I would say you can act unselfishly, but only if you can see through yourself. If you can understand the self and all its machinations down to its depths, and then act because action is required, and not from some self-centred motive, then you can indeed act selflessly. But this takes some doing and won't generally come naturally.

Selfishness, and altruism, are often seen as contradictories (cannot both be true, and cannot both be false). But they are not. They are contraries, which is to say, although they cannot both be true, they can both be false. That is, there is a third possibility. Self-interest. That is what moralists of the 18th and 19th centuries like Adam Smith and Joseph Butler pointed out. If, for instance, there are two pieces of pie, one for A, and one for B, then, if A not only eats his own piece, but also eats B's, to which he is not entitled, A is being selfish. But if A takes his own piece, and leaves B's for B, he is not being selfish. He is being self-interested. If, A gives his piece to B, he is being altruistic. So, you can be self-interested, but not selfish. Mixing up selfishness with self-interestedness, is the why people keep saying that everyone is really selfish. Most people are self-interested and not altruistic, but that does not make them selfish. A selfish person takes what he is not entitled to, at the expense of other people. A self-interested person takes what he is entitled too, but not at the expense of others. If I go to bed at night, doing so is self-interested, but normally, is not selfish. I don't have to "see through myself" to act unselfishly. It is objectively true that if I just go to bed at night because I am tired, but I am entitled to do so, and not doing it at the expense of others, I am not being selfish, although I am being self-interested.

I think the confusion comes into play when people begin considering a self-interested act to be a selfish act. Even though you may think you're entitled to that piece of pie, there's always someone out there that will believe otherwise. Who is to decide entitlement? Do we simply all decide ourselves what we're entitled to? It's not always so easy to see if X action compromises another's well being, is it?

Sure, people may have different views of entitlement. But that does not mean that all these views are equally correct. B may think he is entitled to the pie, but if, for instance, it was made clear to begin with that one piece of pie was A's, and B takes it anyway, at A's expense, that B thinks he is entitled to A's piece is of no consequence. He is wrong. All you are saying is that the notion of entitlement is a moral (as well as legal) notion, and that morality is subjective, so that what someone thinks is right is right. But, that is another story. I am talking within a certain framework, and pointing out that within that framework, there is a difference between selfishness and self-interest. Outside of that framework, all talk of morality goes by the board. There is no morality. I am talking within the framework or morality. You can deal with one issue at a time. Not all issues at one time. If you want to talk about whether morality is subjective or objective, then I think another thread would be appropriate. The notions of selfishness, altruism, and self-interest, presuppose a moral framework. If two people are playing chess, and it is pointed out that one person's king is in check by the opponent's queen, suppose that person who's king is in check asks, "but what if the queen doesn't move that way?" That is another issue, isn't it? We are supposing the normal rules of chess.

I'm saying I think presupposing a moral framework can be a waste of time. Not everyone is playing the same game, and often people are not. If everyone were playing chess, I would understand. But everyone is not. I'm not here to discuss the qualities of this, or anything to do with the subjectivity or objectivity of morality. I'm questioning the integrity of moral frameworks.

What does constructing a theoretical ruleset in order to show that the concepts "altruism", "self-interest" and "selfishness" are distinctively different allow us? If I can't apply it practically, it's no different than a plethora of other frameworks which hold little value in actual interaction. I encounter this all the time in the business world, for instance.

I can theorize all day how X can fit into Y and Y can fit into Z, but if X often does not fit into Y and Y does not often fit into Z, why am I wasting my time? Am I just trying to better conceptualize a certain situation when it does happen to come about?

The main motive of this thread was to allow those of which have scrutinised the motives of selflessness and indeed altruism and have come to a very pessimistic reflection, to review. The concept of Objectivity of which Ayn Rand coined for example, placed a rather stark light to ethical acts of kindness, and many readers of whom agreed of which was lectured, had become rather despondent by the insight presented. My hope was to allow the rather brief but clarifying message of which I typed to allow others not to view this likely concept in dissent and ornery, but to view the importance and thus positive traits of the cause at hand. Positivity can be found from almost every apparent negative

Actions can be selfish or unselfish, but can motives be selfish or unselfish? Greed is, I think, a motive, and greed may cause people to act selfishly, but I don't think that selfishness is a motive. It is the name of a kind of action. In her book, The Virtue of Selfishness, she seems to understand a virtue as a kind of action, and she writes that the "exact meaning" of selfishness is "concern with one's own interests". Of course, by that definition, when I have a snack in the mid-morning, I am being selfish, because I feel a little hungry, and get a banana to appease my hunger. But would anyone really say that because I ate a banana that I bought, and was not depriving anyone else of that banana, that eating that banana was selfish of me? Would you? The word "selfish" is certainly a negative word, and calling someone "selfish" blames him for doing something wrong. But would eating a banana in the middle of the morning which I bought myself, and which no one wanted, be wrong? Why?

I think what is applicable here is action and/or motive. Should the physical act or the motives by the pinnacle of admission? or should the focus be preempted upon the conscious and subconscious stimulus? I believe this is not what is important for this thread's purpose. What is important is to not become melancholy and despondent from this apparent reality, as accepting such notions to be true, can be quite daunting and debilitating.

It isn't even an apparent reality. Many actions are not selfish, and her notion of selfishness is simply confused. If I get a drink of water from the tap because my mouth is dry, would you tell me I was acting selfishly? Would it even appear selfish to you for me to do that? If you said that I was selfish form taking some water from the tap because my mouth was dry, I would think you were kidding, or I would not know what you were talking about. She's not gloomy, just silly.

Indeed many people use the terms 'Selfish' and 'Self Interest' synonymously whilst others refute such a comparison due to Morality, Nihilists for example are unlikely to practise such a distinction as of that of psychoanalysts. It is arduous and rather confounding to come to an understanding if presented with a psychological definition and on the opposite side; a philosophical one. What ever answer One takes suffice within, acknowledge the 'alternative shades'.

I think Kennethamy is referring to the notion of 'enlightened self-interest' which is one of the foundations of liberal democracy, and a very important principle it is too.

There are however other perspectives that could be considered. If you were, for example, committed by religious vows to serve the interests of all humanity, then you might put the interests of everyone else ahead of your own interests - a member of a religious order in a hospital, for example. In this case the commitment to absolute altruism, that is, the well-being of the whole community, would take precedence over your personal interests, although, from a spiritual perspective, you would also benefit greatly because of the principle that it is 'greater to give than to receive'. I am not advancing this as the general norm of behaviour, but it can be acknowledged as a way in which action can non-self-interest.

"Enlightened self-interest" refers to what is really in one's self-interest, as contrasted with what one believes is in one's self-interest. After all, people can make mistakes about what is in the person's self-interest. And one might think that the interests of the community (perhaps religious) that one belongs to, is in one's own self-interest, since one belongs to that community. Whether that is true is, of course, a matter of fact. It may, or it may not, be true. The issue arises when the question is raised, why be moral when being moral is contrary to your own interest.

Example of a self-less deed in modern day america: choosing (with the advent of contraception) to have and raise a child.

The issue at hand here is whether or not we believe in love; which I think could be defined as putting another first.

Love is indeed "ecstasy", not in the sense of a moment of intoxication, but rather as a journey, an ongoing exodus out of the closed inward-looking self towards its liberation through self-giving, and thus towards authentic self-discovery and indeed the discovery of God-- Pope Benedict 16th (Deus Caritas Est #6)

I happen to love Chinese food, but I don't consider it a journey, or even an ongoing exodus.