Every now and then I run into someone claiming that there is no such thing as an un-selfish act. That at it’s base every action is essentially selfish. Now this idea is so peculiar that it momentarily stuns the listener, but after the initial pause it becomes apparent that the person really means that every conscious action is done with a motive to receive something good for ones self. Be it wealth, safety, food or simply a “good feeling”, all actions have a positive motive behind them that the doer hopes to attain by that action. Now, this is all very true but simply because the motive intends to receive something positive for the doer does not qualify the act as “selfish”. The definition of selfish is
1. looking after own desires: concerned with your own interests, needs, and wishes while ignoring those of others
2. demonstrating selfishness: showing that personal needs and wishes are thought to be more important than those of other people
(Encarta ® World English Dictionary)
Therefore a selfish act must harm or neglect someone else. Not simply contain a positive end for the doer. By this definition, even a fair trade transaction, where money, services and product change hands, can not be considered a “selfish” act, even when the sellers deepest motive is simply to make a profit, because the buying party likewise benefits from the exchange.
Now then…the act in which a giver consciously allows the recipient to greatly profit from a exchange is on only “un-selfish” at it’s base motivation but even charitable. For example: a person who gives away a house, might do it because it makes them “feel good”, but the “feel good” motive does not qualify the act as selfish. It greatly benefits the recipient and in fact the recipient’s benefit is the very reason for the “good feeling”. Now consider the exchange. The giver gets a very temporary “good feeling” while the recipient gets a very permanent house. This is a very lopsided exchange where the receiver benefits far more than the giver. The conscious decision to do this qualifies the act as very un-selfish and even charitable. I’m not even getting into the instances where the giver actually pays a price such as pain or discomfort in doing something beneficial to another, where the only consolation to the giver is the dry knowledge that what they did was the right thing to do. At times this kind of action is not even accompanied by the “good feeling” and can only be attributed to virtue of character. So therefore if you are one of the people putting forth the idea that there is no un-selfish action you should simply stop it and consider the definition of selfish.
1. looking after own desires: concerned with your own interests, needs, and wishes while ignoring those of others
2. demonstrating selfishness: showing that personal needs and wishes are thought to be more important than those of other people
(Encarta ® World English Dictionary)
Therefore a selfish act must harm or neglect someone else. Not simply contain a positive end for the doer. By this definition, even a fair trade transaction, where money, services and product change hands, can not be considered a “selfish” act, even when the sellers deepest motive is simply to make a profit, because the buying party likewise benefits from the exchange.
Now then…the act in which a giver consciously allows the recipient to greatly profit from a exchange is on only “un-selfish” at it’s base motivation but even charitable. For example: a person who gives away a house, might do it because it makes them “feel good”, but the “feel good” motive does not qualify the act as selfish. It greatly benefits the recipient and in fact the recipient’s benefit is the very reason for the “good feeling”. Now consider the exchange. The giver gets a very temporary “good feeling” while the recipient gets a very permanent house. This is a very lopsided exchange where the receiver benefits far more than the giver. The conscious decision to do this qualifies the act as very un-selfish and even charitable. I’m not even getting into the instances where the giver actually pays a price such as pain or discomfort in doing something beneficial to another, where the only consolation to the giver is the dry knowledge that what they did was the right thing to do. At times this kind of action is not even accompanied by the “good feeling” and can only be attributed to virtue of character. So therefore if you are one of the people putting forth the idea that there is no un-selfish action you should simply stop it and consider the definition of selfish.