Report Blog Entry
Are humans truly capable of being selfless? In the Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, Kant argued that actions motivated purely by self-interest, even if they help others, lack moral worth. Thomas Hobbes believed that humans are inherently and perpetually motivated by self-interest, and all actions – even those that may seem altruistic, are fundamentally rooted in the motivation of personal gain or fear of consequences. Lastly, Nietzsche, in his critique of morality, was deeply skeptical of the possibility of a human expressing true altruism and argued that altruism acts often as a way to conceal a will to power. He argued that altruism was just a way for individuals to assert their superiority and dominance over others by being charitable or innately self-sacrificing. One can say that Kant, Hobbes, and Nietzsche, emphasized a pessimistic outlook on the world and that they generalized humanity as selfish beings who are not capable of being inherently good.
However, when it comes to human reasoning; the theory of psychological egoism suggests that no act of charity or selflessness can be truly “altruistic”. This is because the individual may receive an intrinsic reward. Whether it’s good karma or self-gratification, it is almost guaranteed that the actor will leave the situation satisfied, qualifying as a benefit and validating the argument that true altruism is impossible. After all, the actor inevitably indulges in the belief that they are charitable and morally good.
This contrasts precisely with Kant’s argument; an act loses all moral value if it is done solely for moral value, solely for personal-gratification, solely for personal gain. Yet, everything humans do is for personal gain and is motivated by either fear or desire. That is human nature, and it is observed everywhere; from the political systems worldwide to the hierarchy of the social classes. Observe social media; every day one will scroll through at least 2 or 3 posts about starving children in Gaza or displaced children in Ukraine. In this scenario, two morally questionable acts take place; the individual posting online, who often receives social validation or a sense of moral satisfaction (thereby nullifying the act’s moral value as discussed earlier), and the individual who ignores the post, as most do on such platforms, because ignorance is bliss. Platforms such as these often encourage sharing for the sake of validation, not change. When individuals are observed only advocating digitally, but not taking any tangible action beyond that, it is irrefutable that they receive the most benefit out of the act by also putting in the least effort.
Everything deemed good or morally valuable within human systems does not qualify as true altruism. This is solely because these aspects of the system are made only to put up the illusion of moral value, when in reality it is done to sugarcoat the actuality of a world where millions suffer. This superficial morality that is designed solely to uphold societal structures only represents the deep-rooted inability of humanity to express true altruism. Supported by the arguments of philosophers who wrote their arguments on the matter centuries ago, it is undeniable that the issue of true altruism has persisted within humans for years, and that is a part of humanity; it is timeless. Even Plato, in his concept of the “highest good”, suggested in his works that being altruistic, is, to an extent, a way to achieve one’s own highest good, contradicting the true meaning of altruism. Ultimately, the pursuit of true altruism has plagued humanity, a philosophical dilemma that has been debated for centuries. As long as human reasoning is governed by self-interest, whether it is consciously or subconsciously, with good moral intent or bad moral intent, true altruism will remain a myth for humanity. What humanity labels as ‘altruism’ is, in reality, self-driven motivation disguised as charity – a fundamental flaw in human morality that consistently continues to defy true altruism. To humanity, altruism is and always will be a myth, a facade of morality, and it will always remain embedded within human morality.
Comments
Displaying 2 of 2 comments ( View all | Add Comment )
Greyphilosopher
This is a very well thought out and researched argument, and furthermore an important question to answer.
To your question, "Can humans ever truly be selfless?", I say no. We cannot. We are inherently biased, because we can only experience reality through our own perspective.
However, may I ask you a question in return,
Must a being be capable of selflessness to practice altruism?
Altruism is defined as the "disinterested and selfless concern for the well-being of others." May I draw particular attention to "disinterested" for I feel this is the most important part of the definition and furthermore the core idea of altruism itself, that makes it practicable by humans and in its way, 'selfless'.
When we interact with things that are meaningful to us, we are biased. This is a fact we cannot help. You will feel something when someone insults your friend, or kicks a dog, or argues with political opinions regardless of the 'moral environment' of the matter.
But, what about things we don't care for?
There is a war in a far off country.
You have never been there, you know no one there. You don't know anything about the culture, or why the war started, or who's really involved. It doesn't affect you in any way whatsoever other than the knowledge that it is happening.
And yet, you shake your head and feel, "What a shame. What a shame that such violence and tragedy is happening to those people."
*That* is altruism.
Altruism is caring about the well being of others, in spite of their meaning or worth in your view.
Altruism is having compassion for people, even when they go against what you believe is right. A murderer, a right-winger, a person who eats pineapple on their pizza- if you believe and practice the belief that even the people you do not care for, perhaps even hate, are deserving of compassion and kindness,
then you are an altruist.
I feel that Altruism is not something said- that is precisely what makes what might be a 'selfless' act 'selfish', by it being spoken of and commented on and therefore giving the person acting it positive enforcement- altruism is something *felt*.
At least, thats my uneducated opinion :P
interesting take!! i didnt consider that perspective, the "disinterested" part of the definition really changed my view lol. thanks for your contribution!
by shukti; ; Report
1nezer0
i don't think we are capable of being a selfless. if we aren't even capable of ourselves more than the others that defines how our mind works and the ones who reasons the action in their own subjective way, how can we know that we are actually selfess? even if we are the most meatheaded creature we can be enough to call ourselves purely selfless, genuinely altruistic, i believe that its not true. i say i believe at some point, we still have to do explanations on ourselves with beliefs but not logic. as an example, you have seen someone thats financially very low and in need of a food, and you decide to give a bit of your money to help them out, its very natural for someone to feel good by it but its harder to pinpoint whether its because they have wanted to do this kindness or thought that it was necessary to do it. even though it was a necessity, it'll still give you some sort of comfort that says im a kind person. but if we actually do it to feel it or it doesnt have a reason at all, how can we understand that this is true? at the end, as a possible answer of calling it as a yes, we can be selfless, wr can stop put any logic and reasoning behind everything and accept everything as it is like how cioran says while not even caring about what psychology says. otherwise its still very questionable.