donated?

Streen wrote:
I think you're making things more complicated than they have to be. Maybe the question is, does intention trump action? If you donate to a cause, doesn't it matter WHY you donated?

Yes and no. It doesn't matter to the receiving part / cause but to me, there's a difference between intuitively doing it and consciously doing it (or having your own agenda while doing so - even if that agenda is self improvement). Perhaps my formerly Buddhist view on things comes to the surface here again. In Buddhism, there's a difference between right action and right intention. Right action is much easier to achieve than right intention. Perhaps one could say that right action is a precursor to right intention as when you deliberately start doing good things, over time, doing good becomes your nature and you've also reached right intention.

No. It can support any one of the basic human needs depending on the belief system of the individual performing the act, so in theory I don't think its selfless, but selfish? As it takes into account the needs of others before the conscious needs of our own, can it really be called selfish?

This post is on behalf of another..

Yes, they can be truly selfless. Yes, studies show that people who help other people get a chemical release that makes them feel good and all of that. And yes there are people who deliberately go out to do good things knowing that it's going to make them look good. There are people who donate to charities purely because they know they can get a tax ride off for it. So yes, there are ways to be altruistic while still being selfish.

But take into consideration just for a minute those children who grow out their hair for months only to cut it and donate it to organizations like Locks of Love. I honestly don't think they're capable of thinking through "If I grow my hair out real long and then get it cut and donate it, it'll make me feel good in the end". No, they're thinking "That kid deserves to be pretty too." They're doing it out of the act of truly just trying to be kind and help other people.

Then there are adults who, without even thinking about how it will make them feel or the benefits they may get from it, have absolutely no issue with giving that homeless person the $5 that they're carrying in their wallet/purse. They don't stop to consider the way it will make them feel, or the fact that they can write off that money come tax season. They see someone who is in need and they take two seconds to help them out.

And if the reaction to that is 'well they're still getting that chemical/hormonal release that makes them feel good'... so what? The average person doesn't actually stop to consider what chemical or hormones their brain is releasing as a result of every little action they take. And most people don't consciously stop to think how every little action will impact their reputation; a child probably can't even begin to comprehend how the whole scenario above may impact the way other people view them. They are acting purely off of the fact that they know what they are doing is going to help the person receiving.

A friend of mine yesterday made a comment to me about something not entirely related, though the point does apply. Is a person truly lying if they honestly believe that what they're saying is the truth? Likewise: Is a person truly being selfish when their body releases chemicals that make them feel good as a result of an action they take without a thought of themselves and how that action will impact them?

I don't think what happens subconsciously should determine the conscious reality. And the only thing those reactions are are subconscious processes. Therefore, if someone does an act of kindness without considering the impact it will have on how they feel, their taxes, their reputation, and so forth, and there are hundreds upon hundreds of people who do so on a daily basis, then you can't really tell me that that act wasn't selfless. The fact of the matter is, you can't really determine what's going through a person's mind when they do something good. You can't really say "Oh well you only did that so you'd look good", at least not with a random stranger on the street. But you can't really discount what someone does as not being selfless because of a reaction they have no control over either.

Like Cabur said, trying to determine if altruistic acts are truly selfless is trying to deal with absolutes. It doesn't exist.

Is a raspberry bush being selfish when it gives its fruits away? Is a bear being selfish when it poos out a raspberry seed surrounded by fertilizer? Is it selfish to give away money that you will never use?

I would argue that, as others here mentioned, it's the intention that makes it selfish. Like "here, I'm giving you money out of my own goodness" rather than "here I am giving away money to show gratitude"

Whyte Horse wrote: Is a raspberry bush being selfish when it gives its fruits away? Is a bear being selfish when it poos out a raspberry seed surrounded by fertilizer? Is it selfish to give away money that you will never use?

I would argue that, as others here mentioned, it's the intention that makes it selfish. Like "here, I'm giving you money out of my own goodness" rather than "here I am giving away money to show gratitude"

Yet, this is precisely why the question is so interesting. In the examples of the raspberry bush or the bear, neither of them would have "thought" about the consequences of the 'action' they were performing ; they weren't performing according to any hypothetical imperative (this > that). Even the notion of an 'action' there is a little misleading, for it makes it seem like there was a meaning to it, or a purpose, rather than it simply being a phase of the self-organising processes of Life ...

Whether one thinks :

• "I'm giving you money out of my own goodness." or,
• "I'm giving away money to show gratitude" (or worse, "... show me your gratitude.")

-- it is the same thing. This would not be very reliable indicator of altruism, for they are both focused on that "giving is good" (I am good because I give) rather than satisfying a vital need in some phase of the relationship(s). 'Goodness' goes where it will without any intention at all ... A (beautiful) sunset does not occur to be beautiful, a (refreshing) mountain stream does not trickle to be refreshing, as neither the (abundant) raspberry bush is not concerned with its production - nor the eventual succulence of its fruits. The bear is not cultivating raspberries by taking a poo ... Nevertheless, all these things do have virtue in themselves.

Of course, things are not quite so simple in the complex, complicated tangle of human reasoning and the ways in which we perceive our social organisation, but there is some of that virtue still in there. We still are naturally occurring beings, after all ...

Thus, the greatest virtue is not concerned with virtue ... and that is why it is virtuous.