NationStates Jolt Archive

This question is something that C.S.Lewis proposed in his book 'Mere Christianity' to show people how we can see God in our very nature. He proposed that there is no rational reason for being selfless. The most common response is "For the benefit of others" or "To make society function better". But the problem is that soceity is by definition other people and being selfless is benefiting others, to say that you should be selfless for the benefit of society is basicly saying "You should be selfless because you should be selfless". Now obviously some other peoples response to this would be that selflessness is a good unto itself. However if thats the case, you are leaving the rational world behind. I am not saying that this proves Christianity to be true, but it does mean that morality (or at least the morality of the self) cannot be a purely rational entity.

Disclaimer: I am not in this thread suggesting that selflessness is folly, but merely selflessness in a purely rational world is folly

Because you don't live in a vacuum?

Disclaimer: I am not in this thread suggesting that selflessness is folly, but merely selflessness in a purely rational world is folly
Which is why I am completely selfish. Screw the rest of you, my boatload of problems is enough to keep me busy long time.

The rational part of it is that if you assist other people, then they are more likely to assist you. Of course, that's actually ultimately selfishness, but it manifests itself as selflessness to others.

However, if the majority of human beings fell down dead right now, I'm pretty certain I wouldn't care. I care only about the welfare of myself and those that enrich my life; I therefore have to reason to behave remotely selflessly towards the others. The ones I am selfless towards I am so because their feelings matter to me, but the reasons for that are probably, deep-down, similar to those given in the first paragraph.

Which is why I am completely selfish. Screw the rest of you, my boatload of problems is enough to keep me busy long time.

Good man, I'm with you.

Disclaimer: I am not in this thread suggesting that selflessness is folly, but merely selflessness in a purely rational world is folly
Um ... not quite. From an evolutionary standpoint, the clan with selfless attitudes toward each other survived at a higher rate than those without, thus passing on whatever gene encouraged selflessness.

Um ... not quite. From an evolutionary standpoint, the clan with selfless attitudes toward each other survived at a higher rate than those without, thus passing on whatever gene encouraged selflessness.

So there's a commie gene now? Hmmmm......

I really don't see the problem. It's not an either/or issue. One can pay attention to the impact of their actions on others and try to minimize harm without totally denying themselves and one can do things that benefit themselves but also other people at the same time. So there is no reason to be selfless and plenty of reasons not to be.

Of course, it should be noted that whether self-denial is inherently good or not proves little about Christianity. Plenty of other religions, indeed the vast majority, call for some sort of selflessness.

This question is something that C.S.Lewis proposed in his book 'Mere Christianity' to show people how we can see God in our very nature. He proposed that there is no rational reason for being selfless. The most common response is "For the benefit of others" or "To make society function better".
God aside, I help other people because its the morally correct thing to do. By extrapolating that, you can see that capitalsim without social welfare is evil and communism is the most morally correct form of government.

So there's a commie gene now? Hmmmm......
Heh? In a word ... no! :p

So there's a commie gene now? Hmmmm......

Technically it is the idea that your close relatives (brothers, sisters, cousins etc) share genes with you - so by allowing them to survive your genes also live on. This is assumed to be why some animals living in "packs" can show extremely altruistic behaviour; luring the predator away from the pack at great risk to themselves.

Because you don't live in a vacuum?

More correctly, because you cannot live in a vacuum.

what does lewis mean by selfless?

self-less. without self.

im not sure what acts would qualify as selfless.

Technically it is the idea that your close relatives (brothers, sisters, cousins etc) share genes with you - so by allowing them to survive your genes also live on. This is assumed to be why some animals living in "packs" can show extremely altruistic behaviour; luring the predator away from the pack at great risk to themselves.
Perzactly. :)

im not sure what acts would qualify as selfless.
Killing yourself is pretty selfless. It destroys the self completely and irrevocably.

Technically it is the idea that your close relatives (brothers, sisters, cousins etc) share genes with you - so by allowing them to survive your genes also live on. This is assumed to be why some animals living in "packs" can show extremely altruistic behaviour; luring the predator away from the pack at great risk to themselves.

Hmm. What of people who take the proverbial bullet for their spouses/partners? They aren't related by blood (um, well. one would hope), and assuming that there are no children involved, that theory wouldn't really make sense in that context...

Killing yourself is pretty selfless. It destroys the self completely and irrevocably.
You sure about that? :)

You sure about that? :)

Are you not?:)

You sure about that? :)
If I weren't sure, then I might have been tempted to actually go through with my "experiment" in that direction when I was younger.

Killing yourself is pretty selfless. It destroys the self completely and irrevocably.
Not to mention it could make your enemies happy.

Killing yourself is pretty selfless. It destroys the self completely and irrevocably.
certain forms of severe abuse also leave you "selfless" but i dont think that that is what lewis is talking about

so what IS he talking about??

Are you not?:)
Nope. As a matter of fact, there's considerable evidence, mostly anecdotal, which indicates that something survives death. :)

If I weren't sure, then I might have been tempted to actually go through with my "experiment" in that direction when I was younger.
I'm sorry. Glad you didn't. :)

Nope. As a matter of fact, there's considerable evidence, mostly anecdotal, which indicates that something survives death. :)

well there IS the corpse.....

"Why be selfless?"

Well that's pretty simple, if you are selfless, people will like you more and be more willing to help you when you are in trouble then when you are an egoistic asshole. So actually, no-one is selfless, it's a tactic (yes I know, some people will tell me that they are selfless out of conviction and/or religious beliefs but it's all bullcrap, it happens subconciously) So anyway, the "selfless people" are the smart ones, they are much more likely to get things done.

Snip
Biologically, I'm comprised of millions of individual living things. Each of these things is acting in sync with each other in order to bring me about. But my existence also fuels their own needs; namely, food, water and protection from damage and disease.

Similarly, Altruism towards others is a systemic self-fulfilment. Only, in this case, we extend the self beyond the confines of our own physical form. We have an identity as both unit and union, and it is in the interests of both identities to engage in this union by the selfless coexistence of the units.

certain forms of severe abuse also leave you "selfless" but i dont think that that is what lewis is talking about

so what IS he talking about??

Actions that benefit others but do not benefit yourself, or have cost to yourself

Nope. As a matter of fact, there's considerable evidence, mostly anecdotal, which indicates that something survives death. :)

Good good, I have always had an inclination towards such a belief, however it galls to believe in unfounded concepts.

Actions that benefit others but do not benefit yourself, or have cost to yourself

isnt it a bit much to be calling "being nice" or "being brave" SELFLESS?

i do things that benefit others but not myself and i certainly dont consider it to be selfless.

so whats his point about being selfless?